it ; 4 Lens oe ys Edy Sv 1 ee Pe me has ty We Pua Lee) 0 8 Phen’ $8 4 e SS Papas UN Me EB) Sa haa 8 ee aes Fe PN Ea un jak uPyk r) i : ay eee ner or Rn heey be ea ED ke) Som Go ee ube bd et 4 aL Breas Une bs hobs WE Bow SALW he et ae iae fy Cj Aa Aa as tis CW 4 ye Tia egbicate aea bot Pasa: MA Oe det 8, atta: : Wee hd nna ieee Win! \ f 4 Caner Myf es i" " MI Ban hs Hay fe ay ean > Pn an AK Han HR SH) 9 SETS ip Sure ay 43 Fe Lok. ae 1g hs Beatie i i Airy beh Manat “t Vil Bo AH 4 Lottie as Cee a Bie ih DM La eet hogy! el sigh be ban Pat j 452010 EM ia: At Choa ed ne dy 8s Al 4G ie ih it ry aa ay ihe rahe (ite he) Nhat aa BA E84 NAH RF t ee ee ; eR a ae ae any ‘ tie wl . i ee eatin ay "9 ERE OUR toe ban mes 4 yb Be 836 Aw 7 Pek yt acd at ia AR an ; 4 of 8 new sods | my Ne 7 moro ea) ha ; 44 My ir ee 8 Oras hy : PNA Ay aie Pai aaa fs f hy Nive) iQ \ RPE \ e as! i shea A Gandy: ree ype Jee Ms watt guns, PAS ait et ah Eee END Asan AW TTA Aa oe poeta 208 See ee at iit Apri ay NGS ae a ig 1 Ree rer Pr Ba Pers i PAS F ABA? : Hg ok ANY Fah 'n ait Oikos #4 ae snace aa aa : BBE} 3 ys Tas til vy : le a4 ihe “4hy eR i Baier ety ote Poe ; Aiea h ead hob vite ei Wyck abet i) hea prt ie Seen oe ey J i wa Woks oh) Aa ag S438 RY ps fot eh Panty sa pees Pee ; e222 eee Ceo = a = is s= set y Ws Kata ay ae Serer. = = Loe os = Sibi : an J mia Bie: i it 3 aiae i : tate fui tiatige realy Pie aie ie Bey = a nes Paes ae Hes nea tate ‘tein Pity watt iA aa 3 un a oy ath iat i ae iy i A harakes Soe +A an Hs et sh SE : » ay 4 Kee ea ey al ac SS) eat Nee ae 7 wy at WL aay Hey a ben mas Bey at aan ot ANTS AAs oe pre bh Powe ats ay ig ie it) ite eh st initrd ae nity Piet aT Bate oy Saree Pvt faba. A, ’ et afl at all Me vated eat roti: ne he aati Rifaedds Seiten teed be i tatty iy an 7 MN iN Mead den carb preaste! oe oe iy! 1 irk) a ee ie te imine Myst ia fs if Spiga at : yr Re Liars sll 0 if a) tat at raat eee sb, oh Galen Muth rt Fanos bint seattle nye cy ‘hs Le) iy fe vad shat aly tt } ia ie LST ; ne vd WRITERS IN THE ENGLISH EDITION. NAMES. Very Rev. Henry Atrorp, D. D., Dean of Canterbury. Rev. Henry Bartey, B. D., Warden of St. Augustine’s College, Can- terbury ; late Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge. Rev. Horatius Bonar, D. D., Kelso, N. B.; Author of “The Land of Promise.” [The geographical articles, signed H. B., are written by Dr. Bonar: those on other subjects, signed H. B., are written by Mr. Bailey.] Rev. AtrreD Barry, B. D., Principal of Cheltenham College ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Rev. Wit~tram LatHam Bevan, M. A., Vicar of Hay, Brecknock- shire. Rev. JoserH Witt1AMs BLAKESLEY, B. D., Canon of Canterbury ; late Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge. Rev. Tuomas Epwarp Brown, M. A., Vice-Principal of King Wil- liam’s College, Isle of Man ; late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Ven. Rospert WitL1AM Browne, M. A., Archdeacon of Bath, and Canon of Wells. Right Rev. Epwarp Harotp Browne, D. D., Lord Bishop of Ely. Rev. Witt1am THomas Buttock, M. A., Assistant Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Rev. Samuet Crarx, M. A., Vicar of Bredwardine with Brobury, Herefordshire. Rev. Freperic Cuaries Cook, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. Right Rev. Georaze Epwarp Lyncu Corton, D. D., late Lord Bishop of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India. Rev. Joun LiEwreLtyn Davies, M. A., Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Prof. GeorGe Epwarp Day, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn. EMANUEL Deutscn, M. R. A. S., British Museum. Rev. Witt1amM Drake, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. - Rev. Epwarp Paroissien Epprvup, M. A., Principal of the Theolog- ical College, Salisbury. Right Rev. Cuartes Joun Exticott, D. D., Lord Bishop of Glouces- ter and Bristol. Rev. FrRepEeRIcK WILLIAM Farrar, M. A., Assistant Master of Har- row School; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. James Frercusson, F. BR. S., F. R. A. S., Fellow of the Royal Insti- tute of British Architects. Epwarp SaLusspurY Frou.kes, M. A., late Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford. Right Rev. Witt1aM FirzGeracp, D. D., Lord Bishop of Killaloe. (iii) OPPERT. 8 a ae On DiJ.:0. oi. SP. A Bid Ds H. W. P. o H. a DP ee TD or = LIST OF WRITERS. NAMES. Rev. Francis GARDEN, M. A., Subdean of Her Majesty’s Chapels Royal. Rev. F. Witt1am Gotcu, LL. D., President of the Baptist College, Bristol ; late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London. GEORGE GROVE, Crystal Palace, Sydenham. Prof. Horatio Barcu Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theological Institu- tion, Newton, Mass. Rev. Ernest Hawkins, B. D., Secretary of the Society for the Propa- gation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Rev. Henry Hayman, B. D., Head Master of the Grammar School, Cheltenham ; late Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford. Ven. Lord ArtHuR CHARLES Hervey, M. A., Archdeacon of Sud- bury, and Rector of Ickworth. Rev. James AuGcustus Hessey, D. C. L., Head Wastes of Merchant Taylors’ School. JosePpH Datton Hooker, M. D., F. R. S., Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Rev. James JoHN Hornsy, M. A., Fellow of Brasenose College, Ox- ford ; Principal of Bishop Cosin’s Hall. Rev. Witt1AmM Hovueuron, M. A., F. L. S., Rector of Preston cn the Weald Moors, Salop. Rev. Joun Saut Howson, D, D., Principal of the Collegiate Institu- tion, Liverpool. Rev. EpGar HuxtTasBte, M. A., Subdean of Wells. | Rey. Witi1AM Basix Jones, M. A., Prebendary of York and of St. David’s ; late Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford. AUSTEN Henry LAyarp, D. C. L., M. P. Rev. Srantey Leatues, M. A., M. R.S. L., Hebrew Lecturer in King’s College, London. Rey. JosEPH BARBER Licutroort, D. D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Rev. D. W. Marks, Professor of Hebrew in University College, London. Rev. Freprrick Meyrick, M. A., late Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford. Prof. JULES OpreRt, of Paris. Rev. Epwarp REepMAN OrGER, M. A., Fellow and Tutor of St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury. Ven. THomAs JoHNSON ORMEROD, M. A., Archdeacon of Suffolk; late Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. Rev. Joun JAMES STEWART PEROWNE, B. D. 1 Mice-Peineipes of St. David’s College, Lampeter. Rev. THomAs THomason PrERowne, B. D., Fellow and Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Rev. Henry Wricut Puriiort, M. A., Rector of Staunton-on-Wye, Herefordshire ; late Student of Christ ‘Ghanee Oxford. Rev. Epwarp Hayes Piumprre, M. A., Professor of Divinity in King’s College, London. EpWARrD STANLEY Pootr, M. R. A. S., South Kensington Museum. REGINALD STUART POOLE, British Museum. Rev. J. Lestre Porter, M. A., Professor of Sacred Literature, Assem- ): This name does not occur in the O. T., nor in the Received Text of the N. T. But it is now generally admitted that in Matt. viii. 28 “‘ Gerasenes’’ supersedes “‘ Gadarenes.”’ Gerasa was a celebrated city on the eastern borders of Perzea (Joseph. B. J. iii. 3, § 3), placed by some in the province of Coelesyria and region of Decapolis (Steph. s. v.), by others in Arabia (Epiph. adv. Her. ; Origen. in Johan.). These various state- ments do not arise from any doubts as to the locality of the city, but from the ill-defined bound- aries of the provinces mentioned. In the Roman age no city of Palestine was better known than Gerasa. It is situated amid the mountains of Gilead, 20 miles east of the Jordan, and 25 north of Philadelphia, the ancient Rabbath-Ammon. Several MSS. read Tepacnvay instead of Tepyeonvav, in Matt. viii. 28; but the city of Gerasa lay too far from the Sea of Tiberias to admit the possibility of the miracles having been wrought in its vicinity. If the reading Tepaonvay be the true one, the xépa, ‘“district,’’ must then have been very large, including Gadara and its environs; and Matthew thus uses a broader appellation, where Mark and Luke use a more specific one. This is not improb- able; as Jerome (ad Obad.) states that Gilead was in his day called Gerasa; and Origen affirms that Tepacnvay was the ancient reading (Opp. iv. p. 140). [GADARA.] It is not known when or by whom Gerasa was founded. It is first mentioned by Josephus as having been captured by Alexander Janneeus (circ. B. C. 85; Joseph. B. J. i. 4, § 8). It was one of the cities the Jews burned in revenge for the mas- sacre of their countrymen at Ceesarea, at the com- mencement of their last war with the Romans; and it had scarcely recovered from this calamity when the Emperor Vespasian despatched Annius, his general, to capture it. Annius, having carried the city at the first assault, put to the sword one thousand of the youth who had not effected their escape, enslaved their families, and plundered their dwellings (Joseph. B. J. iv. 9,§1). It appears to have been nearly a century subsequent to this period that Gerasa attained its greatest prosperity, and was adorned with those monuments which give it a place among the proudest cities of Syria. His- tory tells us nothing of this, but the fragments of inscriptions found among its ruined palaces and temples, show that it is indebted fer its architec- tural splendor to the age and genius of the Anto- nines (A. D. 138-80). It subsequently became the seat of a bishopric. There is no evidence that the city was ever occupied by the Saracens. There are no traces of their architecture — no mosques, no in- scriptions, no reconstruction of old edifices, such as are found in most other great cities in Syria. All here is Roman, or at least ante-Islamic; every structure remains as the hand of the destroyer or the earthquake shock left it — ruinous and de- serted. The ruins of Gerasa are by far the most beauti- ful and extensive east of the Jordan. ‘They are situated on both sides of a shallow valley that runs from north to south through a high undulating plain, and falls into the Zurka (the ancient Jabbok) at the distance of about 5 miles. A little rivulet, thickly fringed with oleander, winds through ‘the valley, giving life and beauty to the deserted city. The first view of the ruins is very striking; and tows GERIZIM such as have enjoyed it will not soon forget the impression made upon the mind. The long colon- nade running through the centre of the city, ter- minating at one end in the graceful circle of the forum; the groups of columns clustered here and there round the crumbling walls of the temples; the heavy masses of masonry that distinguish the positions of the great theatres; and the vast field of shapeless ruins rising gradually from the green banks of the rivulet to the battlemented heights on each side —all combine in forming a picture such as is rarely equaled. The form of the city is an irregular square, each side measuring nearly a mile. It was surrounded by a strong wall, a large portion of which, with its flanking towers at intervals, is in a good state of preservation. Three gateways are still nearly perfect; and within the city upwards of two hundred and thirty columns remain on their pedestals. (Full descriptions of Gerasa are given in the Handbook for Syr. and Pal. ; Burckhardt’s Travels in Syria; Buckingham’s Arab Tribes ; Ritter’s Pal. und Syr.) J. L. P. GERGESE/NES, Matt. viii. 28. [Gapara.] GER’GESITES, THE (of Tepyecato: : Vulg. omits), Jud. v. 16. [GmkGASHITEs. | GER/IZIM (always OP ATW, har-Geriz- zim, the mountain of the Gerizzites, from 7-372, G’rizzi, dwellers in a shorn (7. e. desert) land, from TA, garaz, to cut off; possibly the tribe subdued by David, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8: Tapi¢iv, [ Vat. Alex. -Cew, exc. Alex. Deut. xi. 29, Ta¢ipery:] Garizim), a mountain designated by Moses, in conjunction with Mount Ebal, to be the scene of a great solem- nity upon the entrance of the children of Israel into the promised land. High places had a pecu- liar charm attached to them in these days of ex- ternal observance. ‘The law was delivered from Sinai: the blessings and curses affixed to the per- formance or neglect of it were directed to be pro- nounced upon Gerizim and Ebal. Six of the tribes — Simeon, Levi (but Joseph being repre- sented by two tribes, Levi’s actual place probably was.as assigned below), Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin were to take their stand upon the former to bless; and six, namely — Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali— upon the latter to curse (Deut. xxvii. 12-13). Apparently, the Ark halted mid-way between the two mountains, en- compassed by the priests and Levites, thus divided by it into two bands, with Joshua for their cory- pheus. He read the blessings and cursings succes- sively (Josh. vili. 33, 34), to be re-echoed by the Levites on either side of him, and responded to by the tribes in their double array with a loud Amen (Deut. xxvii. 14). Curiously enough, only the formula for the curses is given (iid. ver. 14-26); and it was upon Ebal, and not Gerizim, where the altar of whole unwyought stone was to be built, and where the huge plastered stones, with the words of the law (Josh. viii. 32; Joseph. Ant. iv. 8, § 44, limits them to the blessings and curses just pro- nounced) written upon them, were to be set up (Deut. xxvii. 4-6) — a significant omen for a peo- ple entering joyously upon their new inheritance, and yet the song of Moses abounds with forebod- ings still more sinister and plain-spoken (Deut. xxxil. 5, 6, and 15-28). The next question is, Has Moses defined the lo- GERIZIM ealities of Loal and Gerizim? Standing on the eastern side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab (Deut. i. 5), he asks: “* Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down (t. e. at some distance to the W.), in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the champaign over against Gilgal (%. e. whose territory — not these mountains — commenced over against Gilgal — see Patrick on Deut. xi. 30), beside the plains of Mo- reh?” .. . These closing words would seem to mark their site with unusual precision: for in Gen. xii. 6 “the plain (LXX. ‘ oak’) of Moreh” is ex- pressly connected with “the place of Sichem or She- chem ** (N. T. «Sychem”’ or “Sychar,’’ which last form is thought to convey a reproach. Reland, Dissert. on Gerizim, in Ugol. Thesaur. p. deexxv., in Josephus the form is ‘‘Sicima’’), and accordingly Judg. ix. 7, Jotham is made to address his cele- brated parable to the men of Shechem from “the top of Mount Gerizim.”” The “hill of Moreh,’ mentioned in the history of Gideon his father, may have been a mountain overhanging the same plain, but certainly could not have been further south (comp. ¢c. vi. 33, and vii. 1). Was it therefore prejudice, or neglect of the true import of these passages, that made [Eusebius and Epiphanius, both natives of Palestine, concur in placing Ebal and Gerizim near Jericho, the former charging the Samaritans with grave error for affirming them to be near Neapolis? (Reland. Dissert., as above, p. deexx.). Of one thing we may be assured, namely, that their Scriptural site must have been, in the fourth century, lost to all but the Samaritans; otherwise these two fathers would have spoken very differently. It is true that they consider the Samaritan hypothesis irreconcilable with Deut. xi. 30, which it has already been shown not to be. A more formidable objection would have been that Joshua could not have marched from Ai to She- chem, through a hostile country, to perform the above solemnity, and retraced his steps so soon afterwards to Gilgal, as to have been found there by the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 6; comp. viii. 30-35). Yet the distance between Ai and Shechem is not so long (under two days’ journey). Neither can the interval implied in the context of the former passage have been so short, as even to warrant the modern supposition that the latter passage has been misplaced. The remaining objection, namely, “the wide interval between the two mountains at She- chem ”’ (Stanley, S. f P. p. 238, note), is still more easily disposed of, if we consider the blessings and curses to have been pronounced by the Levites, standing in the midst of the valley — thus abridg- ing the distance by one half—and not by the six tribes on either hill, who only responded. How indeed could 600,000 men and upwards, besides women and children (comp. Num. ii. 32 with Judg. xx. 2 and 17), have been accommodated in a smaller space? Besides in those days of assemblies “sub dio,” the sense of hearing must have been neces- sarily more acute, just as, before the aids of writing and printing, memories were much more retentive. We may conclude, therefore, that there is no room for doubting the Scriptural position of Ebal and Gerizim to have been — where they are now placed —in the territory of the tribe of Ephraim; the latter of them overhanging the city of Shechem or Sicima, as Josephus, following the Scriptural nar- _ tative, asserts. Even Eusebius, in another work of his (Prep. Lvang. ix. 22), quotes some lines from _Theodotus, in which the true position of Ebal and GERIZIM 901 Gerizim is described with great force and aceuracy and St. Jerome, while following Eusebius in th Onomasticon, in his ordinary correspondence doe not hesitate to connect Sichem or Neapolis, the well of Jacob, and Mount Gerizim (Zp. cviii. ¢. 13, ed. Migne). Procopius of Gaza does nothing more than follow Eusebius, and that clumsily (Reland, Palest. lib. ii. ¢. 13, p. 503); but his more accurate namesake of Cesarea expressly as- serts that Gerizim rose over Neapolis (Ve dif. v. 7) —that Ebal was not a peak of Gerizim (v. Quaresm. Hlucid. T. S. lib. vii. Per. i. c. 8), but a distinct mountain to the N. of it, and separated from it by the valley in which Shechem stood, we are not called upon here to prove; nor again, that Ebal was entirely barren, which it can scarce be called now; while Gerizim was the same proverb for verdure and gushing rills formerly, that it is now, at least where it descends towards Nublis. It is a far more important question whetber Geri- zim was the mountain on which Abraham was directed to offer his son Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2 ff.). First, then, let it be observed that it is not the mountain, but the district which is there called Moriah (of the same root with Moreh: see Corn. a*Lapid. on Gen. xii. 6), and that antecedently to the occurrence which took place “ upon one of the mountains ”’ in its vicinity —a consideration which of itself would naturally point to the locality, already known to Abraham, as the plain or plains of Moreh, “ the land of vision,’ “the high land ;”’ and therefore consistently “the land of adoration,’ or ‘religious worship,’’ as it is variously explained. That all these interpretations are incomparably more applicable to the natural features of Gerizim and its neighborhood, than to the hillock (in com- parison) upon which Solomon built his temple, none can for a moment doubt who have seen both. Jerusalem unquestionably stands upon high ground: but owing to the hills “round about” it cannot be seen on any side from any great distance; nor, for the same reason, could it ever have been a land of vision, or extensive views. Even from Mount Olivet, which must always have towered over the: small eminences at its base to the S. W., the view cannot be named in the same breath with that from Gerizim, which is one of the finest in Talestine, commanding, as it does, from an elevation of nearly 2,500 feet (Arrowsmith, Geograph. Dict. of the H.. S. p. 145), “the Mediterranean Sea on the W..,. the snowy heights of Hermon on the N., on the E. the wall of the trans-Jordanic mountains, broken. by the deep cleft of the Jabbok’’ (Stanley, S. ¢ P. p- 235), and the lovely and tortuous expanse of plain (the Mukhna) stretched as a carpet of many colors beneath its feet.¢ Neither is the appearance, which it would “present to a traveller advancing up the Philistine plain” (7bid. p. 252) — the diree- tion from which Abraham came -— to be overlooked. It is by no means necessary, as Mr. Porter thinks (Handbook of S. § P. i. 339), that he should have started from Beer-sheba (see Gen. xxi. 84 — “the whole land being before him,” c. xx. 15). Then, “on the morning of the third day, he would arrive in the plain of Sharon, exactly where the massive height of Gerizim j3 visible afar off’’ (ibid. p- 251), and from thence, with the mount always a * From the top of Gerizim the traveller enjoys “a prospect unique in the Holy Land.” See it well de scribed in Tristram’s Land of Israel, p. 151, 1st ed. H. 902 GERIZIM in view, he would proceed to the exact “place which God had told him of” in all solemnity — for again, it is not necessary that he should have ar- rived on the actual spot during the third day. All that is said in the narrative, is that, from the time that it hove in sight, he and Isaac parted from the young men, and went on together alone. ‘he Samaritans, therefore, through whom the tradition of the true site of Gerizim has been preserved, are probably not wrong when they point out still — as they have done from time immemorial — Gerizim as the hill upon which Abraham’s “faith was made perfect; ”’ and it is observable that no such spot is attempted to be shown on the rival hill of Jerusa- lem, as distinct from Calvary. Different reasons in all probability caused these two localities to be so named: the first, not a mountain, but a land, district, or plain (for it is not intended to be as- serted that Gerizim itself ever bore the name of Moriah; though a certain spot upon it was ever afterwards to Abraham personally ‘ Jehovah- jireh ’’), called Moreh, or Moriah, from the noble vision of nature, and therefore of natural religion, that met the eye; the second, a small hill deriving its name from a special revelation or vision, as the express words of Scripture say, which took place *‘ by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite”’ (2 Chr. iii. 1; comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 16). If it be thought strange that a place once called by the ‘‘ Father of the faithful ’’ Jehovah-jireh, should have been merged by Moses, and ever afterwards, in a general name so different from it in sense and origin as Gerizim; it would be still more strange, that, if Mount Moriah of the book of Chronicles and Jehovah-jireh were one and the same place, no sort of allusion should have been made by the in- spired historian to the prime event which had caused it to be so called. ‘True it is that Josephus, in more than one place, asserts that where Abra- ham offered, there the temple was afterwards built (Ant. i. 13, § 2, and vii. 18, § 9). Yet the same Josephus makes God bid Abraham go to the moun- tain — not the land — of Moriah; having omitted all mention of the plains of Moreh in his account of the preceding narrative. Besides, in more than one place he shows that he bore no love to the Sa- maritans (id. xi. 8, § 6, and xii. 5,§ 5). St. Jerome follows Josephus ( Quest. in Gen. xxii. 5, ed. Migne), but with his uncertainty about the site of Gerizim, what else could he have done? Besides it appears from the Onomuasticon (s. v.) that he considered the hill of Moreh (Judg. vii. 1) to be the same with Moriah. And who that is aware of the extravagance of the Rabbinical traditions re- specting Mount Moriah can attach weight to any one of them? (Cunezus, De Republ. Heb. lib. ii. 12). Finally, the Christian tradition, which makes the site of Abraham’s sacrifice to have been on Calvary, will derive countenance from neither Jose- phus nor St. Jerome, unless the sites of the Tem- ple and of the Crucifixion are admitted to have been the same. Another tradition of the Samaritans is far less _ trustworthy; namely, that Mount Gerizim was the spot where Melchisedech met Abraham — though there certainly was a Salem or Shalem in that neighborhood (Gen. xxxiii. 18; Stanley, S. ¢ P. p- 247 ff). The first altar erected in the land of Abraham, and the first appearance of Jehovah to him in it, was in the plain of Moreh near Sichem (Gen. xii. 6); but the mountain overhanging that sity (assuming our view to be correct) had not yet GERIZIM been hallowed to him for the rest of hig life by that decisive trial of his faith, which was made there subsequently. He can hardly therefore be supposed to have deviated from his road so far, which lay through the plain of the Jordan: nor again is it likely that he would have found the king of Sedom so far away from his own territory (Gen. xiv. 17 | tt.). Lastly, the altar which Jacob built was — not on Gerizim, as the Samaritans contend, | though probably about its base, at the head of the plain between it and Ebal, “in the parcel of a field’’ which that patriarch purchased from the | children of Hamor, and where he spread his tent (Gen. xxxili. 18-20). Here was likewise his well | (John iv. 6); and the tomb of his son Joseph | (Josh. xxiv. 382), both of which are still shown; the former surmounted by the remains of a vaulted chamber, and with the ruins of a church hard by (Robinson, Bibl. Fes. ii. 283) the latter, with “a | fruitful vine”? trailing over its white-washed in- closure, and before it two dwarf pillars, hollowed | out at the top to receive lamps, which are lighted every Friday or Mohammedan sabbath. There is, | however, another Mohammedan monument claiming | to be the said tomb (Stanley, S. ¢ P. p. 241, note). The tradition (Robinson, ii. 283, note) that the | twelve patriarchs were buried there likewise (it should have made them eleven without Joseph, or | thirteen, including his two sons), probably depends upon Acts vii. 16, where, unless we are to suppose confusion in the narrative, atrds should be read | for ’ABpadu, which may well have been suggested to the copyist from its recurrence, v. 17; while | avTés, from having already occurred, v. 15, might have been thought suspicious. We now enter upon the second phase in the his- tory of Gerizim. According to Josephus, a marriage — contracted between Manasseh, brother of Jaddus, | the then high-priest, and the daughter of Sanballat the Cuthzan (comp. 2 K. xvii. 24), having created | a great stir amongst the Jews, who had been | strictly forbidden to contract alien marriages (Ezr. ix. 2; Neh. xiii. 23) — Sanballat, in order to rec- oncile his son-in-law to this unpopular aftinity, ob- tained leave from Alexander the Great to build a | temple upon Mount Gerizim, and to inaugurate a_ rival priesthood and altar there to those of Jerusa-_ lem (Ant. xi. 8, §§ 2-4, and for the harmonizing of the names aud dates, Prideaux, Connect. i. 396 ff., M’Caul’s ed.). “Samaria thenceforth,” says Prideaux, ‘became the common refuge and asylum of the refractory Jews’? (2bid.; see also Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, § 7), and for a time, at least, their temple seems to have been called by the name of a ireek deity (Ant. xii. 5, § 5). Hence one of the first acts of Hyrcanus, when the death of Antiochus Sidetes had set his hands free, was to seize Shechem, and destroy the temple upon Gerizim, after it had | stood there 200 years (Ant. xiii. 9,§ 1). But the destruction of their temple by no means crushed the rancor of the Samaritans. The road from | Galilee to Judea lay then, as now, through Sa- maria, skirting the foot of Gerizim (John iv. 4). Here was a constant occasion for religious contro- versy and for outrage. ‘ How is it that Thou, be- ing a Jew, askest to drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?’’ said the female to our Lord at the well of Jacob, where both parties would always he sure to meet. ‘Our fathers worshipped in thi» mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the piace where men ought to worship ?’’ . . . Subsequently we read of the depredations committed on that road ‘apon a party of Galileans (Amt. xx. 6, § 1). GERIZIM The iberal attitude, first of the Saviour, and then of his disciples (Acts viii. 14), was thrown away upon all those who would not abandon their creed. And -Gerizim continued to be the focus of outbreaks through successive centuries. One, under Pilate, while it led to their severe chastisement, procured the disgrace of that ill-starred magistrate, who had crucified “ Jesus, the king of the Jews,’ with im- punity (And. xviii. 4, § 1). Another hostile gath- ering on the same spot caused a slaughter of 10,600 of them under Vespasian. It is remarkable that, in this instance, want of water is said to have made them easy victims; so that the deliciously cold and pure spring on the summit of Gerizim must have failed before so great a multitude (B. J. iii. 7, § 32). At length their aggressions were directed against the Christians inhabiting Neapolis — now powerful, and under a bishop—in the reign of Zeno. ‘Terebinthus at once carried the news of this outrage to Byzantium: the Samaritans were forcibly ejected from Gerizim, which was handed over to the Christians, and adorned with a church in honor of the Virgin; to some extent fortified, and even guarded. ‘This not proving suflicient to repel the foe, Justinian built a second wall round the church, which his historian says defied all at- tacks (Procop. De dif. v.7). It is probably the ruins of these buildings which meet the eye of the modern traveller (Hundb. of S. f P. ii. 339). Previously to this time, the Samaritans had been a numerous and important sect — sufficiently so, in- deed, to be carefully distinguished from the Jews and Ceelicolists in the Theodosian code. This last outrage led to their comparative disappearance from history. Travellers of the 12th, 14th, and 17th centuries take notice of their existence, but extreme paucity (Karly Travels, by Wright, pp. 81, 181, and 432), and their number now, as in those days, is said to be below 200 (Robinson, Bibl. Res. ii. 282, 2d ed.). We are confined by our subject to Gerizim, and therefore can only touch upon the Samaritans, or their city Neapolis, so far as their history connects directly with that of the mountain. And yet we may observe that as it was undoubt- edly this mountain of which our Lord had said, “ Woman, believe me. the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusa- lem (7. e. exclusively), worship the Father’ (John iv. 21) —so likewise it is a singular historical fact, that the Samaritans have continued on this self- same mountain century after century, with the briefest interruptions, to worship according to their ancient custom ever since to the present day. While the Jews—expelled from Jerusalem, and therefore no longer able to offer up bloody sacrifices according to the law of Moses — have been obliged to adapt their ceremonial to the circumstances of their destiny: here the Paschal Lamb has been offered up in all ages of the Christian era by a small but united nationality (the spot is accurately marked out by Dr. Robinson, Bibl. Res. ii. 277).¢ Their copy of the Law, probably the work of Ma- nasseh, and known to the fathers of the 2d and 3d centiries (Prideaux, Connect. i. 600; and Robin- son, ii. 297-301), was, in the 17th, vindicated from oblivion by Scaliger, Usher, Morinus, and a * The reader will find under PAssover (Amer. ed.) a particular account of the manner in which the Sa- maritans celebrate that great festival on Gerizim. On @rizim and the modern Samaritans interesting infor- GERIZIM 903 others; and no traveller now visits Palestine with out making a sight of it one of his prime objects Gerizim is likewise still to the Samaritans what Jerusalem is to the Jews, and Mecca to the Mo- hammedans. ‘Their prostrations are directed to- wards it wherever they are; its holiest spot in their estimation being the traditional site of the taber- nacle, near that on which they believe Abraham to have offered his son. Both these spots are on the summit; and near them is still to be seen a mound of ashes, similar to the larger and more celebrated one N. of Jerusalem; collected, it is said, from the sacrifices of each successive age (Dr. Robinson, Bibl. Res. ii. 202 and 299, evidently did not see this on Gerizim). Into their more legendary tra- ditions respecting Gerizim, and the story of their alleged worship of a dove, — due to the Jews, their enemies (Reland, Diss. ap. Ugolin. Thesaur. vii. pp- dcexxix.—xxxiii.),— it is needless to enter. E. S. Ff. * The theory that Gerizim is “the mountain on which Abraham was directed to offer his son Isaac,’ advocated by Dean Stanley (S. ¢ P. p. 248) and controverted by Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, ii. 212), is brought forward by the writer of the above, on grounds which appear to us wholly unsubstan- tial. (1.) The assumed identity of Moreh and Moriah cannot be admitted. There is a radical difference in their roots (Robinson’s Gesen. Heb. Lex. s. vv.), which is conceded by Stanley; and the reasoning about ‘the plains of Moreh, the land of vision,” ‘‘ealled Moreh, or Moriah, from the noble vision of nature,” etc., is irrelevant. Murphy (Comm. in loc.), justly observes: “¢ As the two names occur in the same document, and differ in form, they nat- urally denote different things.” (2.) The distance of Gerizim from Beer-sheba is fatal to this hypothesis. The suggestion that Abraham need not have “started from Beer-sheba,”’ is gratuitous — the narrative fairly conveying the impression that he started from his residence, which was then at that place. [BrER-suEBA.] From this point Jerusalem is three days, and Gerizim two days still further, north. The journey could not have been completed, with a loaded ass, ‘on the third day;’’ and the route by which this writer, following Stanley, sends the party to Gerizim, is an unknown and improbable route. (3.) The suggestion of Mr. }*foulkes above, and of Mr. Grove [Morrau], that the patriarch only came in sight of the mountain on the third day, and had an indefinite time for the rest of the jour- ney, and the similar suggestion of Dr. Stanley, that after coming in sight of the mountain he had “half a day”? for reaching it, are inadmissible. Acknowledging “that from the time it hove in sight, he and Isaac parted from the young men and went on together alone,”’ these writers all overlook the fact that from this point the wood for the burnt- offering was laid upon Isaac. Thus far the needed materials had been carried by the servants and the ass. That the young man could bear the burden for a short distance alone, does not warrant the supposition that he could have borne it for a day's journey, or a half-day’s —in which case it would seem that the donkey and servants might have mation will be found in Mills’s Three Months’ Residence at Nablus, Lond. 1864; and in Mr. Grove’s paper On the Modern Samaritans in Vacation Tourists for 18@i | 904 GERIZITES been left at home. The company halted, appar- ently, not very far from the spot of the intended sacrifice. (4.) The commanding position of Gerizim, with the wide prospect from its summit, is not a necessary, nor probable, element in the decision of the ques. tion. It was to the land of Moriah that the patri- arch was directed, some one of the eminences of which, apparently not yet named, the Lord was to designate as his destination. In favor of Gerizim as an elevated site, Stanley lays stress upon the phrase, “lifted up his eyes,’’ forgetting that this identical phrase had been applied (Gen. xiii. 10) to Lot’s survey of the plain of the Jordan below him. (5.) The Samaritan tradition is unreliable. From the time that a rival temple to that on Mo- riah was erected on Gerizim, the Samaritans felt a natural desire to invest the spot with some of the sanctities of the earlier Jewish history. Their substitution of Moreh for Moriah (Gen. xxii. 2) in their version, is of the same character with this claim. Had this been the traditionary site of the scene in question, Josephus would hardly have ventured to advance the claim for Jerusalem; and though sharing the prejudices of his countrymen, his general fairness as a historian forbids the in- timation that he was capable of robbing this com- munity of a cherished site, and transferring it to another. Moreover, the improbable theory that Gerizim, and not Jerusalem, was the scene of the meeting between Abraham and Melchisedec, which, though held by Prof. Stanley, Mr. Ffoulkes is com- pelled to reject, has the same authority of Samar- itan tradition. The objections to the Moriah of Jerusalem as the site in question, need not be considered here. The theory which claims that locality for this sae- rificial scene, has its difficulties, which will be ex- amined in their place. [MortAn, Amer. ed.] Whether that theory be accepted or rejected, the claims of Gerizim appear to us too slightly sup- ported to entitle them to any weight in the discus- sion. Si Wis GER’IZITES, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8. [Gerztres.] GERRHENIANS, THE (éws ray Teppn- vov; Alex. Tevynpwyv: ad Gerrenos), named in 2 Mace. xiii. 24 only, as one limit of the district committed by Antiochus Eupator to the govern- ‘ment of Judas Maccabeeus, the other limit being Ptolemais (Accho). To judge by the similar ex- pression in defining the extent of Simon’s govern- ment in 1 Mace. xi. 59, the specification has refer- ence to the sea-coast of Palestine, and, from the nature of the case, the Gerrhenians, wherever they were, must have been south of Ptolemais. Grotius seems to have been the first to suggest that the town Gerrhon or Gerrha was intended, which lay ‘between Pelusium and Rhinocolura (Wady el- Arish). But it has been pointed out by Ewald (Geschichte, iv. 365, note) that the coast as far ‘north as the latter place was at that time in pos- session of Egypt, and he thereon conjectures that ithe inhabitants of the ancient city of GERAR, S. .E. of Gaza, the residence of Abraham and Isaac, are meant. In support of this Grimm (Kurzg. Handb. ad loc.) mentions that at least one MS. reads Tepapnva@y, which would without difficulty ibe. corrupted to Tepinvar. ‘It seems to have been overlooked that the Syriac GERSHON Gozor (S$Lx ). (a) the ancient GrzER, which was near the sea, somewhere about Joppa; or (b) Gaza, which appears sometimes to take that form in these books. In the former case the government of Judas would contain half, in the latter the whole, of the coast of Palestine. The latter is most probably correct, as otherwise the important district of Idumea, with the great fortress of Berusura, would have been left unprovided for. G. GER’SHOM (in the earlier books DW73, in Chr. generally OVW). 1. ([npodu; in Judg. ['npowy, [ Vat. M. ‘Pnpoop, Vat. ie and Alex. Iypcwu; Joseph. Pipcos: Gersam, Ger- som.) ‘lhe first-born son of Moses and Zipporah (Ex. ii. 22; xviii. 3). The name is explained in these By this may be intended either passages as if OW A (Ger sham) = a stranger there, in allusion to Moses’ being a foreigner in Midian — “For he said, I have been a stranger (Ger) in a foreign land.” This signification is adopted by Josephus (Ang. ii. 13, § 1), and also by the LXX. in the form of the name which they give—I'npodu; but according to Gesenius ( Thes. p- 306 b), its true meaning, taking it as a Hebrew word, is “ expulsion,” from a root W773, being only another form of GERSHON (see also Fiirst, Handwb.). The circumcision of Gershom is probably related in Ex. iv. 25. He does not appear again in the history in his own person, but he was the founder of a family of which more than one of the mem- bers are mentioned later. (a.) One of these was a remarkable person — “Jonathan the son of Ger- shom,”’ the “young man the Levite,” whom we first encounter on his way from Bethlehem-Judah to Micah’s house at Mount Ephraim (Judg. xvii. 7), and who subsequently became the first priest to the irregular worship of the tribe of Dan (xviii. 30). The change of the name “ Moses”’ in this passage, as it originally stood in the Hebrew text, to ‘ Manasseh,”’ as it now stands both in the text and the A. V., is explained under MANASSEN. (6.) But at least one of the other branches of the family preserved its allegiance to Jehovah, for when the courses of the Levites were settled by king Da- vid, the “sons of Moses the man of God ” received honorable prominence, and SHEBUEL chief of the sons of Gershom was appointed ruler (7°22) of the treasures. (1 Chr. xxiii. 15-17; xxvi. 24-28.) 2. The form under which the name GERSHON — the eldest son of Levi —is given in several pas- sages of Chronicles, namely, 1 Chr. vi. 16, 17, 29, 43, 62, 71; xv. 7. The Hebrew is almost alter- nately DW 3, and OW"; the LXX. adhere to their ordinary rendering of Gershon; [Rom.] Vat. Tedcav, Alex. ['npowy, [exc. vi. 43, Vat. Tecedowry, and xv. 7, Alex. Bypawy, Vat. FA. Inpoayu:] Vulg. Gerson and Gersom. 3. (Sw 72: I'npody, [Vat.] Alex. Pnpowm: Gersom), the representative of the priestly family of Phinehas, among those who accompanied Ezra from Babylon (Ezr. viii. 2). In Esdras the name is GERSON. G. GER/SHON (7172: in Gen. raped, in other books uniformly Teda@v; and so also Alex. with three exceptions; Joseph. Ant. ii. 7, § 4, ‘version (early, and entitled to much respect) has I'npoduns: [Gerson]), the eldest of the three sonr GERSHONITES, THE of Levi, born before the descent of Jacobs’ family into Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 11; Ex. vi. 16). But though the eldest born, the families of Gershon were out- stripped in fame by their younger brethren of Ko- hath, from whom sprang Moses and the priestly line of Aaron. Gershon’s sons were LiBNt and Samu (Ex. vi. 17; Num. iii. 18, 21; 1 Chr. vi. 17), and their families were duly recognized in the reign of David, when the permanent arrangements for the service of Jehovah were made (1 Chr. xxiii. 7-11). At this time Gershon was represented by the famous Asaph “the seer,’’ whose genealogy is given in 1 Chr. vi. 39-43, and also in part, 20, 21. The family is mentioned once again as taking part in the reforms of king Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 12, where it should be observed that the sons of Asaph _are reckoned as distinct from the Gershonites). At the census in the wilderness of Sinai the whole number of the males of the Bene-Gershon was 7,500 (Num. iii. 22), midway between the Kohath- ites and the Merarites. At the same date the efficient men were 2,630 (iv. 40). On the occasion of the second census the numbers of the Levites are given only in gross (Num. xxvi. 62). The sons of Gershon had charge of the fabrics of the Tabernacle — the coverings, curtains, hangings, and cords (Num. iii. 25, 26; iv. 25, 26); for the transport of these they had two covered wagons and four oxen (vii. 3,7). In the encampment their station was behind (S7TTS) the Tabernacle, on the west side (Num. iii. 23). When on the march they went with the Merarites in the rear of the first body of three tribes, —Judah, Issachar, Zebu- lun, — with Reuben behind them. In the appor- tionment of the Levitical cities, thirteen fell to the lot of the Gershonites. These were in the northern tribes — two in Manasseh beyond Jordan; four in Issachar; four in Asher; and three in Naphtali. All of these are said to have possessed “ suburbs,”’ and two were cities of refuge (Josh. xxi. 27-33; 1 Chr. vi. 62, 71-76). It is not easy to see what special duties fell to the lot of the Gershonites in the service of the Tabernacle after its erection at Jerusalem, or in the Temple. The sons of Jedu- thun- “ prophesied with a harp,’ and the sons of Heman “lifted up the horn,’’ but for the sons of Asaph no instrument is mentioned (1 Chr. xxv. 1-5). They were appointed to “ prophesy ’’ (that is, probably, to utter, or sing, inspired words, $833), perhaps after the special prompting of Da- vid himself (xxv. 2). Others of the Gershonites, sons of Laadan, had charge of the “treasures of the house of God, and over the treasures of the holy things” (xxvi. 20-22), among which precious stones are speciatly named (xxix. 8). In Chronicles the name is, with two exceptions (1 Chr. vi. 1; xxiii. 6), given in the slightly difter- ent form of Gershom. [Grrsitom, 2.] See also GERSHONITES. G. GER/SHONITES, THE (0207377, i. «. the Gershunnite: 6 Pedcév, 6 PeScwvl [Vat. -ver]; viol Tedawvi [Vat. -vec]; Alex. {in Josh. and 1 @ See an instance of this in 1 Chr. vi. 2-15, where the line of Kohath is given, to the exclusion of the other two families. b The LXX. has rendered the passage referred to _ &8 follows: — Kai idod » yn KaT@Ketto awd avyKdvTwY awd TeAapuwovp (Alex. TeAaucovp) teterxiopevwr a, ¢ws yas Aiy’rrov. The word Gelamsour may be GESHAM 905 Chr.,] Pnpowy: [Gersonite, Gerson, filii Gerson or Gersom]), the family descended from GERSFION 0 GrERSHOM, the son of Levi (Num. iii. 21, 23, 24 iv. 24, 27, xxvi. 57; Josh. xxi. 383; 1 Chr. xxiii. 7; 2 Chr. xxix. 12). “ THE GERSHONITE” [['ypcwm, Tedowv; Vat. ['npowvet, Unpoouver; Alex. Inpowver, Inpownve: Gersonni, Gersonites|, as applied to individuals, occurs in 1 Chr. xxvi. 21 (Laadan), xxix. 8 (Jehiel). G. GER/SON (Cnpodv: [Vat. corrupt :] Ger- somus), 1 Esdr. vill. 20. [GERSHOM, 3.] GER’ZITES, THE (3737, or YTIRTI— (Ges. Thes. p. 8301) — the tirzite, or the Gerizzite: Vat. omits, Alex. roy Te(paroy: Gerzi and Gezie [2], but in his Quest. Hebr. Jerome has Getri: Syr. and Arab. Godvla), a tribe who with the Geshurites and the Amalekites occupied the land between the south of Palestine? and Egypt in the time of Saul (1 Sam. xxvii. 8). They were rich in Bedouin treasures — “ sheep, oxen, asses, camels, and apparel” (ver. 9; comp. xv. 3; 1 Chr. y. 21). The name is not found in the text of the A. V. but only in the margin. ‘This arises from its having been corrected by the Masorets (Ker?) into Giz- RITES, which form [or rather GEZRITES] our trans- lators have adopted in the text. The change is supported by the Targum, and by the Alex. MS. of the LXX. as above. There is not, however, any apparent reason for relinquishing the older form of the name, the interest of which lies in its con- nection with that of Mount Gerizim. In the name of that ancient mountain we have the only remain- ing trace of the presence of this old tribe of Be- douins in central Palestine. They appear to have occupied it at a very early period, and to have relinquished it in company with the Amalekites, who also left their name attached to a mountain in the same locality (Judg. xii. 15), when they abandoned that rich district for the less fertile but freer South. Other tribes, as the Avvim and the Zemarites, also left traces of their presence in the names of towns of the central district (see pp. 201 a, 277, note d). The connection between the Gerizites and Mount Gerizim appears to have been first suggested by Gesenius. [Fiirst accepts the same view.] It has been since adopted by Stanley (S. gf P. p. 237, note). Gesenius interprets the name as “ dwellers in the dry, barren country.”’ G. GE’SEM, THE LAND OF (yf Teoéu: terra Jesse), the Greek form of the Hebrew name GOSHEN (Jud. i. 9). GE/SHAM (jWA, i. e. Geshan [jilthy, Ges.]. Swydp, Alex. Pnpowu: Gesu), one.of the sons of JAHDAT, in the genealogy of Judah and family of Caleb (1 Chr. ii. 47). Nothing further con- cerning him has been yet traced. The name, as it stands in our present Libles, is a corruption of the A. V. of 1611, which has, accurately, GESHAN. Burrington, usually very careful, has Geshur (Table xi. 1, 280), but without giving any authority. a corruption of the Hebrew meolam . . Shurah (A. V. ‘of old . . to Shur’’), or it may contain a mention of the name Telem or Telaim, a place in the extreme south of Judah (Josh. xv. 24), which bore a prominent part in a former attack on the Amalekites (1 Sam. xv. 4). In the latter case [ has been read for T. (Seé Lengerke ; Fiirst’s Handwb. &c.) i 906 GESHAN * GE/SHAN (1 Chr. ii. 47), the correct form of a name for which Gesu has been improperly substituted in modern editions of the A. V. A. GE’SHEM, and GASH’MU (2v’a, Ww [corporeality, firmness, Viirst]: Tnodu: [ Gosem, ] Gossem), an Arabian, mentioned in Neh. ii. 19, and vi. 1, 2, 6, who, with “ Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah, the servant, the Ammonite,’’ opposed Nehemiah in the repairing of Jerusalem. Geshem, we may conclude, was an inhabitant of Arabia Petreea, or of the Arabian Desert, and probably the chief of a tribe which, like most of the tribes on the eastern frontier of Palestine, was, in the time of the Captivity and the subsequent. period, allied with the Persians or with any peoples threatening the Jewish nation. Geshem, like Sanballat and Tobiah, seems to have been one of the “governors beyond the river,’’ to. whom Nehemiah came, and whose mission “grieved them exceedingly, that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel”? (Neh. ii. 10); for the wandering inhabitants of the frontier doubtless availed them- selves largely, in their predatory excursions, of the distracted state of Palestine, and dreaded the re- establishment of the kingdom; and the Arabians, Ammonites, and Ashdodites, are recorded as having “conspired to fight against Jerusalem, and to hinder ” the repairing. ‘lhe endeavors of these con- federates and their failure are recorded in chapters ii., iv., and vi. The Arabic name corresponding to Geshem cannot easily be identified. Jasim (or a Gasim, pole) is one of very remote antiquity ; 9 a and Jashum /( prin) is the name of an historical tribe of Arabia Proper; the latter may more prob- ably be compared with it. Bos. P. GE’SHUR (AWD and TTA, a bridge: [TeScovo, exc. 2 Sam. iii. 3, Teooip, Vat. Teceip} i Chr. in. 23, Alex. Tegsoup, lil. 2 Tegoup: Ges- sur :] Arab. pans, Jessur), a little principality in the northeastern corner of Bashan, adjoining the province of Argob (Deut. iii. 14), and the king- - dom of Aram (Syria in the A. V.; 2 Sam. xv. 8; comp. 1 Chr. ii. 23). It was within the boundary of the allotted territory of Manasseh, but its inhab- itants were never expelled (Josh. xiii. 13; comp. 1 Chr. ii. 23). King David married “the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur”’ (2 Sam. iii. 3); and her son Absalom sought refuge among his maternal relatives after the murder of his brother. The wild _ acts of Absalom’s life may have been to some extent the results of maternal training: they were at least characteristic of the stock from which he sprung. He remained in “Geshur of Aram”? until he was taken back to Jerusalem by Joab (2 Sam. xiii. 37, xv. 8). It is highly probable that Geshur was a section of the wild and rugged region, now called el-Lejah, among whose rocky fastnesses the Gesh- arites might dwell in security while the whole sur- rounding plains were occupied by the Israelites. On the north the Lejah borders on the territory of Damascus, the ancient Aram; and in Scripture the name is so intimately connected with Bashan and Argob, that one is led to suppose it formed part of them (Deut. iii. 13, 14; 1 Chr. ii. 23; Josh. tii. 12,13). [ArcGos.] J LPs GETHSEMANE * The bridge over the Jordan above tne sea of Galilee no doubt stands where one must have stoo¢ in ancient times. [BripGE, Amer. ed.] It may be, says Robinson (Phys. Geogr. p. 155), * that the adjacent district on the east of the Jordan took the name of Geshur (Tw), as if ‘ Bridge-land ’; at any rate Geshur and the Geshurites were in this vicinity.” H. GESH’URI and GESH’URITES (TW): [in Deut., Tapyac., Vat. Alex. -ce; Comp. Tec- coupt}; in Josh., Alex. Tecoupt; xii. 5, Tepyeot, Vat. -@ers xiii. 2, 11, 13, Teoipi, Vat. Teceiper; 1 Sam., Teoupt, Vat. -CEI-3 Alex. Teoepe: Ges- surt.] 1. The inhabitants of Geshur, which see (Deut. iii. 14; Jos. xii. 5, xiii. 11). 2. An ancient tribe which dwelt in the desert between Arabia and Philistia (Josh. xiii. 2; 1 Sam. xxvii. 8); they are mentioned in connection with the Gezrites and Amalekites. [GxrzxER, p. 909.] SM NAG he GE’THER Geen Tarép; [Alex. Tadep:] Gether), the third, in order, of the sons of Aram (Gen. x. 23). No satisfactory trace of the people sprung from this stock has been found. The theories of Bochart and others, which rest on improbable etymologies, are without support; while the sug- gestions of Carians (Hieron.), Bactrians (Joseph. Ant.), and Ribol o> (Saad.), are not better founded. (See Bochart, Phaleg, ii. 10, and Winer, s. v.). Kalisch proposes GEsHUR; but he does not adduce any argument in its favor, except the sim- ilarity of sound, and the permutation of Araman and Hebrew letters. The Arabs write the name Sle (Ghathir) ; and, in the mythical history of their country, it is said that the probably aboriginal tribes of Thamood, Tasur, Jadces, and ’Ad (the last, in the second generation, through ’Ood), were descended from Ghathir (Caussin [de Perceval], Hssai, i. 8, 9, 23; Abul-Fida, Hist. Antcisl. 16). These traditions are in the highest degree untrustworthy; and, as we have stated in ARABIA, the tribes referred to were, almost demonstrably, not of Semitic origin. See ARABIA, ARAM, and NABATHAANS. De Seck. GETHSEM’ANE (53, gath, a “wine press,” and Tew, shemen, “oil;” Te@onuavet [so Tisch.; Lachm. Treg. -ye7], or more generally TeOonpayy), a small “ farm,’’ as the French would say, “un bien aux champs” (xwploy = ager, predium ; or as the Vulgate, villa; A. V. “place;” Matt. xxvi. 86; Mark xiv. 32), situated across the brook Kedron (John xviii. 1), probably at the foot of Mount Olivet (Luke xxii. 39), to the N. W., and about $ or 3 of a mile English from the walls of Jerusalem. There was a “garden,” or rather orchard (xjros), attached to it, to which the olive, fig, and pomegranate doubtless invited resort by their “ hospitable shade.’’? And we know from the Evangelists SS. Luke (xxii. 39) and John (xviii. 2) that our Lord ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. ‘It was on the road to Bethany,” says Mr. Greswell (/Zaxm, Diss. xlii.), “and the family of Lazarus might have possessions there;’’ but, if so, it should have been rather on the § E side of the mountain where Bethany lies: part of which, it GETHSEMANE may be remarked, being the property of the village still, as it may well have been then, is even now called Bethany (e/-Azariyeh) by the natives. Hence the expressions in 8. Luke xxiv. 50 and Acts i. 12 are quite consistent. According to Josephus, the suburbs of Jerusalem abounded with gardens and pleasure-grounds (rrapadeloois, B. J. vi. 1, § 1; comp. v. 3, § 2): now, with the exception of those belonging to the Greek and Latin convents, hardly the vestige of a garden is to be seen. ‘There is indeed a favorite paddock or close, half-a-mile or more to the north, on the same side of the con- tinuation of the valley of the Kedron, the property of a wealthy Turk, where the Mohammedan ladies pass the day with their families, their bright flowing costume forming a picturesque contrast to the stiff sombre foliage of the olive-grove beneath which they cluster. But Gethsemane has not come down to us as a scene of mirth; its inexhaustible associa- tions are the offspring of a single event — the Agony of the Son of God on the evening preceding His Passion. Here emphatically, as Isaiah had GETHSEMANE 907 ‘foretold, and as the name imports, were fulfilled _those dark words, “I have trodden the wine press alone”’ (xiii. 3; comp. Rev. xiv. 20, “the wine- press . . . without the city”). ‘The period of the year,’’ proceeds Mr. Greswell, “ was the Vernal Equinox: the day of the month about two days before the full of the moon —in which case the moon would not be now very far past her meridian; and the night would be enlightened until a late hour towards the morning *’ — the day of the week Thursday, or rather, according to the Jews, Friday —for the sun had set. The time, according to Mr. Greswell, would be the last watch of the night, between our 11 and 12 o’clock. Any recapitulation of the circumstances of that ineffable event would be unnecessary; any comments upon it unseason able. A modern garden, in which are eight ven- erable olive-trees, and a grotto to the north, de- tached from it, and in closer connection with the Church of the Sepulchre of the Virgin —in fact with the road to the summit of the mountain run- ning between them, as it did also in the days of hi = it the Crusaders (Sanuti Secret. Fidel. Cruc. lib. iii. p- xiv. c. 9)—both securely inclosed, and under fock and key, are pointed out as making up the true Gethsemane. These may, or may not, be the spots which Eusebius, St. Jerome (Liber de Situ et Nominibus, s. v.), and Adamnanus mention as such; but from the 4th century downwards some ‘Such localities are spoken of as known, frequented, and even built upon. Every generation dwells most upon what accords most with its instincts and pre- dilections. Accordingly the pilgrims of antiquity ‘Say nothing about those time-honored olive-trees, es a * El-Azariyeh is the Arabic name, derived from Tazarus. Bethany is current only among foreigners, or those of foreign origin. In this instance the native whose age the poetic minds of a Lamartine or a Stanley shrink from criticising — they were doubt- less not. so imposing in the 6th century; still, had they been noticed, they would have afforded undy- ing witness to the locality — while, on the other hand, few modern travellers would inquire for, and adore, with Antoninus, the three precise spots where our Lord is said to have fallen upon His face. Against the contemporary antiquity of the olive-trees, it has been urged that Titus cut down all the trees round about Jerusalem; and certainly this is no more than Josephus states in express language adopts the more distinctive Christian appella- tion. H. 908 GETHSEMANE GETHSEMANE terms (see particularly B. J. vi. 1, § 1, a passage ‘affecting of the sacred memorials in or about Jeru- which must have escaped Mr. Williams, Holy City, vol. ii. p. 437, 2d ed., who only cives v. 3, § 2, and vi. 8, § 1). Besides, the 10th legion, arriving from Jericho, were posted about the Mount of Olives (vy. 2, § 3; and comp. vi. 2, § 8), and, in the course of the siege, a wall was carried along the valley of the Kedron to the fountain of Siloam (v. 10, § 2). The probability, therefore, would seem to be, that they were planted by Christian hands to mark the spot: unless, like the sacred olive of the Acrop- olis (Bahr ad Jerod. viii. 55), they may have reproduced themselves. Maundrell (Karly Travels in Pal. by Wright, p. 471) and Quaresmius (lucid. T. S. lib. iv. per. v. ch. 7) appear to have been the first to notice them, not more than three centuries ago; the former arguing against, and the latter in favor of, their reputed antiquity; but nobody read- ing their accounts would imagine that there were then no more than eight, the locality of Gethsemane being supposed the same. Parallel claims, to be sure, are not wanting in the cedars of Lebanon, which are still visited with so much enthusiasm: in the terebinth, or oak of Mamre, which was standing in the days of Constantine the Great, and even worshipped (Vales. ad Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 53), and the fig-tree (cus elastica) near Nerbudda in India, which native historians assert to be 2,500 years old (Patterson’s Jowrnal of a Tour in Egypt, §c., p. 202, note). Still more appositely there were olive-trees near Linternum 250 years old, according to Pliny, in his time, which are recorded to have survived to the middle of the tenth century (Nowveaw Dict. d Hist. Nat. Paris, 1846, vol. xxix. p. oe E.. 8. * Gethsemane, which means “ eet $ above) is found according to the narrative in the proper place; for Olivet, as the name imports, was famous for its olive-trees, still sufficiently numerous there to justify its being so called, though little cul- tivation of any sort appears now on that mount. The place is called also “a garden” (70s), but we are not by any means to transfer to that term our ideas of its meaning. It is to be remembered, as Stanley remarks (S. ¢ P. p. 187, 1st ed.), that “« Eastern gardens are not flower-gardens nor private gardens, but the orchards, vineyards, and fig-enclos- ures’ near the towns. The low wall, covered with white stucco, which incloses the reputed Gethsemane, is comparatively modern. A series of rude pictures - (utterly out of place there, where the memory and the heart are the only prompters required) are hung up along the face of the wall, representing different scenes in the history of Christ’ $ passion, such as the scourging, the mockery of the soldiers, the sinking beneath the cross, and the like. The eight olive-trees here, though still verdant and productiv e, are so decayed as to require to be propped up with heaps of stones against their trunks in order to prevent their being blown down by the wind. Trees of this class are proverbially long-lived. Schubert, the celebrated naturalist, decides that those in Gethsemane are old enough to have flourished amid a race of contemporaries that perished long cen- turies ago (Reise in das Morgenlund, ii. 321).a Stanley also speaks of them “ as the most venerable of their race on the face of the earth . . . the most a * An argument for the great age of these trees has been drawn from the fact that a medino (an old Turkish coin) is the governmental tax paid on each j | | | salem.” (S. f P. p. 450, Ist ed.) There are two or three indications 1 in the Gospel. history which may guide us as to the general situ: ation of this ever memorable spot to which the Saviour repaired on the night of his betrayal. Ti is quite certain that Gethsemane was on the westerr| slope of Olivet, and near the base of that mountair where it sinks down into the valley of the Kedron When it is said that “ Jesus went forth with his disciples beyond the brook Kedron, where was <_ garden” (John xviii. 1), it is implied that he dic not go far up the Mount of Olives, but reached thi place which he had in view soon after crossing thi bed of that stream. The garden, it will be observed is named in that passage with reference to thi brook, and not the mountain. This result agree also with the presumption from the Saviour’) abrupt summons to his disciples recorded in Matt xxvi. 46: “ Arise, let us be going; see, he is a hand that doth betray me.’’ The best explanatio1! of this language is that his watchful eye, at tha) moment, caught sight of Judas and his accomplices _ as they issued from one of the eastern gates, 01 turned round the northern or southern corner of the walls, in order to descend into the valley. Thi night, with the moon then near its full, and abow, the beginning of April, must have been clear, o: if exceptionally dark, the torches (John xviii. 13° would have left no doubt as to the object of suct. a movement at that unseasonable hour. It ma} be added that in this neighborhood also are still t« be seen caverns and deserted tombs into which hi pursuers may have thought that he would endeavoi to escape and conceal himself, and so care preparec| with lights to follow him into these lurking-places) The present inclosure known as Gethsemam fulfills all these conditions; and so also, it may b¢ claimed, would any other spot similarly situatec! across the brook, and along the western declivity ix front of Jerusalem. Tischendorf (Reise in der Orient, i. 312) finds the traditionary locality “in per} fect harmony with all that we learn from the Evange. lists.” ‘Thomson (Land and Book, ii. 284) think: it should be sought “rather in a secluded vale sev: eral hundred yards to the northeast of the present Gethsemane.”’ Robinson alleges no positive reason}! against the common identification. « The authen. ticity of the sacred garden,’’ says Williams (Holy City, ii. 437), “I choose rather to believe than t¢ defend.” But such differences of opinion as thes involve an essential agreement. The original garder may have been more or less extensive than th¢ present site, or have stood a few hundred rods further to the north or the south; but far, certainly, from that spot it need not be. supposed to have been. We ae sit down there, and read the nar-| rative of wkat the Saviour endured for our re- demption, and feel assured that we are near the place where he prayed, “Saying, Father, not my. will, but thine be done;’’ and where, “ ‘being i an agony, he sweat as it were great drops of blood, falling down to the ground. ” It is altogether prob- able that the disciples in going back to Jerusalem from Bethany after having seen the Lord taken up into heaven passed Gethsemane on the way. What new thoughts must have arisen in their minds, time of the Saracenic conquest of Jerusalem, A. D. 686. Since that period the Sultan receives half of the fruits of every tree as his tribute. (See Raumer, P’a/astina, ye of this group, which was the tax on trees at the | p. 809, 4te Aufl.) GEUEL what deeper insight into the mystery of the agony must have flashed upon them, as they looked once more upon that scene of the sufferings and humil- iation of the crucified and ascended One. Hi; GEU’EL (“SiN3, Sam. ON12 [God's ea- altation, Ges.]: Tovdiqd; [Vat. Tovdima:] Guel), son of Machi: ruler of the tribe of Gad, and its representative among the spies sent from the wil- derness of Paran to explore the Promised Land (Num. xiii. 15). GE’ZER (758, in pause “I2 [steep place, precipice, Fiirst, Ges.]: Ta¢ép, TeCep [Alex. 1 K. ix. 15, 16], Pd¢apa, [Tacnpa; Josh. x. 33, Vat. Ta(ns} 1 Chr. xiv. 16, FA. Ta(apav: ] Gazer, [Gezer, Gazera]), an ancient city of Canaan, whose king, Horam, or Elam, coming to the assistance of Lachish, was killed with all his people by Joshua (Josh. x. 33; xii. 12). The town, however, is not said to have been destroyed; it formed one of the landmarks on the south boundary of Ephraim,@ between the lower Beth-horon and the Mediterra- nean (xvi. 3), the western limit of the tribe (1 Chr. vii. 28). It was allotted with its suburbs to the Kohathite Levites (Josh. xxi. 21; 1 Chr. vi. 67); but the original inhabitants were not dispossessed (Judg. i. 29); and even down to the reign of Solo- mon the Canaanites, or (according to the LXX. addition to Josh. xvi. 10) the Canaanites and Per- izzites, were still dwelling there, and paying tribute to Israel (1 K. ix. 16). At this time it must in fact haye been independent of Israelite rule, for Pharaoh had burnt it to the ground and killed its inhabi- tants, and then presented the site to his daughter, Solomon’s queen. But it was immediately rebuilt by the king; and though not heard of again till after the Captivity, yet it played a somewhat prom- inent part in the later struggles of the nation. [GAZERA. Ewald (Gesch. iii. 280; comp. ii. 427) takes Gezer and Geshur to be the same, and sees in the destruction of the former by Pharaoh, and the simultaneous expedition of Solomon to Hamath- zobah in the neighborhood of the latter, indications of a revolt of the Canaanites, of whom the Geshur- ites formed the most powerful remnant, and whose attempt against the new monarch was thus {rus- trated. But this can hardly be supported. In one place Gob is given as identical with Gezer (1 Chr. xx. 4, comp. 2 Sam. xxi. 18). The exact site of Gezer has not been discovered; but its gen- eral position is not difficult to infer. It must have been between the lower Beth-horon and the sea (Josh. xvi. 3; 1 K. ix. 17); therefore on the great maritime plain which lies beneath the hills of which Beit iir et-tahta is the last outpost, and forms the regular coast road of communication with Egypt (1 K. ix. 16). It is therefore appropriately named as the last point to which David’s pursuit of the Philistines extended (2 Sam. v. 25; 1 Chr. xiv. 16); and as the scene of at least one sharp en- @ If Lachish be where Van de Velde and Porter would place it, at Um Likis, near Gaza, at least 40 ‘Miles from the southern boundary of Ephraim, there is some ground for suspecting the existence of two Gezers, and this is confirmed by the order in which it \is mentioned in the list of Josh. xii. with Hebron, Eglon, and Debir. There is not, however, any means of determining this > In these two places the word, being at the end of a period, has, according to Hebrew custom. its first a A ae GIANTS 90 counter (1 Chr. xx. 4), this plain being their owr peculiar territory (comp. Jos. Ant. vili. 6, § 1, Ta- (apd, Thy THS Maduorivwy xdpas bmdpxovaay) and as commanding the communication between Egypt and the new capital, Jerusalem, it was an important point for Solomon to fortify. By Euse- bius it is mentioned as four miles north of Nicopo- lis (Amwas); a position exactly occupied by the important town Jimzu, the ancient Gimzo, and corresponding well with the requirements of Joshua. But this hardly agrees with the indications of the 1st book of Maccabees, which speak of it as between Emmaus (Amwds) and Azotus and Jamnia; and again as on the confines of Azotus. In the neigh- borhood of tke latter there is more than one site bearing the name Yasir; but whether this Arabic name can be derived from the Hebrew Gezer, and also whether so important a town as Gazara was in the time of the Maccabees can be represented by such insignificant villages as these, are questions to be determined by future investigation. If it can, then perhaps the strongest claims for identity with Gezer are put forward by a village called Yasir, 4 or 5 miles east of Joppa, on the road to Ramleh and Lydd. From the occasional occurrence of the form Ga- zer, and from the LXX. version being almost uni- formly Gazera or Gazer, Ewald infers that this was really the original name. G. GEZ RITES, THE (YT, accur. the Giz- rite: [Vat. omits; Alex. ] Tov Te(parov: Gezri). The word which the Jewish critics have substituted in the margin of the Bible for the ancient reading, ‘the Gerizzite’’? (1 Sam. xxvii. 8), and which has thus become incorporated in the text of the A. V. If it mean anything — at least that we know — it must signify the dwellers in Gezer. But GEZER was not less than 50 miles distant from the “ south of Judah, the south of the Jerahmeelites, and the south of the Kenites,’’ the scene of David's in- road; a fact which stands greatly in the way of our receiving the change. [GERZITES, THE. | GV AH (TMA [water-fall, Fiirst ; fountain, Ges. |: Tal; [Comp. Tié:] vallis), a place named only in 2 Sam. ii. 24, to designate the position of the hill Ammah — “ ‘which faces Giah by the way of the wilderness of Gibeon.’” No trace of the situation of either has yet been found. By the LXX. the name is read as if N13, 7. e. a ravine or glen; a view also taken in the Vulgate. GIANTS. The frequent allusion to giants in Scripture, and the numerous theories and disputes which have arisen in consequence, render it neces- sary to give a brief view of some of the main opin- ions and curious inferences to which the mention of them leads. ev 1. They are first spoken of in Gen. vi. 4, under the name Nephilim (=p) LXX. yiyavres} Aquil. émimimrovtes; Symm. Biatou: Vulg. gigan- vowel lengthened, and stands in the text as Gazer, and in these two places only the name is so transferred to the A. V. But, to be consistent, the same change should have been made in several other passages, where it occurs in the Hebrew: e. g. Judg. i. 29; Josh. xvi. 8, 10; 1 K. ix. 15, &e. It would seem bet- ter to render [represent] the Hebrew name always by the same English one, when the difference arises from nothing but an emphatic accent, 910 ves: Onk. S922: Luther, Tyrannen). The word is derived either from Tp, or ND (= “ mar- GIANTS velous ”’), or, as is generally believed, from "52, either in the sense to throw down, or to fall (= fallen angels, Jarchi, cf. Is. xiv. 12; Luke x. 18); or meaning “ pwes wruentes’’ (Gesen.), or collapsi (by euphemism, Boettcher, de /nferis, p. 92); but certainly not ‘+ because men fell from ter- ror of them’ (as R. Kimchi). That the word means “ giant’ is clear from Num. xiii. 32, 33, and is confirmed by NDDD, the Chaldee name for “the aery giant” Orion (Job. ix. 9, xxxviii. 31; Is. xiii, 10; Targ.), unless this name arise from the obliquity of the constellation (Gen. of Larth, p- 35). But we now come to the remarkable conjectures about the origin of these Nephilim in Gen. vi. 1-4. (An immense amount has been written on this pas- sage. See Kurtz, Die Khen der Séhne Gottes, &c., Berlin, 1857; Ewald, Jahrb. 1854, p. 126; Govett’s Isaiah Unfulfilled; Faber’s Many Mansions, in the Journal of Sac. Lit., Oct. 1858, &e.) We are told that ‘there were Nephilim in the earth,” and that “afterwards (ka) wér’ éxetvo, LXX.) the “sons of God”’ mingling with the beautiful ‘ daugh- ters of men’’ produced a race of violent and inso- lent Gibborim (EYTD3). This latter word is also rendered by the LXX. yiyavres, but we shall see hereafter that the meaning is more general. It is clear however that no statement is made that the Nephilim themselves sprang from this unhallowed union. Who then were they? Taking the usual derivation (953), and explaining it to mean ‘fallen spirits,” the Nephilim seem to be identical with the “sons of God;”’ but the verse before us militates against this notion as much as against that which makes the Nephilim the same as the Gibborim, namely, the offspring of wicked mar- riages. This latter supposition can only be ac- cepted if we admit either (1) that there were two kinds of Nephilim, — those who existed before the unequal intercourse, and those produced by it (Heidegger, Hist Patr. xi.), or (2) by following the Vulgate rendering, postguam enim inyressi sunt, etc. But the common rendering seems to be correct, nor is there much probability in Aben come ° means 9277 ATS (i. e. “after the deluge ’’), and is an allusion to the Anakims. The genealogy of the Nephilim then, or at any rate of the ecrliest Nephilim, is not recorded in Scripture, and the name itself is so mysterious that we are lost in conjecture respecting them. 2. The sons of the marriages mentioned in Gen. vi. 1-4, are called Gibborim (DY D3, from 723, to be strong), a general name meaning powerful (éBpiotal kal mavtds bmeporral Kadod, Joseph. Ant. i. 8, §.1; yijs matdes Tov vody éxBiBdoavres Tov AoyiCerOa K.7.A., Philo de Gigant., p. 270; comp. Is. iii. 2, xlix. 24; Iz. xxxii. 21). They were not necessarily giants in our sense of the word ‘Theodoret, Quest. 48). Yet, as was natural, these powerful chiefs were almost universally represented as men of extraordinary stature. The LXX. ren- der the word yiyayres, and call Nimrod a yi-vyas cuynyos (1 Chr. i. 10); Augustine calls them Sta-|Tert. de Virg. Vel. 7). According to this book GIANTS turost (de Civ. Det, xv. 4); Chrysostom ‘jpwe. evunnets, UCheodoret Tapmeyeders (comp. Bar. iii. 26, edbueyebeis, emiatamevot TOAEMOV)- But who were the parents of these giants; whe are ‘the sons of God” (OTN ‘33)? The opinions are various: (1.) Jen of power (vio) Su- vac revdyrwy, Symm., Hieron. Quest. Heb. ad loc. ; N°D727 YR, Onk.; M272'2W 923, Samar.; so too Selden, Vorst, &c.), (comp. Ps. ii. 7, Ixxxii. 6, Ixxxix. 27; Mic. v. 5, &c.). The expression will then exactly resemble Homer’s Atoyevets BaoiAjjes, and the Chinese Tidn-tsew, ‘son of heaven,”’ as a title of the Emperor (Gesen. s. v. 72). But why should the union of the high-born and low-born produce offspring unusual for their size and strength? (2.) Men with great gifts, “in the image of God’’ (Ritter, Schumann); (38.) Cainites arrogantly assuming the title (Paulus); or (4.) the pious Sethites (comp. Gen. iv. 26; Maimon. Jor. Neboch. i. 14; Suid. s. vv. 370 and piaryautas; Cedren. Hist. Comp. p. 10; Aug. de Civ. Dei, xv. 23; Chrysost. Hom. 22, in Gen.; Theod. in Gen. Quest. 47; Cyril, c. Jul. ix., &e.). A host of. modern commentators catch at this explanation, but Gen. iv. 26 has probably no connection with the subject. Other texts quoted in favor of the view are Deut. xiv. 1, 2; Ps. lxxiii. 15; Prov. xiv. 26; Hos. i. 10; Rom. viii. 14, &c. Still the mere antithesis in the verse, as well as other considera- tions, tend strongly against this gloss, which indeed is built on a foregone conclusion. Compare how- ever the Indian notion of the two races of men Suras and Asuras (children of the sun and of the’ moon, Nork, Bram. und Rabo. p. 204 ff.), and the Persian belief in the marriage of Djemshid with the sister of a dev, whence sprang black and im-' pious men (Kalisch, Gen. p. 175). (5.) Worship- pers of false gods (matdes rv Seay, Aqu.) making’ sa = “ servants”? (comp. Deut. xiv. 1; Prov. xiv. 26; Ex. xxxii. 1; Deut. iv. 28, &.). This view is ably supported in Genesis of Karth and Man, p. 39 f. (6.) Devils, such as the Incubi and Suc- cubi- Such was the belief of the Cabbalists (Va-: lesius, de S. Philosoph. cap. 8). That these being can have intercourse with women St. Augustine declares it would be folly to doubt, and it was the universal belief in the East. Mohammed makes one of the ancestors of Balkis Queen of Sheba a demon, and Damir says he had heard a Moham-| medan doctor openly boast of having married in succession four demon wives (Bochart, Hieroz. i. p. 747). Indeed the belief still exists (Lane’s Mod. Egypt. i. ch. x. ad in.) — (7.) Closely allied to this is the oldest opinion, that they were angels (&y-ye- Ao TOU cov, LXX., for such was the old reading, not viol, Aug. de Civ. Dei, xv. 23: so too Joseph. Ant. i. 8, § 1; Phil. de Gig. ii. 858; Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 7, § 69; Sulp. Sever. ist. Script. in Orthod. 1. i. &¢.; comp. Job i. 6, ii. 1; Ps. xxix. 1, Job iv. 18). The rare expression ‘sons of God ”’ certainly means angels in Job xxxviii. 7, i. 6, ii. 1, and that such is the meaning in Gen. vi. 4 also, was the most prevalent opinion both in the Jewish and early Christian Church. b It was probably this very ancient view whic gave rise to the spurious book of Enoch, and th notion quoted from it by St. Jude (6), and alluded to by St. Peter (2 Pet. ii. 4; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 10, GIANTS gertain angels, sent by God to guard the earth (Eyphyopot, pvAakes), were perverted by the auty of women, “went after strange flesh,”’ taught sorcery, finery (lumina lapillorum, circulos ex aure, Tert., etc.), and being banished from heaven had sons 3,000 cubits high, thus originating a celestial and terrestrial race of demons — “ Unde modo yagi subvertunt corpora multa ’’ (Commodi- ani /nstruct. [11., Cultus Demonum) t. e. they are still the source of epilepsy, etc. Various names were given at a later time to these monsters. Their chief was Leuixas, and of their number were Mach- sael, Aza, Shemchozai, and (the wickedest of them) a goat-like demon Azael (comp. Azazel, Lev. xvi. 8, and for the very curious questions connected with this name, see Bochart, Hieroz. i. p. 652 ff.; Rab. Eliezer, cap. 22; Bereshith Rab. ad Gen. vi. 2; Sennert, de Gigantibus, iii.). Against this notion (which Hiivernick calls “ the silliest whim of the Alexandrian Gnostics and Cab- alistic Rabbis’’) Heidegger (Hist. Patr. 1. c.) quotes Matt, xxii. 30; Luke xxiv. 39, and similar testimonies. Philastrius (Adv. Heres. cap. 108) characterizes it as a heresy, and Chrysostom (Hom. 22) even calls it 7) BAdopnua éexetvo. Yet Jude is explicit, and the question is not so much what can be, as what was believed. The fathers almost unanimously accepted these fables, and Tertullian argues warmly (partly on expedient grounds!) for the genuineness of the book of Enoch. The an- gels were called ’E-yphryopor, a word used by Aquil. and Symm. to render the Chaldee “WY (Dan. iv. 13 ff: Vulg. Vigil: LXX. efp; Lex. Cyrilli, gy- yeAot 7) &yputva; Fabric. Cod. Pseudepigr. V. T. p- 180), and therefore used, as in the Zend-Avesta, of good guardian angels, and applied especially to archangels in the Syriac liturgies (ef. Wt, Is. xxi. 11), but more often of evil angels (Castelli Lez. Syr. p. 649; Scalig. ad Euseb. Chron. p. 403; Gesen. s.v. YY). The story of the Egregori is given at length in Tert. de Cult. Fem. i. 2, ii. 10; Commodianus, /nstruct. iii.; Lactant. Div. Inst. ii. 14; Testam. Patriarch. [Ruben,] ¢. v., ete. Every one will remember the allusions to the same inter- pretation in Milton, Par. Reg. ii. 179 — “Before the Flood, thou with thy lusty crew, False-titled sons of God, roaming the earth, Cast wanton eyes on the daughters of men, And coupled with them, and begat a race.” The use made of the legend in some modern poems cannot sufficiently be reprobated. _ We need hardly say how closely allied this is to the Greek legends which connected the &ypia piaAa yydyrwy with the gods (Hom. Od. vii. 205; Pau- San. viii. 29), and made Saiuoves sons of the gods (Plat. Apolog. nulbcor; Cratyl. § 32). Indeed the whole heathen tradition resembles the one before us (Cumberland’s Sanchoniatho, p. 24; Hom. Od. xi. 306 ff.; Hes. Theog. 185, Opp. et D. 144; Plat. Rep. ii. § 17, p. 604 E; de Legg. iii. § 16, -~p- 805 A; Ov. Metam. i. 151; Lue. iv. 593; Lucian, de Ded Syr., &e.; cf. Grot. de Ver. i. 6); and the Greek translators of the Bible make the resemblance still more close by introducing such words as @¢o- | UaxoL, ynryeveis, and even Trraves, to which last Josephus (/. c.) expressly compares the giants of | Genesis (LXX. Prov. ii. 18; Ps. xlviii. 2 [xlix..2]; 2 Sam. y. 18; Judith xvi. 7). The fate too of _ these demon-chiefs is identical with that, of heathen GIANTS 911 story (Job xxvi. 5; Ecclus. xvi. 7; Bar. iii. 26-28; Wisd. xiv. 6; 3 Mace. ii. 4; 1 Pet. iii. 19). These legends may therefore be regarded as dis tortions of the Biblical narrative, handed down by tradition, and embellished by the fancy and imagi- nation of eastern nations. The belief of the Jews in later times is remarkably illustrated by the story of Asmodeus in the book of Tobit. It is deeply instructive to observe how wide and marked a con- trast there is between the incidental allusion of the sacred narrative (Gen. vi. 4), and the minute friv- olities or prurient follies which degrade the heathen mythology, and repeatedly appear in the groundless imaginings of the Rabbinic interpreters. If there were fallen angels whose lawless desires gave birth to a monstrous progeny. both they and their intol- erable offspring were destroyed by the deluge, which was the retribution on their wickedness, and they have no existence in the baptized and renovated earth. Before passing to the other giant-races we may observe that all nations have had a dim fancy that the aborigines who preceded them, and the earliest men generally, were of immense stature. Berosus says that the ten antediluvian kings of Chaldea were giants, and we find in all monkish historians a similar statement about the earliest possessors of 3ritain (comp. Hom. Od. x. 119; Aug. de Civ. Dei, xv. 9; Plin. vii. 16; Varr. ap. Aul. Gell. iii. 10; Jer. on Matt. xxvii.). The great size decreased gradually after the deluge (2 Esdr. vy. 52-55). That we are dwarfs compared to our ancestors was a common belief among the Latin and Greek poets (Zl. y. 302 ff; Lucret. ii. 1151; Virg. An. xii. 900; Juv. xv. 69), although it is now a matter of absolute certainty from the remains of antiquity, reaching back to the very earliest times, that in old days men were no taller than ourselves. On the origin of the mistaken supposition there are curious passages in Natalis Comes (Mytholog. vi. 21), and Macrobius (Saturn. i. 20). The next race of giants which we find mentioned in Scripture is — 3. The REPHAIM, a name which frequently oc- curs, and in some remarkable passages. The earli- est mention of them is the record of their defeat by Chedorlaomer and some allied kings at Ashte- roth Karnaim (Gen. xiv. 5). They are agair: mentioned (Gen. xv. 20), their dispersion recorded (Deut. ii. 10, 20), and Og the giant king of Bashan said to be “the only remnant of them” (Deut. iii. 11; Jos. xii. 4, xiii. 12, xvii. 15). Extirpated, how- ever, from the east of Palestine, they long found a home in the west, and in connection with the Phil- istines, under whose protection the smail remnant of them may have lived, they still employed their arms against the Hebrews (2 Sam. xxi. 18 ff; 1 Chr. xx. 4). In the latter passage there seems however to be some confusion between the Rephaim and the sons of a particular giant of Gath, named Rapha. Such a name may have been conjectured as that of a founder of the race, like the names Ion, Dorus, Teut, ete. (Boettcher, de Jnferis, p. 96, n.; Rapha occurs also as a proper name, 1 Chr. vii. 25, vill. 2, 37). It is probable that they had pos- sessed districts west of the Jordan in early times, since the “ Valley of Rephaim” (KoiAds ray Tita- vwv, 2 Sam. v. 18; 1 Chr. xi. 15; Is. xvii. 5; &, TaV yiydvtwy, Joseph. Ant. vii. 4, § 1), a rich valley S. W. of Jerusalem, derived its name from them. That they were not Canaanites is clear from 912. GIANTS there being no allusion to them in Gen. x. 15-19. They were probably one of those aboriginal people to whose existence the traditions of many nations testify, and of whose genealogy the Bible gives us no information. The few names recorded have, as Ewald remarks, a Semitic aspect (Geschich. des Volkes Isr. i. 311), but from the hatred existing between them and both the Canaanites and He- brews, some suppose them to be Japhethites, ‘ who comprised especially the inhabitants of the coasts and islands’? (Kalisch on Gen. p. 351). END) is rendered by the Greek versions very variously (‘Pagaciu, yiyavtes, ynyevets, Oeoud- x01, Tiraves, and iarpoi, Vulg. medici; LXX. Ps. Ixxxvii. 10; Is. xxvi. 14, where it is confused with DN5>. cf. Gen. 1. 2, and sometimes yexpol, TeOynkdtes, especial.y in the later versions). In A. V. the words used for it are Rephaim,”’ “ ojants,”’ and “the dead.’’ That it has the latter meaning in many: passages is certain (Ps. lxxxviii. iO. *Proy. i. 18, ix. 18, xi 1G sleeve 10 ae [DrApD, Tre, Amer. ed.] The question arises, how are these meanings to be reconciled ? Gese- nius gives no derivation for the national name, and w derives “) = mortui, from SD), sanavit, and the proper name Rapha from an Arabic root signifying ‘ tall,” thus seeming to sever a// connection between the meanings of the word, which is surely most unlikely. Masius, Simonis, &c., suppose the second meaning to come from the fact that both spectres and giants strike terror (accepting the derivation from 1120, remisit, “unstrung with fear,” R. Bechai on Deut. ii.); Vitringa and Hiller from the notion of length involved in stretching out a corpse, or from the fancy that spirits appear in more than human size (Hiller, Syntagm. Hermen. p. 205; Virg. ei) (1 K. ix. 16); and again, the portions of the sons of concubines were paid in the form of presents (Gen. xxv. 6). ] The nature of the presents was as various ai) were the occasions: food (1 Sam. ix. 7, xvi. 20, xxv! 11), sheep and cattle (Gen. xxxii. 13-15; Jude. xv, 8), gold (2 Sam. xviii. 11; Job xlii. 11; Matt. ii) 11), jewels (Gen. xxiv. 53), furniture, and vessel: for eating and drinking (2 Sam. xvii. 28), delica. cies, such as spices, honey, ete. (Gen. xxiv. 53! 1 K. x. 25, xiv. 3), and robes (1 K. x. 25; 2 Ki v. 22), particularly in the case of persons inductec! into high office (Esth. vi. 8; Dan. v. 16; comp| Herod. iii. 20). The mode of presentation was with as much parade as possible; the presents were conveyed by the hands of servants (Judg. iii. 18)! or still better on the backs of beasts of burder (2 K. viii. 9), even when such a mode of convey: ance was unnecessary. ‘The refusal of a present was regarded as a high indignity, and this con- stituted the aggravated insult noticed in Matt) xxli. 11, the marriage robe having been offerec and refused (Trench, Parables). No less an in: sult was it, not to bring a present when the posi! tion of the parties demanded it (1 Sam. x. 27). W.L. B. GIHON GIHON (V3 [stream]: Te@y; Alex. Tn- wy: Gehon). 1. The second river of Paradise (Gen. ji. 13): The name does not again occur in the Hebrew text of the O. T.; but in the LXX. it Tay] is used in Jer. ii. 18, as an equivalent for the word Shichor or Sihor, ?. ¢. the Nile, and in Ecelus. xxiv. 27 (A. V. “ Geon”). All that can be said upon it will be found under EDEN, p. 658 f. 2. (173, and in Chron. {W2: [in 1 K.,] h Tidy, (Vat. Dewy, Alex. o Tiwy; in 2 Chr. xxxii. 30,] Ter@v, [Vat. Semwy, Alex. Tiwy; in 2 Chr. xxxili. 14, cara vdrov, Comp. rod Tev:] Gihon.) A place near Jerusalem, memorable as the scene of the anointing and proclamation of Solomon as king (1 K. i. 33, 38, 45). From the terms of this pas- sage, it is evident it was at a lower level than the eity — “ bring him down (AN T27) upon (Sy) Gihon ’’ — “ they are come up (ays) from thence.” With this agrees a later mention (2 Chr. xxxiii. 14), where it is called “ Gihon-in-the- valley,” the word rendered valley being nachal (>). In this latter place Gihon is named to designate the direction of the wall built by Manas- seh — ‘outside the city of David, from the west of Gihon-in-the-valley to the entrance of the Fish- gate.” It is not stated in any of the above pas- sages that Gihon was a spring; but the only re- maining place in which it is mentioned suggests this belief, or at least that it had given its name to some water — “ Hezekiah also stopped the upper source or issue (sz479, from SZ), to rush forth; incorrectly “ watercourse’? in A. V.) of the waters of Gihon”? (2 Chr. xxxii. 30). If the place to which Solomon was brought down on the king’s _(2.) The expression “ Gihon-in-the-valley ; called Valley of Jehoshaphat; ge (“ravine’’ or ley of Hirnom, south and west of the town. this connection the mention of Ophel (2 Chr. xxxiii. agreement with this is the fact that (3) the Tar- sions, have Shiloha, i. e. Siloam (Arab. Ain-Shi- e .- a TT mie mule was Gihon-in-the-valley — and from the terms above noticed it seems probable that it was — then the “upper source ’’ would be some distance away, and at a higher level. The locality of Gihon will be investigated under JERUSALEM; but in the mean time the following facts may be noticed in regard to the occurrences of the word. (1.) Its low level; as above stated. ”” where it will be observed that ntchal (* torrent’? or ‘wady ’’) is the word always employed for the val- ley of the Kedron, east of Jerusalem —the so- “olen ”’) being as constantly employed for the Val- In 14) with Gihon should not be disregarded. In guin of Jonathan, and the Syriac and Arabic Ver- loha) for Gihon in 1 K. i. In Chronicles they agree with the Hebrew text in having Gihon. If Siloam be Gihon, then (4) ‘from the west of Gihon to the Fish-gate’? — which we know from St. Jerome to have been near the present ‘ Jaffa-gate,’’ would answer to the course of a wall inclosing “the city of David” (2 Chr. xxxiii. 14); and (5) the omis- sion of Gihon from the very detailed catalogue of Neh. iv. is explained. G. GILBOA GIL’ALAT [3 syl.] (sda [perh. weeghty, powerful, First]: [Rom.] Tedéa; [Vat. Alex. FA.1 omit: Galalat]), one of the party of priests’ sons who played on David’s instruments at the con- secration of the wall of Jerusalem, in the company at whose head was Ezra (Neh. xii. 36). GILBO’A (YDPA, bubbling fountain, from Da and YD: TedABové; [Alex. 2 Sam. i. 6, TeBove:] Gelboe),a mountain range on the eastern side of the plain of Esdraelon, rising over the city of Jezreel (comp. 1 Sam. xxviii. 4 with xxix. 1). It is only mentioned in Scripture in connection with one event in Israelitish history, the defeat and death of Saul and Jonathan by the Philistines (1 Sam. xxxi. 1; 2. Sam. i. 6, xxi. 12; 1 Chr. x 1, 8). The latter had encamped at Shunem, on the north- ern side of the valley of Jezreel; the former took up a position round the fountain of Jezreel, on the southern side of the valley, at the base of Gilboa. The result is well known. Saul and Jonathan, with the flower of their army, fell upon the moun- tain. When the tidings were carried to David, he broke out into this pathetic strain: ‘¢ Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no rain upon you, neither dew, nor field of offering”? (2 Sam. i. 21). Of the identity of Gilboa with the ridge which stretches eastward, from’ the ruins of Jezreel, no doubt can be entertained. At the northern base, half a mile from the ruins, is a large fountain, called in Scrip- ture both the Well of Harod ’’ (Judg. vii. 1), and “ The fountain of Jezreel’’ (1 Sam. xxix. 1), and it was probably from it the name Gilboa was de- rived. Eusebius places Gilboa at the distance of six miles from Scythopolis, and says there is still a village upon the mountain called Gelbus (Onom. s. Vv. [eBové). The village is now called Jelbin (Robinson, ii. 316), and its position answers to the description of Eusebius: it is situated on the top of the mountain. The range of Gilboa extends in length some ten miles from W. to E. The sides are bleak, white, and barren; they look, in fact, as if the pathetic exclamation of David had proved prophetic. The greatest height is not more than 500 or 600 feet above the plain. Their modern local name is Jebel Fukiiah, and the highest point is crowned by a village and wely called Wezar (Porter, Handbook, p. 353). J. L. P. * The mention of Gilboa, in David’s touching elegy on Saul and Jonathan, has given an imperish- able name to that mountain. The account of the battle which was so disastrous to the Hebrew king, designates not merely the general scene of the ac- tion, but various places connected with the move- ments of the armies, and introduced in such a way as to be in some measure strategetically related to each other. It is worthy of notice, as a corrobora- tion of the Scripture narrative, that all these places, except possibly one of them, are still found to exist under their ancient names, and to oceupy precisely the situation with reference to each other which the requirements of the history imply. We have the name of the ridge Gilboa, on which the battle was fought, transmitted to us in that of Jelbéin, applied to a village on the southern slope of this ridge, known to travellers as Little Hermon,* but among a * This name arose from a misapprehension of Ps. ixxxix. 13 (12), as ‘f Hermon and Tabor, being there spoken of together, must have been near each other. This Jibel ed-Dahy is not mentioned in the Bible. un- | |; mon, less it be the Hill of Moreh (Judg. vii. 1). Jerome, in the 4th century, is the first who speaks of it as Eer- (See Rob. Piuys. Geogr. p. 27.) Lr 924 GILBOA the natives as Jebel ed-Dihy. The ridge rises out. of the plain of Esdraelon, and, running eastward, sinks down into the valley of the Jordan. The Israelites at first pitched their tents at Jezreel, the present Ze7"in on the western declivity of Gilboa, and near a fountain (1 Sam. xxix. 1), undoubtedly the present ’ Ain Jaliid, exactly in the right position, and forming naturally one inducement for selecting that spot. The “high places”? on which Saul and Jonathan were slain ‘would be the still higher sum- mits of the ridge up which their forces were driven as the tide of battle turned against them in the progress of the fight. The Philistines encamped at first at Shunem (1 Sam. xxviii. 4), now called Solam, on the more northern, but parallel, ridge opposite to Jezreel, where they could overlook and watch the enemy, and at the same time were pro- tected against any surprise by the still higher ground behind them. On the other hand, the camp of the Philistines was visible, distant only eight or ten miles, from the camp of Israel. Hence when “ Saul saw the host of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart greatly trembled.’? The Philis- tines, in their proper home, dwelt in the country south of Judah, and having in all probability marched north along the coast as far as Carmel, had then turned across the plain of Esdraelon, and had thus reached this well-chosen camping-ground at Shunem. The Philistines are next mentioned as rallying their forces at Aphek (1 Sam. xxix. 1). No place of this name has yet been discovered in that neighborhood. Some suppose that it was only another name for Shunem; but it is more likely to be the name of a different place, situated nearer Jezreel, perhaps the one from which the Philistines made their direct attack on the Israelites. Further, we read that the conquerors, after the battle, carried the bodies of Saul and his sons to Beth-shean, and hung them up on the walls of that city. Beth- shean was a stronghold of the Philistines which the Israelites had never wrested from them. ‘That place, evidently, reappears in the present Beisdn, which is on the eastern slope of the Gilboa range, visible in fact from Jezreel, and still remarkable for its strength of position as well as the remains of ancient fortifications. The strange episode of: Saul’s nocturnal visit to the witch of Endor illustrates this same feature of the narrative. It is evident that Saul was absent on that errand but a few hours, and the place must have been near his encampment. This Endor, as no one can doubt, must be the present “dor, with its dreary caverns (Thomson's Land and Book, ii. 161), a fitting abode of such a necromancer, on the north side of Dihy, at the west end of which was Shunem. Hence Saul, leaving his camp at Jezreel, could steal his way under cover of the night ACTOSS the intervening valley, and over the moderate summit which he would have to ascend, and then, after consulting the woman with ‘a familiar spirit % at Endor, could return to his forces without his departure being known to any except those in the secret. All these places, so interwoven in the net- work of the story, and clearly identified after the lapse of so many centuries, lie almost within sight of each other. A person may start from any one of them and make the circuit of them all in a few hours. The date assigned to this battle is B. c. a * Possibly the Philistines, instead of taking the maritime route, may have crossed the Jordan and mag*hed north on that side of the river. H. | Scriptures. GILEAD 1055, later but a little than the tracitionary age o. the siege of Troy. It is seldom that a record o} remote events can be subjected to so severe a scru tiny as this. f For other sketches which reproduce more or les fully the occurrences of this battle, the reader ma; see Van de Velde (Travels in Syr. g& Pal. ii. 361 ff.) ; Stanley (S. ¢ P. p. 839 f., Amer. ed.); Rob) inson (Bib. Res. iii. 173 ff, Ist ed.); and Porte (Handbook, ii. 855 ff.). Some of the writers diffe! as to whether the final encounter took place at Jez! reel or higher up the mountain. Stanley has draw1 out the personal incidents in a striking manne) (Jewish Church, ii. 30 ff.). For geographical in’ formation respecting this group of places, see espe, cially Rob. Phys. Geogr. pp. 26-28, and Ritter’) Geogr. of Palestine, Gage’s transl., ii. 821-336. | H. GIL/EAD (TY'73 [see below]: Pavadd! Ga laad), a mountainous region east of the Jordan bounded on the north by Bashan, on the east b: the Arabian plateau, and on the south by Moal and Ammon (Gen. xxxi. 21; Deut. iii. 12-17). I is sometimes called “ Mount Gilead ” (Gen. xxxi_ 25, Ty 2a 1), sometimes “the land of. Gill ead”? (Num. xxxii. 1, Ty23 VN); and some times simply “ Gilead 1g Yon lx. 7; Gan. XXXVil_ 25); but a comparison of the several. passages show that they all mean the same thing. ‘There is ny evidence, in fact, that any particular mountain wa_ meant by Mount Gilead more than by Mount Leb) anon (Judg. ili. 8)— they both comprehend th| whole range, and the range of Gilead embraced th; whole province. The name Gilead, as is usual iy Palestine, describes the physical aspect of the coun! try. It signifies “a hard, rocky region; ” and i| may be regarded as standing i in contrast to Bashan! the other. great trans- Jordanic province, which is| as the name implies, a “level, fertile tract.’’ f The statements in Gen. xxxi. 48 are not oppose’ to this etymology. The old name of the distri¢ was TVR (Gilead), but by a slight change in thi pronunciation, the radical letters being retained! the meaning was made beautifully applicable to thi “heap of stones” Jacob and Laban had built up— ‘‘and Laban said, this heap (5a); is a witness (Ty between me and thee this day. Therefore was thy name of it called Gal-eed”’ (Toa, the heap of witness). Those acquainted with the moder: Arabs and their literature will see how intenseh| such a play upon the word would be appreciated by them. It does not appear that the interviev! between Jacob and his father-in-law took place o1) any particular mountain peak. Jacob, having passed the Euphrates, “set his face toward Moun| Gilead ;’’ he struck across the desert by the grea’ fountain at Palmyra; then traversed the easte part of the plain of Damascus, and the plateau of Bashan, and entered Gilead from the northeast “In the Mount Gilead Laban overtook him’ — apparently soon after he entered the district; foi when they separated again, Jacob went on his wa) and arrived at Mahanaim, which must have bee considerably north of the river Jabbok (Gen. xxxii) 1, 2, 22). The extent of Gilead we can ascertain with tol erable exactness from incidental notices in the Holy The Jordan was its western border (1 GILEAD Sam. xiii. 7; 2 K. x. 33). A comparison of a jumber of passages shows that the river Hieromax, the modern Sheriat el- Mandhir, separated it from Bashan on the north. ‘Half Gilead” is said to jave been possessed by Sihon king of the Amorites, ind the other half by Og king of Bashan; and the iver Jabbok was the division between the two cingdoms (Deut. iii. 12; Josh. xii. 1-5). The yalf of Gilead possessed by Og must, therefore, jave been north of the Jabbok. It is also stated hat the territory of the tribe of Gad extended along he Jordan valley to the Sea of Galilee (Josh. xiii- 17); and yet “all Bashan” was given to Manasseh ver. 30). We, therefore, conclude that the deep ler. of the Hieromax, which runs eastward, on the yarallel of the south end of the Sea of Galilee, was he dividing line between Bashan and Gilead. North of that glen stretches out a flat, fertile pla- eau, such as the name Bashan (wa, like the UL Arabic KAAS, signifies “soft and level soil’’) vould suggest; while on the south we have the ough and rugged, yet picturesque hill country, for which Gilead is the fit name. (See Porter in Jowr- nal of Sac. Lit. vi. 284 ff.) On the east the nountain range melts away gradually into the high lateau of Arabia. The boundary of Gilead is here 10t so clearly defined; but it may be regarded as unning along the foot of the range. ‘The south- nm boundary is less certain. The tribe of Reuben ecupied the country as far south as the river Ar- non, which was the border of Moab (Deut. ii. 36, ji. 12). It seems, however, that the southern sec- ‘ion of their territory was not included in Gilead. in Josh. xiii. 9-11 it is intimated that the “plain of Medeba’* (‘the Mishor ”’ it is called), north of the Arnon, is not in Gilead; and when speaking of the cities of refuge, Moses describes Bezer, which was given out of the tribe of Reuben, as being “in the wilderness, in the plain country (1. e. in the country of the Mishor,” “WATT YN), while Ramoth is said to be in Gilead (Deut. iv. 43). This southern plateau was also called “ the land of Jazer’’? (Num. xxxii. 1; 2 Sam. xxiv. 5; compare also Josh. xiii. 16-25). The valley of Heshbon may therefore, in all probability, be the southern boundary of Gilead. Gilead thus extended from the parallel of the south end of the Sea of Galilee to that of the north end of the Dead Sea — about 60 miles; and its average breadth scarcely exceeded 20. While such were the proper limits of Gilead, the name is used in a wider sense in two or three parts of Scripture. Moses, for example, is said to have seen, from the top of Pisgah, “ all the land of Gilead unto Dan ”’ (Deut. xxxiv. 1); and in Judg. xx. 1, and Josh. xxii. 9, the name seems to com- prehend the whole territory of the Israelites beyond the Jordan. A little attention shows that this is only a vague way of speaking, in common use everywhere. We, for instance, often say “ Eng- land” when we mean “ England and Wales.’’. The section of Gilead lying between the Jabbok and the Hieromax is now called Jebel Aylin; while that to the south of the Jabbok constitutes the modern province of Belka. One of the most conspicuous @*Mr. Tristram regards the peak called Jebel Osha, as the ancient Mount Gilead, said by the people of the sountry to coutain the tomb of Hosea. For a descrip- GILEAD 925 peaks in the mountain range still retains the an cient name, being called Jebel Jil’ad, * Mount Gilead.’?@ It is about 7 miles south of the Jabbok, and commands a magnificent view over the whole . Jordan valley, and the mountains of Judah and Ephraim. It is probably the site of Ramath-Miz- peh of Josh. xiii. 26; and the “ Mizpeh of Gilead,” from which Jephthah ‘ passed over unto the chil- dren of Ammon”? (Judg. xi. 29). The spot is admirably adapted for a gathering place in time of invasion, or aggressive war. The neighboring vil- lage of es-Salt occupies the site of the old * city of refuge’? in Gad, Ramoth-Gilead. [RAMorTH- GILEAD. | We have already alluded to a special descriptive term, which may almost be regarded as a proper name, used to denote the great plateau which bor- ders Gilead on the south and east. The refuge- city Bezer is said to be “in the country of the Mishor’’ (Deut. iv. 43); and Jeremiah (xlviii. 21) says, “ judgment is come upon the country of the Mishor”’ (see also Josh. xiii. 9, 16, 17, 21, xx. 8). Mishor (AWD and “w19) signifies a “ level plain,” or “table-land;’’ and no word could be more applicable. This is one among many exam- ples of the minute accuracy of Bible topography. The mountains of Gilead have a real. elevation of from two to three thousand feet; but their ap- parent elevation on the western side is much greater, owing to the depression of the Jordan valley, which averages about 1,000 feet. Their. outline is singu- larly uniform, resembling a massive wall running along the horizon. From the distant east they seem very low, for on that side they meet the plateau of Arabia, 2,000 ft. or more in height. Though the range appears bleak from the distance, yet on ascending it we find the scenery rich, pictur- esque, and in places even grand. The summit is broad, almost like table-land “ tossed into wild con- fusion of undulating downs”’ (Stanley, S. ¢ P. p. 320). It is everywhere covered with luxuriant nerbage. In the extreme north and south there are no trees; but as we advance toward the centre they soon begin to appear, at first singly, then in groups, and at length, on each side of the Jabbok, in fine forests chiefly of prickly oak and terebinth. The rich pasture land of Gilead presents a striking contrast to the nakedness of western Palestine. Except among the hills of Galilee, and along the heights of Carmel, there is nothing to be compared with it as “a place for cattle’? (Num. xxxii. 1). Gilead anciently abounded in spices and aromatic gums which were exported to Egypt (Gen. xxxvii. 25; Jer. viii. 22, xlvi. 11). The first notice we have of Gilead is in con- nection with the history of Jacob (Gen. xxxi. 21 ff.); but it is possibly this same region which is referred to under the name Ham, and was inhabited by the giant Zuzims. The kings of the East whe came to punish the rebellious “ cities of the plain,”’ first attacked the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, i. e. in the country now called Haurdn ; then they advanced southwards against the “ Zuzims in Ham;”’ and next against the Emims in Shaveh- Kiriathaim, which was subsequently possessed by the Moabites (Gen. xiv. 5; Deut. ii. 9-19). [See Emims; RepHaAtm.] We hear nothing more of tion of the magnificent view from that summit, see Land of Israel, p. 556, 1st ed. lt. 926 GILEAD “ilead till the invasion of the country by the Israelites. One half of it was then in the hands of Sihon king of the Amorites, who had a short time previously driven out the Moabites. Og, king of Basuan, had the other section north of the Jab- bok. ‘The Israelites defeated the former at Jahaz, and the latter at Edrei, and took possession of Gilead and Bashan (Num. xxi. 23 ff.). The rich pasture land of Gilead, with its shady forests, and copious streams, attracted the attention of Reuben and Gad, who “had a very great multitude of cattle,’’ and was allotted to them. The future history and habits of the tribes that occupied Gilead were greatly affected by the character of the country. Rich in flocks and herds, and now the lords of a fitting region, they retained, almost unchanged, the nomad pastoral habits of their patriarchal ancestors. Like all Bedawin they lived in a constant state of war- fare, just as Jacob had predicted of Gad — “a troop shall plunder him; but he shall plunder at the last’? (Gen. xlix. 19). The sons of Ishmacl were subdued and plundered in the time of Saul (1 Chr. vy. 9 ff.); and the children of Ammon in the days of Jephthah and David (Judg. xi. 32 ff.; 2 Sam. x. 12 ff). Their wandering tent life, and their almost inaccessible country, made them in ancient times what the Bedawy tribes are now — the pro- tectors of the refugee and the outlaw. In Gilead the sons of Saul found a home while they vainly attempted to reéstablish the authority of their house (2 Sam. ii. 8 ff). Here, too, David found a sanctuary during the unnatural rebellion of a beloved son; and the surrounding tribes, with a characteristic hospitality, carried presents of the best they possessed to the fallen monarch (2 Sam. xvii. 22 ff), Elijah the Tishbite was a Gileadite (1 K. xvii. 1); and in his simple garb, wild aspect, abrupt address, wonderfully active habits, and movements so rapid as to evade the search of his watchful and bitter foes, we see all the character- istics of the genuine Bedawy, ennobled by a high prophetic mission. [GAD.] Gilead was a frontier land, exposed to the first attacks of the Syrian and Assyrian invaders, and to the unceasing raids of the desert tribes — “ Be- cause Machir the first-born of Manasseh was a man of war, therefore he had Bashan and Gilead ”’ (Josh. xvii. 1). Under the wild and wayward Jephthah, Mizpeh of Gilead became the gathering place of the trans-Jordanic tribes (Judg. xi. 29); and in subse- quent times the neighboring stronghold of Ramoth- Gilead appears to have been considered the key of Palestine on the east (1 K. xxii. 3, 4, 6; 2 K. viii. 28, ix. 1). The name Galaad (TaAad3) occurs several times in the history of the Maccabees (1 Mace. v. 9 ff.); and also in Josephus, but generally with the Greek termination —TaAaadiris or TadAadnvh (Ant. xiii. 14, § 2; B. J. i. 4, § 3). Under the Roman dominion the country became more settled and civilized ; and the great cities of Gadara, Pella, and Gerasa, with Philadelphia on its southeastern border, speedily rose to opulence and splendor. In one of these (Pella) the Christians of Jerusalem found a sanctuary when the armies of Titus gathered round the devoted city (Euseb. H. &. iii. 5). Under Mohammedan rule the country has again lapsed into semi-barbarism. Some scattered villages amid @ * Probably a patronymic — sTy53, a Gileadite, as Jephthah is called both when first and last men- “ioned (Judg. xi. 1, and xii. 7). ‘Burckhardt’s Trav. in Syr.; Buckingham’s Ar The personal name! Lange’s Bibelwerk, p. 102. GILEADITES, THE the fastnesses of Jebel Aylin, and a few fierce we! dering tribes, constitute the whole population Gilead. They are nominally subject. to the Por but their allegiance sits lightly upon them. For the scenery, products, antiquities, and histc of Gilead, the following works may be consult« Tribes; Irby and Mangles, Travels; Porter Handbook, and Five Years in Damascus ; Stanley Sin. and Pal. ; Ritter'’s Pal. and Syria. 4 2. Possibly the name of a mountain west of t. Jordan, near Jezreel (Judg. vii. 3). We are i) clined, however, to agree with the suggestion is Clericus and others, that the true reading in tl| place should be yada, Gilboa, instead of Tok Gideon was encamped at the « spring of Harod | which is at the base of Mount Gilboa. A copyi_ would easily make the mistake, and ignorance ( geography would prevent it from being afterwar’ detected. For other explanations, see Ewald, Gesc! ii. 500; Schwarz, p. 164, note; Gesen. Thes. | 804, note. 3 * As regards Gilead (2), Bertheau also (Buch d| Richter, p. 120), would substitute Gilboa for th’ name in Judg. vii. 8. Keil and Delitzsch hesita’ between that view and the conclusion that the! may have been a single mountain or a range ;| called near Jezreel, just as in Josh. xv. 10, vy read of a Mount Seir in the territory of Jude! otherwise unknown (Com. on Joshua, Judges, a Ruth, p. 841). Dr. Wordsworth has the followir, note on this perplexed question : “ Probably tl) western half-tribe of Manasseh expressed its coi nection with the eastern half-tribe by calling or of its mountains by the same name, Mount Gileat as the famous mountain bearing that name in tl! eastern division of their tribe (Gen. xxxi. 21-2) Xxxvii. 25; Num. xxxii. 1, 40, &.). May we n¢ see ‘a return of the compliment’ (if the expre; sion may be used) in another name which h: perplexed the commentators, namely, the Wood o Ephraim on_ the eastern side of Jordan (2 Saw xvili. 6)? Ephraim was on the west of Jordan, an| yet the Wood of Ephraim was on the east. Perhay that half-tribe of Manasseh, which was in the eas’ marked its connection with Ephraim, its brothe tribe, by calling a wood in its own neighborhoo| by that name.’’ (See his Holy Bible with Notei li. pt. ip. 111.) Cassel (Richter, p. 71) think that Gilead here may denote in effect characte rather than locality: the Mount of Gilead=th community of the warlike Manassites (Josh. xvi 1), now so fitly represented by Gideon, sprung fror that tribe (Judg. vi. 15). The cowardly deserve n place in the home of such heroes, and should sep arate themselves from them. H. 3. The name of a son of Machir, grandson o: Manasseh (Num. xxvi. 29, 30). 4. The father of Jephthah (Judg. xi. 1,2). I is difficult. to understand (comp. ver. 7, 8) whethe this Gilead was an individual or a personificatio: of the community.¢ * 5. One of the posterity of Gad, through whon the genealogy of the Gadites in Bashan is trace (1 Chr. y. 14). Ha GIL/EADITES, THE (TY3 Judg. xi of the father being unknown, that of his countr’ stands in place of it. See Cassel, Richter u. Ruth ii au GILGAL 4,5, sqpbart: Judg. xii. 4, 5, Madagd; Num. xvi. 29, Tadaad! [Vat. -SeJ; Judg. x. 3, 6 Poaadd; (Judg. xi. 1, 40, xii. 7; 2 Sam. xvii. 27, tix. 81; 1 K. ii. 7; Ezr. ii. 61; Neh. vii. 63,] 6 Padaadirns [Vat. -Ser-, exc. Judg. xi. 40, Vat. Tadaad|; Alex. o Tadaaditis, 0 Tadaaderrns, {and Judg. xiil’6; avdpes Tadaad:} Galaadite, Galaadites, viri Galwad). A branch of the tribe cf Manasseh, descended from Gilead. ‘There appears to have been an old standing feud between them and the Ephraimites, who taunted them with being deserters. See Judg. xii. 4, which may be ren- dered, “ And the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Runagates of Ephraim are ye (Gilead is between Ephraim and Manasseh);”’ the last clause being added parenthetically. In 2 K. xy. 25 for ‘of the Gileadites’’ the LX X. have ad tay Tetpaxoolwy [Vulg. de filiis Galaaditarum). GIL/GAL (always with the article but once, am, [the circuit, the rolling, see below]: TdAyada (plural); [in Deut. xi. 30, PoAydA; Josh. xiv. 6, Rom. Vat. Tadyda:] Galgala [sing. and plur.]). By this name were called at least two places in ancient Palestine. 1. The site of the first camp of the Israelites on the west of the Jordan, the place at which they passed the first night after crossing the river, and where the twelve stones were set up which had been taken from the bed of the stream (Josh. iv. 19, 20, comp. 3); where also they kept their first pass- over in the land of Canaan (vy. 10). It was in the ’ send of the east of Jericho” (9 TIT TP2: A. VY. “in the east border of Jericho’), apparently on a hillock or rising ground (vy. 3, comp. 9) in the Arboth-Jericho (A. V. “the plains’’), that is, the hot depressed district of the Ghor which lay be- tween the town and the Jordan (v. 10). Here the Israelites who had been born on the march through the wilderness were circumcised ; an occurrence from which the sacred historian derives the name: “This day I have rolled away (gulliotht) the re- proach of Egypt from off you.’ ‘Therefore the name of the place is called Gilgal* to this day.” By Josephus (Ant. v. 1, § 11) it is said to signify ‘freedom ”’ (€Aevdépiov). The camp thus estab- lished at Gilgal remained there during the early part of the conquest (ix. 6, x. 6, 7, 9, 15, 43); and we may probably infer from one narrative that Joshua retired thither at the conclusion of his labors (xiv. 6, comp. 15). We again encounter Gilgal in the time of Saul, when it seems to have exchanged its military asso- ciations for those of sanctity. True, Saul, when driven from the highlands by the Philistines, col- lected his feeble force at the site of the old camp (1 Sam. xiii. 4, 7); but this is the only occurrence at all connecting it with war. It was now one of the “holy cities” (of jysacuévor) —if we accept the addition of the LX X.— to which Samuel reg- ularly resorted, where he administered justice (1 Sam. vii. 16), and where burnt-offerings and peace- offerings were accustomed to be offered ‘“ before Jehovah’ (x. 8, xi. 15, xiii. 8, 9-12, xv. 21); and on one occasion a sacrifice of a more terrible de- _« This derivation of the name cannot apply in the tase ot the other Gilgals mentioned below. May it a be the adaptation to Hebrew of a name previously q isting in the former language of the country ? 4 Such is the real force of the Hebrew text (xix. 40). GILGAL 927 scription than either (xv. 33). The air of the narrative all through leads to the conclusion that at the time of these occurrences it was the chief sanctuary of the central portion of the nation (see x. 8, xi. 14, xv. 12, 21). But there is no sign of its being a town; no mention of building, or of its being allotted to the priests or Levites, as was the case with other sacred towns, Bethel, Shechem, etc. We again have a glimpse of it, some sixty years later, in the history of Dayid’s return to Jerusalem (2 Sam. xix.). The men of Judah came down to Gilgal to meet the king to conduct him over Jordan, as if it was close to the river (xix. 15), and David arrived there immediately on crossing the stream, after his parting with Barzillai the Gileadite. How the remarkable sanctity of Gilgal became appropriated to a false worship we are not told, but certainly, as far as the obscure allusions of Hosea and Amos can be understood (provided that they refer to this Gilgal), it was so appropriated by the kingdom of Israel in the middle period of its * existence (Hos. iv. 15, ix. 15, xii. 11; Amos iy. 4, v. 5). Beyond the general statements above quoted, the sacred text contains no indications of the position of Gilgal. Neither in the Apocrypha nor the N. T. is it mentioned. Later authorities are more precise, but unfortunately discordant among themselves. By Josephus (Ant. v. 1, § 4) the encampment is given as fifty stadia, rather under six miles, from the river, and ten from Jericho. In the time of Jerome the site of the camp and the twelve memorial stones were still distinguishable, if we are to take literally the expression of the pit. Paule (§ 12). The distance from Jericho was then two miles. The spot was left uncultivated, but regarded with great veneration by the residents; ‘locus desertus . . . ab illius regionis mortalibus miro cultu habitus’? (Onom. Galgala). When Areculf was there at the end of the seventh century the place was shown at five miles from Jericho. A large church covered the site, in which the twelve stones were ranged. The church and stones were seen by Willibald, thirty years later, but he gives the distance as five miles from the Jordan, which again he states correctly as seven from Jericho. The stones are mentioned also by Thietmar,¢ A. D. 1217, and lastly by Ludolf de Suchem a century later. No modern traveller has succeeded in elicit- ing the name, or in discovering a probable site. In Van de Velde’s map (1858) a spot named Moharfer, a little S. E. of er-Riha, is marked as possible; but no explanation is afforded either in bis Syria, or his Memoir. 2. But this was certainly a distinct place from the Gilgal which is connected with the last scene in the life of Elijah, and with one of Elisha’: miracles. The chief reason for believing this is the impossibility of making it fit into the notice of Elijah’s translation. He and Elisha are said to “¢o down” (179) from Gilgal to Bethel (2 K ii. 1), in opposition to the repeated expressions ot the narratives in Joshua and 1 Samuel, in which the way from Gilgal to the neighborhood of Bethe! is always spoken of as an ascent, the fact being that the former is nearly 1,200 feet below the latter Thus there must have been a second Gilgal at a e According to this pilgrim, it was to these that John the Baptist pointed when he said that God was “able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham ” (Thietmar, Peregr. 31), 928 GILOH higher level than Bethel, and it was probably that at which Elisha worked the miracle of healing on Perhaps the expression of 2 K. ii. 1, coupled with the «came again ’’ of iy. 88, may indicate that Elisha resided The mention of Baal-shalisha (iv. 42) gives a clew to its situation, when taken with the notice of Eusebius (Onxom. Bethsarisa) that that place was fifteen miles from Diospolis (Lydda) towards the In that very position stand now the ruins (See the poisonous pottage (2 K. iv. 38). there. north. bearing the name of Jijilieh, i. e. Gilgal. Van de Velde’s map, and Rob. iii. 189.) 3. The “KING OF THE NATIONS OF GILGAL,” or rather perhaps the “king of Goim-at-Gilgal ” (23°22? DYN: [Bacineds Pet rs Tarr Aaias; Alex. B. Twem rns Medyea (comp. Ald. TaayéaA): rex gentium Galgal}), is mentioned in the catalogue of the chiefs overthrown by Joshua The name occurs next to Dor in an enumeration apparently proceeding southwards, and therefore the position of the Jiljilieh just named is not wholly inappropriate, though it must be con- fessed its distance from Dor — more than twenty- five miles — is considerable: still it is nearer than Eusebius (Josh. xii. 23). any other place of the name yet known. and Jerome ( Onom. Gelgel) speak of a “ Galgulis ”’ six miles N. of Auntipatris. suitable, but has not been identified. Goim were has been discussed under HEATHEN. By that word (Judg. iv. 2) or “nations’’ (Gen. xiv. 1) the name is usually rendered in the A. V. as in the well-known phrase, “Galilee of the nations ’’ (Is. ix. 1; comp. Matt. iv. 15). Possibly they were a tribe of the early inhabitants of the country, who, like the Gerizites, the Avim, the Zemarites, and others, have left only this faint casual trace of their existence there. A place of the same name has also been discovered nearer the centre of the country, to the left of the main north road, four miles from Shiloh (Sezlin), and rather more than the same distance from Bethel (Beitin). This suits the requirements of the story of Elijah and Elisha even better than the former, being more in the neighborhood of the established holy places of the country, and, as more central, and therefore less liable to attack from the wan- derers in the maritime plain, more suited for the residence for the sons of the prophets. In position it appears to be not less than 500 or 600 feet above Bethel (Van de Velde, Memoir, p. 179). It may be the Beth-Gilgal of Neh. xii. 29; while the Jil- jilieh north of Lydd may be that of Josh. xii. 23. Another Gilgal, under the slightly different form of Kilkilieh, lies about two miles E. of Kefr Saba. 4. [TaayddA; Vat. ra Ayad: Galgala.] y are wild or mountain goats, and are rendered wild goats in the three passages of Scrip- ture in which the word occurs, namely, 1 Sam. xxiv. 2, Job xxxix. 1, and Ps. civ. 18. The word is from a root OY, to ascend or climb, and is the Heb. name of the tex, which abounds in the moun- tainous parts of the ancient territory of Moab. In | Job XXXIx. 1, the LXX. have TpayeAdpwv TETpAs. 3. PN is rendered the wild goat in Deut. xiv. 5, and occurs only in this passage. It is a con- tracted form of 71738, according to Lee, who renders it gazelle, but it is more properly the tra- _ gelaphus or goat-deer (Shaw. Suppl. p. 76). 4. TAPVY, a he-goat, as Gesenius thinks, of four months old — strong and vigorous. [t occurs only in the plural, and is rendered by A. V. indifferently goats and he-goats (see Ps. 1. 9 and 13). In Jer. L. 8 it signifies he-gouts, leaders of the flock, and hence its metaphorical use in Is. xiv. 9 for chief mes of the earth, and in Zech. x. 3, where goats _==principal men, chiefs. It is derived from the toot THY, to set, to place, to prepare. 5. YDS occurs in 2 Chr. xxix. 21, and in Dan. | viii. 5, 8 — it is followed by DY, and signifies | & he-goat of the goats. Gesenius derives it from TDR, to leap. It is a word found only in the later ‘ books of the O. T. In Ezr. vi. 17 we find the ' Chald. form of the word, "YDS. \ 5. ow is translated goat, and signifies prop- | erly a he-goat, being derived from ayy, to stand | on end, to bristle. It occurs frequently in Leviticus ) snd Numbers (ANtST17 TYW), and is the goat : : : | GOAT 933 of the sin-offering, Lev. ix. 8, 15, x. 16. The wore is used as an adjective with TYD3 in Dan. viii. 21, “and the goat, the rough one, is the king of Javan.” “ 7. WF) is from a root WIA, to strike. It is rendered he-goat in Gen. xxx. 35, xxxii. 15, Prov. xxx. 31, and 2 Chr. xvii. 11. It does not occur elsewhere. 8. OINTY, scape-goat in Ley. xvi. 8, 10, 26. On this word see ATONEMENT, DAY oF, p. 197. In the N. T. the words rendered goats in Matt. xxv. 382, 33, are Epipos and épipiov—=a young goat, or kid; and in Heb. ix. 12, 13, 19, and x. 4, tpdryos = he-goat. Goat-skins, in Heb. xi. 37, are in the Greek, éy airyelots 5épuacty ; and in Judg. ii. 17 afyas is rendered goats. Wid: There appear to be two or three varieties of the common goat (Hircus egagrus) at present bred in Palestine and Syria, but whether they are identical with those which were reared by the ancient He- brews it is not possible to say. The most marked varieties are the Syrian goat (Capra Mambrica, Linn.), with long thick pendent ears, which are often, says Russell (Nat. Hist. of Aleppo, ii. 150, 2d ed.), a foot long, and the Angora goat (Capra Angorensis, Linn.), with fine long hair. The Syr- ian goat is mentioned by Aristotle (Hist. An. ix. 27, § 3). There is also a variety that differs but little from British specimens. Goats have from the earliest. ages been considered important animals in rural economy, both on account of the milk they afford, and the excellency of the flesh of the young animals. The goat is figured on the Egyptian monuments (see Wilkinson’s Anc. Lgypt. i. 223). Col. Ham. Smith (Griffith’s An. King. iv. 308) describes three Egyptian breeds: one with long hair, depressed horns, ears small and pendent; another with horns very spiral, and ears longer than the head; and a third, which occurs in Upper Egypt, without horns. Goats were offered as sacrifices (Lev. iii. 12, ix. 15; Ex. xii. 5, ete.); their milk was used as food (Prov. xxvii. 27); their flesh was eaten (Deut. xiv. 4; Gen. xxvii. 9); their hair was used for the curtains of the tabernacle (Ex. xxvi. 7, xxxvi. 14), and for stuffing bolsters (1 Sam. xix. 13); their skins were sometimes used as clothing (Heb. xi. 37). The passage in Cant. iv. 1, which compares the hair of the beloved to “a flock of goats that eat of Mount Gilead,’ probably alludes to the fine hair of the Angora breed. Some have very plausibly supposed that the prophet Amos (iii. 12), when he speaks of a shepherd “ taking out of the mouth of the lion two legs or a piece of an ear,” alludes to the long pendulous ears of the Syrian breed (see Harmer’s Odser. iv. 162). In Prov. xxx. 31, a he- goat is mentioned as one of the “four things which are comely in going;”’ in allusion, probably, to the stately march of the leader of the flock, which was always associated in the minds of the Hebrews with the notion of dignity. Hence the metaphor in Is. xiv. 9, “all the chief ones (margin, ‘ great goats’) of the earth.’’ So the Alexandrine ver- sion of the LXX. understands the allusion, rai Tpayos Hryoumevos aimoAlov.% As to the ye’élim (D99D%: rparyéauor, ta @ Comp. ‘Theocritus, Id. viii. 49,°Q tpaye, tav Aev- Kav aiyav avep; and Virg. Ecl. vii. 7, Vir gregis ipse caper.” 934 GOAT ou: tbies: “wild zoats,” A. V.), it is not at all improbable, as the Vulg. interprets the word, that zome species of ibea is denoted, perhaps the Capra Sinaitica (Ehrenb.), the Beden. or Jaela of Egypt and Arabia. This ibex was noticed at Sinai by Ehrenberg and Hemprich (Sym. Phys. t. 18), and by Burckhardt. (Trav. p. 526), who (p. 405) thus SSS SS = 2 Va 2 SS — ~ i SSS = ZZ Bis PE o Ss i} <== = Long-eared Syrian goat. speaks of these animals: ‘In all the valleys south of the Modjeb, and particularly in those of Modjeb and I] Ahsa, large herds of mountain goats, called by the Arabs Beden ( yO? i are met with. This is the steinbock® or bouquetin of the Swiss and Tyrol Alps. They pasture in flocks of forty and fifty together. Great numbers of them are killed by the people of Kerek and Tafyle, who hold their flesh in high estimation. They sell the large knotty horns to the Hebrew merchants, who carry them to Jerusalem, where they are worked into handles for knives and daggers. ..... The Arabs told me that it is difficult to get a shot at them, and that the hunters hide themselves among the reeds on the banks of streams where the animals resort in the evening to drink. They also asserted that, when pursued, they will throw themselves from a height of fifty feet and more upon their heads with- out receiving any injury.’’ Hasselquist (7?av. p. 190) speaks of rock goats (Capra cervicapra, Linn.) which he saw hunted with falcons near Nazareth. But the C. cervicapra of Linneus is an antelope (Antilope cervicapra, Pall.). There is considerable difficulty attending the identification of the akkd (FS), which the LXX. render by tpayéAados, and the Vulg. tragelaphus. The word, which occurs only in Deut. xiv. 5 as one of the animals that might be eaten, is rendered “wild goat’? by the A. V. Some have referred the akké to the ahu of the Persians, 2. e. the Ca- preolus pygargus, or the “ tailless roe’ (Shaw, Zodl. ii. 287), of Central Asia. If we could satisfactorily establish the identity of the Persian word with the Hebrew, the animal in question might represent a The Capra Sinaitica is not identical with the €-iss ibex or steinbock (C. Ibex), though it is a closely allied species. GOB the akké of the Pentateuch, which might formerty have inhabited the Lebanon, though it is not found in Palestine now. Perhaps the paseng (Cap. ega- : grus, Cuv.) which some have taken to be the parent | stock of the common goat, and which at present inhabits the mountains of Persia and Caucasus, may have in Biblical times been found in Palestine, and may be the akké of Scripture. But we allow | this is mere conjecture. W..H. ® | Goat of Mount Sinai. GOAT, SCAPE. GO’ATH (7A [see infra]: the LXX. seem to have had a different text, and read é& éxAexTa@y| Al@wy: Goatha), a place apparently in the neigh-' borhood of Jerusalem, and named, in connection with the hill Gareb, only in Jer. xxxi. 89. The name (which is accurately GoAH, as above, the th’ being added to connect the Hebrew particle of mo- [ATONEMENT, Day oF.]) tion,—Goathah) is derived by Gesenius from iTY2, “to low,” as a cow. In accordance with this is the rendering of the Targum, which has for Goah, NDIY MDD = the heifer’s pool. The Syriae, on the other hand, has JAKES, leromto, “ to the eminence,” perhaps reading M2 (First, Handwb. p. 269 6). Owing to the presence of the letter Atm in Goath, the resemblance between! it and Golgotha does not exist in the original to| the same degree as in English. [GoLGoTHA.] GOB (15, and 253, perhaps =a pit or ditch; ré6, ‘Péu, Alex. [in ver. 19] Top; [Comp. NdB: Gob), a place mentioned only in 2 Sam. xxi. 18, 19, as the scene of two encounters between David's) warriors and the Philistines. In the parallel ac- count — of the first of these only=in 1 Chr. xx, 4, the name is given as GEZER, and this, as well as the omission of any locality for the second event, is supported by Josephus (Ant. vii. 12, § 2). the other hand the LXX. and Syriac have Gath in the first case, a name which in Hebrew muck resembles Gob; and this appears to be borne ou pe at wn b * Fiirst makes the Syriac — Felshiigel, rock-hill (not as above). a GOBLET by the account of a third and subsequent fight, which all agree happened at Gath (2 Sam. xxi. 20; 1 Chr. xx. 6), and which, from the terms of the narrative, seems to have occurred at the same place ‘as the others. The suggestion of Nob — which Davidson (Hebr. Text) reports as in many MSS, and which is also found in copies of the LXX.— is not admissible on account of the situation of that place. G. GOBLET (Jas > Kparnp: crater ; joined with “WD to express roundness, Cant. vii. 2; Gesen. Thes. pp. 22, 39; in plur. Ex. xxiv. 6, A. V. “ ba- sons;”’ Is. xxii. 24, LXX. literally dyavé6: crate- re: A. V. “cups’’), a circular vessel for wine or other liquid. [BAstrn.] be Wak: * GODLINESS, MYSTERY OF. [Bar- rism, vii. 4, p. 239.] *GOD SPEED is the translation of yaipew in 2 John 10, 11, the Greek form of salutation. It has been transferred from the Anglo-Saxon géd- spedig, but with a different meaning there, namely, “ good-speed.”’ H. GOG. 1. (AA: rosy; [Comp. Ald. réy:] Gog.). A Reubenite (1 Chr. v. 4); according to the Hebrew text son of Shemaiah. The LXX. have a different text throughout the passage. 2. [MaGcoe. ] 3. In the Samarit. Codex and LXX. of Num. xxiv. 7, Gog is substituted for AGAG. GO/LAN (74a [a circle, region, Dietr. Fiirst; migration, Ges.]: Tavady, [in 1 Chr. vi. ‘Tl, TwaAdy; Alex. also in Josh. Twaav: Gaulon, exe. Deut. Golun]), a city of Bashan (}WD2 743, Deut. iv. 43) allotted out of the half tribe of Ma- nasseh to the Levites (Josh. xxi. 27), and one of the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan (xx. 8). We find no further notice of it in Scripture; and ‘though Eusebius and Jerome say it was still an im- ‘portant place in their time (Onom. s. y.; Reland, p- 815), its very site is now unknown. Some have ‘supposed that the village of Nawa, on the eastern ‘border of Jawlan, around which are extensive ruins ‘(see Handbook for Syr. and Pal.), is identical with the ancient Golan; but for this there is not a shadow of evidence; and Nawa besides is much too ‘far to the eastward. The city of Golan is several times referred to by Josephus (TavAdvy, B. J. i. 4, § 4, and 8); he, ‘however, more frequently speaks of the province ‘which took its name from it, Gaulanitis (ravAayi- tis). When the kingdom of Israel was overthrown by the Assyrians, and the dominion of the Jews in Bashan ceased, it appears that the aboriginal tribes, ‘before kept in subjection, but never annihilated, ose again to some power, and rent the country ‘into provinces. ‘Two of these provinces at least ‘were of ancient origin [TRAcHoNrtTIs and Hav- BAN], and had been distinct principalities previous to the time when Og or his predecessors united ‘them under one sceptre. Before the Babylonish (captivity Bashan appears in Jewish history as one Kingdom; but subsequent to that. period it is spo- en of as divided into four provinces — Gaulanitis, /Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batanea (Joseph. Ant. We D, § 3, and 7, § 4, i. 6, § 4, xvi. 9, $1; B. J. 1. 20, 2 4, iii. 8, § 1, iv. 1, § 1). It seems that ‘when the city of Golan rose to power it became the ‘head of a large province, the extent of which is GOLAN 985 pretty accurately given by Josephus, especially when his statements are compared with the modern di- visions of Bashan. It lay east of Galilee, and north of Gadarttis (GADARA, Joseph. B. J. iii. 8, § 1). Gamala, an important town on the eastern bank of the Sea of Galilee, now called E/-Husn (see Handbook for Syr. and Pal.), and the province attached to it, were included in Gaulanitis (B. J. iv. 1,§ 1). But the boundary of the provinces of Gadara and Gamala must evidently have been the river Hieromax, which may therefore be regarded as the south border of Gaulanitis. The Jordan from the Sea of Galilee to its fountains at Dan and Ceesarea-Philippi, formed the western boundary (B. J. iii. 38, § 5). It is important to observe that the boundaries of the modern province of Jaulin ( woe is the Arabic form of the Hebrew 723, from which is derived the Greek TavAavi- Tis) correspond so far with those of Gaulanitis; we may, therefore, safely assume that their north- ern and eastern boundaries are also identical. Jau- lan is bounded on the north by Jedir (the ancient Iturea), and on the east by Hauran [HAuRan]. The principal cities of Gaulanitis were Golan, Hip- pos, Gamala, Julias or Bethsaida (Mark viii. 22), Seleucia, and Sogane (Joseph. B. J. iii. 3, § 1, and 5, iv. 1,§ 1). The site of Bethsaida is at a small tell on the left bank of the Jordan [BETHSAID.]; the ruins of Kul’at el-Husn mark the place of Ga- mala; but nothing definite is known of the others. The greater part of Gaulanitis is a flat and fertile table-land, well-watered, and clothed with luxuriant grass. It is probably to this region the name Mishor (WD) is given in 1 K. xx. 23, 25 — “the plain ’’ in which the Syrians were overthrown by the Israelites, near Aphek, which perhaps stood upon the site of the modern Fik (Stanley, App. § 6; Handbook for S. and P. p. 425). The western side of Guaulanitis, along the Sea of Gali- lee, is steep, rugged, and bare. It is upwards of 2,500 feet in height, and when seen from the city of Tiberias resembles a mountain range, though in reality it is only the supporting wall of the plateau. It was this remarkable feature which led the ancient geographers to suppose that the mountain range of Gilead was joined to Lebanon (Reland, p. 342). Further north, along the bank of the upper Jordan, the plateau breaks down in a series of terraces, which, though somewhat rocky, are covered with rich soil, and clothed in spring with the most lux- uriant herbage, spangled with multitudes of bright and beautiful flowers. A range of low, round- topped, picturesque hills, extends southwards for nearly 20 miles from the base of Hermon along the western edge of the plateau. These are in places covered with noble forests of prickly oak and terebinth. Gaulanitis was once densely populated, but it is now almost completely deserted. The writer has a list of the towns and villages which it once contained; and in it are the names of 127 places, all of which, with the exception of about eleven, are now uninhabited. Only a few patches of its soil are cultivated; and the very best of its pasture is lost — the tender grass of early spring. The flocks of the Turkmans and e/-F'udhl Arabs — the only tribes that remain permanently in this region — are not able to consume it; and the ’Anazeh, those “ children of the East ’’ who spread over the land like locusts, and “‘ whose camels ara without number ’’ (Judg. vii. 12), only arrive about O30 GOLD the beginning of May. At that season the whole country is covered with them — their black tents pitched in circles near the fountains; their cattle thickly dotting the vast plain; and their fierce cay- aliers roaming far and wide, “their hand against every man, and every man’s hand against them.” For fuller accounts of the scenery, antiquities, and history of Gaulanitis, see Porter’s Handbook Jor Syr. and Pal. pp. 295, 424, 461, 531; Five Years in Damascus, ii. 250; Journal of’ Sac. Lit. vi. 282; Burckhardt’s Trav. in Syr. p. 277. . + pina bh bes GOLD, the most valuable of metals, from its color, lustre, weight, ductility, and other useful “properties (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. 19). Hence it is used as an emblem of purity (Job xxiii. 10) and nobility (Lam. iv. 1). There are six Hebrew words used to denote it, and four of them occur in Job xxvilil. 15, 16, 17. These are: 1. ALT3, the common name, connected with ATS (to be yellow), as geld, from gel, yellow. ‘Various epithets are applied to it: as, “fine” (2 Chr. iii. 5), “refined” (1 Chr. xxviii. 18), “ pure” (Ex. xxv. 11). In opposition to these, «beaten ” gold (ATW? 5) is probably mixed gold; LXX. évards; used of Solomon’s shields (1 K. x. 16). 2. AAD (keyuhArov) treasured, 7. ¢. fine gold (1 K. vi. 20, vii. 49, &.). Many names of precious substances in Hebrew come from roots signifying concealment, as ]V2tA%D (Gen. xiii. 23, A. V. ‘« treasure ’’). j 8. 4, pure or native gold (Job xxviii. 17; Cant. v. 15; probably from 335, to separate). Rosen- miiller (Alterthumsk. iv. p. 49) makes it come from a Syriac root meaning solid or massy; but AND (2 Chr. ix. 17) corresponds to TWA (1 K. x. 18). The LXX. render it by AlOos riwos, Xpvorov &rupoy (Is. xiii. 12; Theodot. &repdoy 3 comp. Thue. ii. 138; Plin. xxxiii. 19, obrussa). In Ps. exix. 127, the LXX. render it Ttomdtiov (A. V. “fine gold’’); but Schleusner happily conjectures 7d maCiov, the Hebrew word being adopted to avoid the repetition of yptaos (Thes. s. v. téma¢; Hesych. S. U. Wa (ov). 4. D2B, gold earth, or a mass of raw ore (Job xxil. 24, drupov, A. V. “gold as dust’). The poetical names for gold are: 1. OD (also implying something concealed) ; LXX. ypto.ov; and in Is. xiii. 12, AlOos morv- TeAns. In Job xxxvii. 22, it is rendered in A. V. “ fair weather;’’ LXX. véon Xpvoavyovuvra. (Comp. Zech. iv. 12.) 2. YT, =dug out, (Prov. viii. 10), a gen- eral name, which has become special, Ps. lxviii. 18, where it cannot mean gems, as some suppose (Bochart, Hieroz. tom. ii. p. 9). Michaelis con- nects the word chdritz with the Greek ypiaos. Gold was known from the very earliest times (Gen. ii. 11). Pliny attributes the discovery of it (at. Mount Pangzus), and the art of working it, to Cadmus (H. N. vii. 57); and his statement is adopted by Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. i. 363, ed. Pott.). It was at first chiefly used for orna- ments, etc. (Gen. xxiv. 22); and although Abraham GOLGOTHA is said to have been “very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold” (Gen. xiii. 2), yet no mention of it, as used in purchases, is made till after his return | from Egypt. Coined money was not known to the! ancients (e. g. Hom. J. vii. 473) till a compara- tively late period; and on the Egyptian tombs gold is represented as being weighed in rings for come. mercial purposes. (Comp. Gen. xliii. 21.) No coins! are found in the ruins of Egypt or Assyria (Layard’s. Nin. ii. 418). “Even so late as the time of David! gold was not used as a standard of value, but was) considered merely as a very precious article of com-_ merce, and was weighed like other articles’? (Jahn, Arch. Bibl. § 115, 1 Chr. xxi. 25). | Gold was extremely abundant in ancient times! (1 Chr. xxii. 14; 2 Chr. i. 15, ix. 9; Nah. ii. 95! Dan. iii. 1); but this did not depreciate its value, because of the enormous quantities consumed by! the wealthy in furniture, ete. (1 K. vi. 22, x. pas-| sim; Cant. iii. 9, 10; Esth. i. 6; Jer. x. 9; conip. | Hom. Od. xix. 55; Herod. ix. 82). Probably too} the art of gilding was known extensively, being’ applied even to the battlements of a city (Herod. | i. 98, and other authorities quoted by Layard, ii.| 264). The chief countries mentioned as producing gold are Arabia, Sheba, and Ophir (1 K. ix. 28, x. 13) Job xxviii. 16: in Job xxii. 24, the word Ophir is| used for gold). Gold is not found in Arabia now! (Niebuhr’s Travels, p. 141), but it used to be (Artemidor. ap. Strab. xvi. 8, 18, where he speaks} of an Arabian river Pijpyya xpucod KaTapépwy).| Diodorus also says that it was found there native} (amupov) in good-sized nuggets (BwAdpia). Some! suppose that Ophir was an Arabian port to which! gold was brought (comp. 2 Chr. ii. 7, ix. 10).| Other gold-bearing countries were Uphaz (Jer. x.| 9; Dan. x. 5) and Parvaim (2 Chr. iii. 6). | Metallurgic processes are mentioned in Ps. Ixvi.| 10, Prov. xvii. 8, xxvii. 21; and in Is. xlvi. 6, the! trade of goldsmith (cf. Judg. xvii. 4, FITS) is, alluded to in connection with the overlaying of | idols with gold-leaf (Rosenmiiller’s Minerals of | Script. pp. 46-51). [Hanpicrarr.] F. W. F. * GOLDSMITH. [Hanpicrarr.]} GOL/GOTHA (roayo0a [a skull]: Golgotha},| the Hebrew name of the spot at which our Lord. was crucified (Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark xy. 22; John! xix. 17). By these three Evangelists it is inter- preted to mean the “place of a skull.”’ St. Luke, in accordance with his practice in other cases (com- pare Gabbatha, Gethsemane, ete.), omits the He- brew term and gives only its Greek equivalent, kpaviov. The word Calvary, which in Luke xxiii. 33 is retained in the A. V. from the Vulgate, as the rendering of xpavtoy, obscures the statement of St. Luke, whose words are really as follows: ‘the place which is called ‘a skull’ ” — not, as in the other Gospels, xpaviov, “of a skull;” thus. employing the Greek term exactly as they do the Hebrew one. [CaLvary, Amer. ed.]. This He-. brew, or rather Chaldee, term, was doubtless’ nmoaba, Gulgolta, in pure Hebrew nbsha, applied to the skull on account of its round globu-. lar form, that being the idea at the root of the word. el Two explanations of the name are given: (1) that it was a spot where executions ordinarily took place, and therefore abounded in skulls; hut according te, the Jewish law these must have been buried, and) Re GOLIATH therefore were no more likely to confer a name on the spot than any other part of the skeleton. In this case too the Greek should be rémos xpaviwy, “of skulls,’ instead of kpaviov, “of a skull,” still less ‘a skull’? as in the Hebrew, and in the Greek of St. Luke. Or (2) it may come from the look or form of the spot itself, bald, round, and skull-like, and therefore a mound or hillock, in accordance with the common phrase — for which there is no direct authority — “ Mount Calvary.” Whichever of these is the correct explanation — and there is apparently no means of deciding with certainty — Golgotha seems to have been a known spot. This is to be gathered from the way in which it is mentioned in the Gospels, each except St. Matthew @ having the definite article — “the place Golgotha ’’ — “the place which is called a skull’? — “the place (A. V. omits the article) called of, or after, a skull.” It was “outside the gate,”’ iw ts wiAns (Heb. xiii. 12) but close to the city, eyyus Tis wéAews (John xix. 20); apparently near a thoroughfare on which there were passers-by. This road or path led out of the “country” ® (aypds). It was probably the ordinary spot for executions. Why should it have been otherwise ? To those at least who carried the sentence into effect, Christ was but an ordinary criminal; and there is not a word to indicate that the soldiers in “leading Him away” went to any other than the usual place for what must have been a common operation. However, in the place (év t@ rérq@) itself — at the very spot — was a garden or orchard (jos): These are all the indications of the nature and situation of Golgotha which present themselves in the N. T. Its locality in regard to Jerusalem is fully examined in the description of the city. [JERUSALEM. | A tradition at one time prevailed that Adam was buried on Golgotha, that from his skull it derived ‘its name, and that at the Crucifixion the drops of Christ’s blood fell on the skull and raised Adam to life, whereby the ancient prophecy quoted by St. ‘Paul in Eph. v. 14 received its fulfillment—‘“ Awake, ithou Adam that sleepest,’’? — so the old versions appear to have run — ‘and arise from the dead, for Christ shall touch thee” (érmpatoe: for ém- pavoe:). See Jerome, Comm. on Matt. xxvii. 33, and the quotation in Reland, Pai. p. 860; also Sewulf, in Karly Travels, p. 39. The skull com- monly introduced in early pictures of the Crucifixion refers to this. A connection has been supposed to exist between Goarn and Golgotha, but at the best this is mere conjecture, and there is not in the original the same similarity between the two names—/TY2 Mee S3)2°99— which exists in their English or Latin garb, and which probably occasioned the Suggestion. , | GOLYATH (1972 [splendor, brilliant, Dietr. ibut see below]: Toaid@: Goliath), a famous giant of Gath, who “ morning and evening for forty days” defied the armies of Israel (1 Sam. xvii.). He was ‘Possibly descended from the old Rephaim, of whom scattered remnant took refuge with the Philis- tines after their dispersion by the Ammonites (Deut. ii. 20, 21; 2 Sam. xxi. 22). Some trace of this ‘ondition may be preserved in the giant’s name, if =. ty _ 8t. Matthew too has the article in Codex B. ‘the victory. 937 it be connected with 7T>4a, an exile. Sinionis, however, derives it from an Arabic word meaning “stout ’’ (Gesen. Tes. s. v.). His height was “six cubits and a span,” which, taking the cubit at 21 inches, would make him 104 feet high. But the LXX. and Josephus read “ four cubits and a span”? (1 Sam. xvii. 4; Joseph. Ant. vi. 9, § 1). This will make him about the same size as the royal champion slain by Antimenidas, brother of Alexus (amoAclrovra play pdvov maxéwy amd méumwy, ap. Strab. xiii. p. 617, with Miiller’s emendation). Even on this computation Goliath would be, as Josephus calls him, ayhp maupeyedéo- TaTos —a truly enormous man. 3 The circumstances of the combat are in all respects Homeric; free from any of the puerile legends which oriental imagination subsequently introduced into it —as for instance that the stones used by David called out to him from the brook, ‘By our means you shall slay the giant,’’ etc. (Hottinger, Hist. Orient. i. 3, p. 111 ff.; D’Her helot, s. v. Gialut). The fancies of the Rabbis are yet more extraordinary. After the victory David cut off Goliath’s head (1 Sam. xvii. 51; comp. Herod. iv. 6; Xenoph. Anad. v. 4, § 17; Niebuhr mentions a similar custom among the Arabs, Descr. Winer, s. v.), which he brought to Jerusalerh (probably after his accession to the throne, Ewald, Gesch. iii. 94), while he hung the armor in his tent. The scene of this famous combat was the Valley of the Terebinth, between Shochoh and Azekah, probably among the western passes of Benjamin, although a confused modern tradition has given the name of ’Ain Jadlid (spring of Goliath) to the spring of Harod, or “trembling ”’ (Stanley, p. 342; Judg. vii. 1). [ELAN, VALLEY OF. ] In 2 Sam. xxi. 19, we find that another Goliath of Gath, of whom it is also said that “the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam,” was slain by Elhanan, also a Bethlehemite. St. Jerome ( Quest. Hebr. ad loc.) makes the unlikely conjecture that Elhanan was another name of David. The A. V. here interpolates the words “the brother of,” from 1 Chr. xx: 5, where this giant is called “ Lahmi.”’ This will be found fully examined under E1- HANAN. In the title of the Psalm added to the Psalter in the LXX. we find rg Aavld mpds rv ToaArdd; and although the allusions are vague, it is perhaps pos- sible that this Psalm may have been written after This Psalm is given at length under DAvID, p. 554 6. It is strange that we find no more definite allusions to this combat in Hebrew poetry; but it is the opinion of some that the song now attributed to Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10) was originally written really in commemoration of David’s triumph on this occasion (Thenius, die Biicher Sam. p. 8; comp. Bertholdt, Fini. iii. 915; Ewald, Poet. Biicher des A. B. i. 111). By the Mohammedans Saul and Goliath are called Taluth and Galuth (Jalut in Koran), perhaps for the sake of the homoioteleuton, of which they are so fond (Hottinger, Hist. Orient. i. 3, p. 28). Abulfeda mentions a Canaanite king of the name Jalut (Hist. Antetslam. p. 176, in Winer s. v.); and, according to Ahmed al-Fassi, Gialout was a dynastie¢ name of the old giant-chiefs (D’Herbelot, s. v. Falasthin). [GIANTS.] F. W. F. GOLIATH 6 But the Vulgate has de villa. 938 GOMER (7723 [completeness]: Tauép; [in Ezek., Touép:] Gomer). 1. The eldest son of Japheth, and the father of Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah (Gen. x. 2,3; [1 Chr. i. 5,6]). His name is subsequently noticed but once (Ez. xxxviii. 6) as an ally or subject of the Scythian king Gog. He is generally recognized as the progenitor of the early Cimmerians, of the later Cimbri and the other branches of the Celtic family, and of the modern Gael and Cymry, the latter preserving with very slight deviation the original name. The Cimme- rians, when first known to us, occupied the Tauric Chersonese, where they left traces of their presence in the ancient names, Cimmerian Bosphorus, Cim- merian Isthnius, Mount Cimmerium, the district Cimmeria, and particularly the Cimmerian walls (Her. iv. 12, 45,100: Asch. Prom. Vinct. 729), and in the modern name Cyimea. They forsook this abode under the pressure of the Scythian tribes, and during the early part of the 7th century B. c. they poured over the western part of Asia Minor, committing immense devastation, and defying for more than half a century the power of the Lydian kings. They were finally expelled by Alyattes, with the exception of a few, who settled at Sinope and Antandrus. It was about the same period that Ezekiel noticed them, as acting in conjunction with Armenia (Togarmah) and Magog (Scythia). The connection between Gomer and Armenia is sup- ported by the tradition, preserved by Moses of Chorene (i. 11), that Gamir was the ancestor of the Haichian kings of the latter country. After the expulsion of the Cimmerians from Asia Minor their name disappears in its original form; but there can be little reasonable doubt that both the name and the people are to be recognized in the Cimbri, whose abodes were fixed during the Roman Empire in the north and west of Europe, partic- ularly in the Cimbric Chersonese (Denmark), on the coast between the Elbe and Rhine, and in Bel- gium, whence they had crossed to Britain, and occupied at one period the whole of the British isles, but were ultimately driven back to the western and northern districts, which their descendants still occupy in two great divisions, the Gael -in Ireland and Scotland, the Cymry in Wales. The latter name preserves a greater similarity to the original Gomer than either of the classical forms, the con- sonants being identical. The link to connect Cy mry with Cimbri is furnished by the forms Cambria and Cumber-land. The whole Celtic race may therefore be regarded as descended from Gomer, and thus the opinion of Josephus (Ant. i. 6, § 1), that the Galatians were sprung from him, may be reconciled with the view propounded. Various other conjectures have been hazarded on the sub- ject: Bochart (Phaleg, iii. 81) identifies the name on etymological grounds with Phrygia; Wahl (Asien, i. 274) proposes Cappadocia; and Kalisch (Comm. on Gen.) seeks to identify it with the Chomari, a nation in Bactriana, noticed by Ptolemy (vi. 11, § 6). 2. [[duep.] The daughter of Diblaim, and concubine of Hosea (i. 3). The name is significant of a maiden, ripe for marriage, and connects well GOMER a * This view, we think, is incorrect. We have no reason to regard the record (Gen. xiv. 3), at least in the form in which we have it, as older than the date of the destruction of the cities. The next remark also in regard to Josephus must be an inadvertence. “ t : 7 - GOMORRAH with the name DiBLArM, which is also derive from the subject of fruit. WW. L. Be GOMORRAH (7732, Glmorah, prob ably submersion, from WY, an unused root; iz Arabic to “overwhelm wit water’’: Téuoppa: Gomorrha), one of the five “cities of the plain,” or “vale of Siddim,” that under their respective kings joined battle there with Chedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 2-8) and his allies’ by whom they were discomfited till Abram came t the rescue. Four out of the five were afterward: destroyed by the Lord with fire from heaven (Gen, xix. 23-29). One of them only, Zoar or Bela, which was its original name, was spared at the request of Lot, in order that he might take refuge there. Of these Gomorrah seems to have beer only second to Sodom in importance, as well as ir, the wickedness that led to their overthrow. What that atrocity was may be gathered from Gen. xix, 4-8. Their miserable fate is held up as aw arning to the children of Israel (Deut. xxix. 23); as ¢ precedent for the destruction of Babylon (Is. xiii 19, and Jer. 1. 40), of Edom (Jer. xlix. 18), of} Moab (Zeph. ii. 9), and even of Israel (Am. iv, 11). By St. Peter in the N. T., and by St. Jude (2 Pet. ii. 6; Jude, vv. 4-7), it is made “an en- sample unto those that after should live ungodly,’ or “deny Christ.” Similarly their wickedness rings as a proverb throughout the prophecies (e. gy Deut. xxxii. 32; Is. i. 9, 10; Jer. xxiii. 14). Je, rusalem herself is there unequivocally called Sodom, 1 and her people Gomorrah, for their enormities; just in the same way that the corruptions of the Church of Rome have caused her to be called Babylon. Or the other hand, according to the N. T., there is a sin which exceeds even that of Sodom and Gomor- rah, that, namely, of which Tyre and Sidon, Ca- pernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida were guilty, when they “repented not,” in spite of “the mighty works’? which they had witnessed (Matt. x. 15); and St. Mark has ranged under the same category all those who would not receive the preaching of the Apostles (vi. 11). To turn to their geographical position, one pas: sage of Scripture seems expressly to assert that the vale of Siddim had become the « salt,” or dead, ‘sea’ (Gen. xiv. 3), called elsewhere i the «“ sea of the plain’’ (Josh. xii. 3); the expression, how-, i ever, occurs antecedently to their overthrow. Jo- sephus (Ant. i. 9) says that the lake Asphaltites or Dead Sea, was formed out of what used to be the valley where Sodom stood; but elsewhere he de clares that the territory of Sodom was not sub. merged in the lake (B. J. iv. 8, § 4), but stil existed parched and burnt up, as is the appearanet of that region still; and certainly nothing in cae , ghamara, is ture would lead to the idea that they were destroy: by submersion — though they may have been sub- merged afterwards when destroyed — for their de- struction is expressly attributed to the brimstone and fire rained upon them from heaven (Gen. xix, 24; see also Deut. xxix. 23, and Zeph. ii. 9; alsc St. Peter and St. Jude ie cited). ia St. Jerome in the Onomasticon says of Sodom, ‘ civitas — Josephus does not affirm that Sodom was in the y: of Siddim. He says that it lay near it; and his twe testimonies, quoted in the article above, are entirely consistent. 8. W. Rats: PoP Ee GOMORRHA impiorum divino igne consumpta juxta mare mor- tuum,” and so of the rest (ibid. s. v.). The whole subject is ably handled by Cellarius (ap. Uyol. Thesaur. vii. pp. decxxxix.—Ixxviii.), though it is not always necessary to agree with his conclusions. Among modern travellers, Dr. Robinson shows that the Jordax vould not have ever flowed into the gulf of ’Akabuh; on the contrary that the rivers of the desert themselves flow northwards into the Dead Sea. [ARABaH.] And this, added to the con- figuration and deep depression of the valley, serves in his opinion to prove that there must have been always a lake there, into which the Jordan flowed ; though he admits it to have been of far less extent than it now is, and even the whole southern part of it to have been added subsequently to the over- throw of the four cities, which stood, according to him, at the original south end of it, Zoar probably being situated in the mouth of Wudy Kerak, as it opens upon the isthmus of the peninsula. In the same plain, he remarks, were slime pits, or wells of bitumen (Gen. xiv. 10; ‘salt-pits’’ also, Zeph. ii. 9); while the enlargement of the lake he considers to have been caused by some convulsion or catas- trophe of nature connected with the miraculous destruction of the cities — volcanic agency, that of earthquakes and the like (Siv/. Res. ii. 187-192, 9d ed.). He might have adduced the great earth- guake at Lisbon as a case in point. The great ditference of level between the bottoms of the northern and southern ends of the lake, the former 1,300, the latter only 13 feet below the surface, sin- gularly confirms the above view (Stanley, S. ¢ P. p- 287, 2d ed.). Pilgrims of Palestine formerly saw, or fancied that they saw, ruins of towns at the bottom of the sea, not far from the shore (see Maundrell, Karly Travels, p. 454). M. de Sauley was the first to point out ruins along the shores (the Redjom-el-Mezorrhel; and more particularly -aptypos to our present subject, Goumran on the found, if found at all, upon the shore. N. W.). Both perhaps are right. Gomorrah (as its very name implies) may have been more or less submerged with the other three, subsequently to their destruction by fire; while the ruins of Zoar, inasmuch as it did not share their fate, would be (See gen- erally Mr. Isaac’s Dead Sea.) [Sopom, Amer. ed.] KE. 8. Ff. GOMOR’/RHA, the manner in which the name GOMORRAH is written in the A, V. of the Apocryphal books and the New Testament, follow- ing the Greek form of the word, Péuoppa (2 Esdr. ii. 8; Matt. x. 15; Mark vi. 11; Rom. ix. 29; Jude 7: 2 Pet. ii. 6). *GOODMAN OF THE HOUSE (oito- deardrys), employed in the A. V. of the master of the house (Matt. xx. 11), and simply equivalent to that expression, without any reference to moral | | [| —_ ‘character. This was a common usage when the A. VY. was made. The Greek term being the same, there was no good reason for saying ‘‘ goodman of the house”’ in that verse, and “ house holder’’ at _ the beginning of the parable (ver. 1). See Trench, Authorized Version, p. 96 (1859). H. GOPHER WOOD. Only once in Gen. vi. 14. The Hebrew 1D ‘EY, trees of Gopher, does “not occur in the cognate dialects. The A. V. has ‘made no attempt at translation: the LXX. (vA Tetpdywva) and Vulgate (ligna levigata), elicited _ by metathesis of 7 and F) (ID{—F)79), the for- GORTYNA 939 mer having reference to square blocks, cut by the axe, the latter to planks smoothed by the plane, have not found much favor with modern commen- tators. The conjectures of cedar (Aben Ezra, Onk. Jonath. and Rabbins generally), wood most proper to float (Kimchi), the Greek kedpeAaTn (Jun Tremell.; Buxt.), pine (Avenar.; Munst.), tur- pentine (Castalio), are little better than gratuitous. The rendering cedar has been defended by Pelletier, who refers to the great abundance of this tree in Asia, and the durability of its timber. The Mohammedan equivalent is svg, by which Herbelot understands the Indian plane-tree. Two principal conjectures, however, have been proposed : (1.) By Is. Vossius (Diss. de LXX. Jnterp. ¢. 12) ° { that TDA = D5, resin; whence 2 *EY, meaning any trees of the resinous kind, such as pine, fir, etc. (2.) By Fuller (Jiscell. Sac. iv. 5), Bochart (Phaleg, i. 4), Celsius (Hierobot. pt. i. p. 328), Hasse (nideckungen, pt. ii. p. 78), that Gopher is cypress, in favor of which opinion (adopted by Gesen. Lex.) they adduce the similarity in sound of gopher and cypress (xcumap=-yopep); the suit- ability of the cypress for ship-building; and the fact that this tree abounded in Babylonia, and more particularly in Adiabene, where it supplied Alex- ander with timber for a whole fleet (Arrian. vii. p. 161, ed. Steph.). A tradition is mentioned in Eutychius (Annals, p. 34) to the effect that the Ark was made of the wood Sadj, by which is probably meant not the ebony, but the Juniperus Sabina, a species of cy- press (Bochart and Cels.; Rosenm. Schol. ad Gen. vi. 14, and Alterthumsk. vol. iv. pj.1). T. E. B. GOR/GIAS (Lopylas; [Alex. 1 Mace. iii. 38, 2 Mace. xii. 35, 37, Topyetas} 1 Mace. iv. d, Kop- yios |), a general in the service of Antiochus Epi- phanes (1 Mace. iii. 38, avyp duvards Tav pidwy tov BaciAéws; cf. 2 Mace. viii. 9), who was ap- pointed by his regent Lysias to a command in the expedition against Judza B. C. 166, in which he was defeated by Judas Maccabzeus with great loss (1 Mace. iv. 1 ff). Ata later time (B. c. 164) he held a garrison in Jamnia, and defeated the forces of Joseph and Azarias, who attacked him contrary to the orders of Judas (1 Mace. v. 56 ff.; Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, § 6; 2 Mace. xii. 32). The account of Gorgias in 2 Macc. is very obscure. He is represented there as acting in a military capacity (2 Mace. x. 14, orpatrnyds trav tTémwy (2), hardly of Coele-Syria, as Grimm (/. c.) takes it), apparently in concert with the Idumeans; and afterwards he is described, according to the present text as, “governor of Idumza’’ (2 Mace. xii. 32), though it is possible (Giotius, Grimm, /. c.) that the reading is an error for “governor of Jamnia”’ (Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, § 6, 6 Tis "lauvelas orparn- yds). The hostility of the Jews towards him is described in strong terms (2 Macc. xii. 35, roy kaTdaparov, A. V. “that cursed man’’); ard while his success is only noticed in passing, his defeat and flight are given in detail, though confusedly (2 Mace. xii. 34-38; cf. Joseph. /. c.). The name itself was borne by one of Alexander’s generals, and occurs at later times among the east- ern Greeks. B. F. W. GORTY’NA (Pépruvan [Tdépruva in | Mace.], in classical writers, Pépruva or Toprvv: [ Gortyna]), a city of Crete, and in ancient times its most im- 940 GOSHEN portant city, next to Cnossus. Biblical interest of Gortyna is in the fact that it appears from 1 Macc. xv. 23 to have contained Jewish residents. [CRETE.] The circumstance alluded to in this passage took place in the reign of Ptolemy Physcon; and it is possible that the Jews had increased in Crete during the reign of his predecessor Ptolemy Philometor, who received many of them into Egypt, and who also rebuilt some parts of Gortyna (Strab. x. p. 478). This city was nearly half-way between the eastern and western extremities of the island; and it is worth while to notice that it was near Fair Havens; so that St. Paul may possibly have preached the gos- pel there, when on his voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii. 8,9). Gortyna seems to have been the capital of the island under the Romans. For the remains on the old site and in the neighborhood, see the Mu- seum of Classical Antiquities, ii. 277-286. J. S. H. GO’/SHEN (JWwa: Tecéu; [Gen. xlvi. 29, ‘Hp@wy méris; for ver. 28 see below:] Gessen), a word of uncertain etymology, the name of a part of Egypt where the Israelites dwelt for the whole period of their sojourn in that country. It is usually called the “land of Goshen,” wa Vo8, but also Goshen simply. It appears to have borne another name, “the land of Rameses,” YS DOMY 7 (Gen. xlvii. 11), unless this be the name of a district of Goshen. The first mention of Go- shen is in Joseph’s message to his father: “Thou shalt dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt be near unto me (Gen. xlvy. 10). This shows that the territory was near the usual royal residence or the residence of Joseph’s Pharaoh. The dynasty to which we assign this king, the fifteenth [Eayrr; JOSEPH], appears to have resided part of the year at Memphis, and part of the year, at harvest-time, at Avaris on the Bubastite or Pelusiac branch of the Nile: this, Manetho tells us, was the custom of the first king (Joseph. c. Apion. i. 14). In the account of the arrival of Jacob it is said of the patriarch: “He sent Judah before him unto Joseph, to direct his face unto Goshen; and they came into the land of Goshen. And Joseph made ready his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his father, to Goshen ”’ (Gen. xlvi. 28, 29). This land was therefore be- tween Joseph’s residence at the time and the frontier of Palestine, and apparently the extreme province towards that frontier. The advice that Joseph gave his brethren as to their conduct to Pharaoh further characterizes the territory: “* When Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What [is] your occu- pation ? ‘Then ye shall say, Thy servants have been herdsmen of cattle (FI37 SDs) from our youth even until now, both we [and] also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd QGNz TTY) [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians’’ (xlvi. 33, 34). It is remarkable that in Coptic GYWC signifies both “a shepherd ” and “disgrace ’’ and the like (Rosellini, Monumenti Storici, i. 177). This passage shows that Goshen was scarcely regarded as a part of Egypt Proper, and was not peopled by Egyptians — characteristics that would positively indicate a frontier province. But it is not to be inferred that Goshen had no Kgyptian inhabitants at this period: at the time of the ten plagues such are distinctly mentioned. | Biblical evidence are that the land of Goshen lay’ The only direct | That there was, moreover, GOSHEN a foreign population be sides the Israelites, seems evident from the accoun of the calamity of Ephraim’s house [BERIAH] and the mention of the 27 AY who went out a the Exodus (Ex. xii. 38), notices referring to th earlier and the later period of the sojourn. Th! name Goshen itself appears to be Hebrew, or Semiti) —although we do not venture with Jerome to de. rive it from EWA — for it also occurs as the nam) of a district and of a town in the south of Pales. tine (infra, 2), where we could scarcely expect wl appellation of Egyptian origin unless given afte! the Exodus, which in this case does not seem likely, It is also noticeable that some of the names of places in Goshen or its neighborhood, as certainh, Migdol and Baal-zephon, are Semitic [BaAL-zE , PHON], the only positive exceptions being the citie, Pithom and Rameses, built during the oppression) The next mention of Goshen confirms the previou inference that its position was between Canaan anc the Delta (Gen. xlvii. 1). The nature of thi country is indicated more clearly than in the pas) sage last quoted in the answer of Pharaoh to thi request of Joseph’s brethren, and in the account of| their settling: “And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph’ saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unt( thee: the land of Egypt [is] before thee; in thi best of the land make thy father and brethren tc dwell: in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and. if thou knowest [any] men of activity among them| then make them rulers over my cattle. . . . An¢) Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the i of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaot had commanded ”’ (Gen. xlvii. 5, 6, 11). fe | i was thus a pastoral country where some of Pha- raoh’s cattle were kept. The expression “in the best of the land,” Vaso AMON? (ev rH Ber tion ‘yi, 1m optimo loco), must, we think, be rel- ative, the best of the land for a pastoral people (although we do not accept Michaelis’ reading Sys ‘“ pastures ’’ by comparison with (ys glo 9.0, Suppl. p- 1072; see Gesen. Thes.s. vy. DO'S), for in the matter of fertility the richest parts of Egypt are those nearest to the Nile, a position which, as will be seen, we cannot assign to Goshen. The suf-| ficiency of this tract for the Israelites, their pros- perity there, and their virtual separation, as is evident from the account of the plagues, from the great body of the Egyptians, must also be borne in’ mind. The clearest indications of the exact position of Goshen are those afforded by the narrative of | the Exodus. ‘The Israelites set out from the town) of Rameses in the land of Goshen, made two days’ journey to “the edge of the wilderness,” and in one! day more reached the Red Sea. At the starting- point two routes lay before them, ‘the way of the land of the Philistines . . . that [was] near,’’ and. ““the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea”? (Ex. xiii. 17, 18). From these indications we infer that the land of Goshen must have in part been near) the eastern side of the ancient Delta, Rameses ly-” ing within the valley now called the Wadi-t- Tumey-| lat, about thirty miles in a direct course from the) ancient western shore of the Arabian Gulf [Ex ODUS, THE]. 4 The results of the foregoing examination of oe { j } i J GOSHEN yetween the eastern part of the ancient Delta and 4e western border of Palestine, that it was scarcely part of Egypt Proper, was inhabited by other »reigners besides the Israelites, and was in its ‘eographical names rather Semitic than Egyptian ; ‘yat it was a pasture-land, especially suited to a ‘nepherd-people, and sufficient for the Israelites, ho there prospered, and were separate from the ain body of the Egyptians; and lastly, that one f its towns lay near the western extremity of the \Vadi-t-Tumeylat. These indications, except only ‘Aat of sufficiency, to be afterwards considered, seem 5 us decisively to indicate the Wadi-t- Tumeylat, he valley along which anciently flowed the canal f the Red Sea. Other identifications seem to us > be utterly untenable. If with Lepsius we place toshen below Heliopolis, near Bubastis and Bil- eys, the distance from the Red Sea of three days’ ourney of the Israelites, and the separate character f the country, are violently set aside. If we con- ider it the same as the Bucolia, we have either the ame difficulty as to the distance, or we must imagine route almost wholly through the wilderness, in- tead of only for the last third or less of its distance. Having thus concluded that the land of Goshen _ppears to have corresponded to the Wadi-t- Tumey- it, we have to consider whether the extent of this act would be sufficient for the sustenance of the sraelites. The superficial extent of the Wadi-t- Tumeylat, if we include the whole cultivable part f the natural valley, which may somewhat exceed at of the tract bearing this appellation, is prob- bly under 60 square geographical miles. If we \ppose the entire Israelite population at the time f the Exodus to have been 1,800,000, and the vhole population, including Egyptians and foreign- its other than the Israelites, about 2,000,000, this ould give no less than between 30,000 and 40,000 ahabitants to the square mile, which would be falf as dense as the ordinary population of an astern city. It must be remembered, however, ‘at we need not suppose the Israelites to have ins limited to the valley for pasture, but like the abs to have led their flocks into fertile tracts of ae deserts around, and that we have taken for our stimate an extreme sum, that of the people at the yxodus. Tor the greater part of the sojourn their jumbers must have been far lower, and before the \xodus they seem to have been partly spread about ae territory of the oppressor, although collected at tameses at the time of their departure. One very arge place, like the Shepherd-stronghold of Avaris, which Manetho relates to have had at the first a jarrison of 240,000 men, would also greatly dimin- & the disproportion of population to superficies. vhe yery small superficial extent of Egypt in rela- slon to the population necessary to the construction ‘fthe vast monuments, and the maintenance of the /reat armies of the Pharaohs, requires a different ‘Toportion to that of other countries — a condition vally explained by the extraordinary fertility of the joil. Even now, when the population is almost at ‘he lowest point it has reached in history, when vil- ‘ages have replaced towns, and hamulets villages, it is (till denser than that of our rich and thickly-pop- ated Yorkshire. We do not think, therefore, that -he small superficies presents any serious difficulty. ' Thus far we have reasoned alone on the evidence f the Hebrew text. The LXX. version, however, ‘resents some curious evidence which must not be yassed by unnoticed. he testimony of this ver- lon in any Egyptian matter is not to be disre- GOSPELS 941 garded, although in this particular case too much stress should not be laid on it, since the tradition of Goshen and its inhabitants must hay2 become very faint among the Egyptians at the t'me when the Pentateuch was translated, and we have no warrant for attributing to the translator or trans- lators any more than a general and popular knowl- edge of Egyptian matters. In Gen. xlv. 10, for wa the LXX. has Teoéu ’ApaBias. The ex- planatory word may be understood either as mean- ing that Goshen lay in the region of Lower Egypt to the east of the Delta, or else as indicating that the Arabian Nome was partly or wholly the same. In the latter case it must be remembered that the Nomes very anciently were far more extensive than under the Ptolemies. On either supposition the passage is favorable to our identification. In Gen. xlyi. 28, instead of WA TTS, the LXX. ‘has Kad’ “Hpdwy modu, ev yh ‘Payecos (or els yhv ‘Pauecoy), seemingly identifying Rameses with Herodpolis. It is scarcely possible to fix the site of the latter town, but there is no doubt that it lay in the valley not far from the ancient head of the Arabian Gulf. Its position is too near the gulf for the Rameses of Scripture, and it was probably chosen merely because at the time when the trans- lation was made it was the chief place of the terri- tory where the Israelites had been. It must be noted, however, that in Ex. i. 11, the LXX., fol- lowed by the Coptic, reads, instead of “ Pithom and Raamses,” rhy re Te10é, kal ‘Paweoon, rat “Qv, # eorw ‘HAwovmoArs. Eusebius identifies Rameses with Avaris, the Shepherd-stronghold on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile (ap. Cramer, Anecd. Paris, ii. p. 174). The evidence of the LXX. version therefore lends a general support to the theory we have advocated. [See Exopus, THE. | R. 8. P a (Qwa: Toodu: [Gosen; Josh. x. 41, in Vulg. ed. 1590,] Gessen, [ed. 1593,] Gozen) the “land” or the “country (both YTS) of Goshen,” is twice named as a district in Southern Palestine (Josh. x. 41, xi. 16). From the first of these it would seem to have lain between Gaza and Gibeon, and therefore to be some part of the maritime plain of Judah; but in the latter passage, that plain — the Shefelah, is expressly specified in addition to Goshen (here with the article). In this place too the situation of Goshen — if the order of the state- ment be any indication — would séem to be between the “south”? and the Shefelah (A. V. “valley ’’). If Goshen was any portion of this rich plain, is it not possible that its fertility may have suggested the name to the Israelites? but this is not more than mere conjecture. On the other hand the name may be far older, and may retain a trace of early intercourse between Egypt and the south of the promised land. For such intercourse comp. 1 Chr. vii. 21. 3. (Toco: Gosen.] A town of the same name is once mentioned in company with Debir, Socoh, and others, as in the mountains of Judah (Josh. xv. 51). here is nothing to connect this place with the district last spoken of. It has not yet been identified. G. GOSPELS. The name Gospel (from god and spell, Ang. Sax. good message or news, which is a translation of the Greek evayyéArov) is applied to the four inspired histories of the life and teaching 942 GOSPELS of Christ contained in the New Testament, of which } teristic strain of metaphor as “ the [four] elemen: separate accounts will be given in their place. (MarrHew; Mark; Luxe; Jonn.] It may be fairly said that the genuineness of these four nar- ratives rests upon better evidence than that of any other ancient writings. They were all composed during the latter half of the first- century: those of St. Matthew and St. Mark some years before the destruction of Jerusalem; that of St. Luke probably about A. p. 64; and that of St. John towards the close of the century. Before the end of the second century, there is abundant evidence that the four Gospels, as one collection, were gen- erally used and accepted. Irenzeus, who suffered martyrdom about. A. D. 202, the disciple of Poly- carp and Papias, who, from having been in Asia, in Gaul, and in Rome, had ample means of know- ing the belief of various churches, says that the authority of the four Gospels was so far confirmed that even the heretics of his time could not reject them, but were obliged to attempt to prove their tenets out of one or other of them (Contr. Her. iii. 11, § 7). Tertullian, in a work written about A.D. 208, mentions the four Gospels, two of them as the work of Apostles, and two as that of the disciples of Apostles (apostolici); and rests their authority on their apostolic origin (Adv. Marcon. lib. iv. ec. 2). Origen, who was born about A. D. 185, and died A. D. 253, describes the Gospels in a charac- a * Theophilus does not use the term ‘ Evangelists,” but speaks of ‘ the Prophets” of the Old Testament and “the Gospels” as alike divinely inspired (Ad Autol. lib. iii. c. 12, p. 218, ed. Otto), and expressly names John as among those ‘ moved by the Spirit,” quoting John i. 1 (zbtd. ii. 22, p. 120). After citing a passage from the Book of Proverbs on the duty of chastity, he says, ‘ But the Evangelic voice teaches purity yet more imperatively,” quoting Matt. vy. 28, 82 (wbid. iii. 18). Further on, he introduces a quotation from Matthew with the expression, ‘ The Gospel says ” (ibid. iii. 14). Among the writers who bear testimony to the gen- eral reception of the Gospels by Christians before the close of the second century, Clement might well have been mentioned, who succeeded Pantzenus as president of the celebrated Catechetical School at Alexandria about A. D. 190, and was one of the most learned men of his age. His citations from all the Gospels as authoritative are not only most abundant, but he ex- pressly speaks of “the four Gospels which have been handed down to us,” in contrast with an obscure apocryphal book, ‘ The Gospel according to the Egyp- tians,” used by certain heretics (Strom. iii. 18, Opp. p- 558, ed. Potter). A. 6 * The Muratorian fragment expressly designates the Gospels of Luke and John as the “ third” and “fourth ’’ in order; and the imperfect sentence with which it begins applies to Mark. A note of time in the document itself appears to indicate that it was composed not far from 4. D. 170, perhaps earlier ; but the question of the date is not wholly free from diffi- culty. Recent critical editions and discussions of this interesting relic of Christian antiquity may be found in Credner’s Gesch. des Neutest. Kanon, herausg. von Volkmar (Berl. 1860), pp. 141-170, 841-864; Hilgen- feld’s Der Kanon 1. die Kritik des N. T. (Halle, 1868), pp- 89-48 ; and Westcott’s Hist. of the Canon of the N. T., 2d ed. (Lond. 1866), pp. 184-198, 466-480. The statements that follow in the text in regard to early citations from the Gospels require some modifica- tion. The earliest formal quotation from any of the Gospels appears to be found in the epistle ascribed to Barnabas (see BARNABAS), Where the saying “t Many are called, but few chosen” is introduced by ws yéyparra., as it is written ’ (Barnab. c. 4; Matt. xxii. 14). With | Apostles ”’ GOSPELS of the Church’s faith, of which the whole work reconciled to God in Christ, is composed” ( Johan. [tom. i. § 6]). Elsewhere, in commentin| on the opening words of St. Luke, he draws a lit between the inspired Gospels and such productior as “the Gospel according to the Egyptians,” « tt Gospel of the ‘T'welve,” and the like (Jomil. 4 Luc., Opp. iii. 982 f.). Although Theophilus, wh hevamne sixth (seventh?) bishop of Antioch abil A. D. 168, speaks only of “ the Evangelists,” wit] out adding their names (Ad Autol. iii. pp. 124, 125) we might fairly conclude with Gieseler that | refers to the collection of four, already known ij his time.¢ But from Jerome we know that Thé ophilus arranged the records of the four Evangelist into one work | (Epist. ad Algas. iv. p. 197). Tatiar! who died about A. D. 170 (?), compiled a Diate, saron, or Harmony of the Gospels. The Muratoria| fragment (Muratori, Antiq. /t. iii. p. 854; Routl Rel. Sacr. vol. iv. [vol. i. ed. alt.]), which, even jj it be not by Caius and of the second century, is ¢ least a very old monument of the Roman Churell describes the Gospels of Luke and John; but tim and carelessness seem to have destroyed the ser tences relating to Matthew and Mark. Anothe source of evidence is open to us, in the citation from the Gospels found in the earliest writers. Bai nabas, Clemens Romanus, and Polycarp, quote pas this exception, there is no express reference to an written Gospel in the remains of the so-called Aposto ical Fathers. Clement of Rome ( Epist. ec. 18, 46) an Polycarp (Epist. cc. 2, 7), using the expression, ° Th Lord said,’ or its equivalent, quote sayings of Chris in a form Minteeitie in essential meaning, but not vel bally, with passages in Matthew and Luke; excey that in Polycarp two short sentences, “ Judge no. that ye be not judged,’’ and “ The spirit indeed } willing, but the fiesh is weak,” are given precisely a we have them in Matthew. ‘he epistles attribute to Ignatius have a considerable number of expression which appear to imply an acquaintance with words o Co} Christ preserved by Matthew and John ; but they cor tain no formal quotation of the Gospels : ; and the ur certainty respecting both the authorship and the tex of these epistles is such as to make it unsafe to res any argument on them. In regard to the Apostolica Fathers in general, it is obvious that the words 0 Jesus and the facts in his history which they hay recorded may have been derived by them from ora tradition. Their writings serve to confirm the trutl of the Gospels, but cannot be appealed to as affordin, direct proof of their genuineness. | When we come to Justin Martyr, however, we stan on firmer ground. He, indeed, does not name th Evangelists ; and it cannot ‘be sald that “ many of hi quotations are found verbatim in the Gospel of John.’ His quotations, however, from the *t Memoirs of th Apostles,’ or “ Memoirs composed by the Apostles which are called Gospels” (Apol. i. c. 66), or as he de scribes them in one place more particularly, * Memoir composed by Apostles of Christ and their companions’ (Dial. c. Tryph. ce. 108), are such as to leave no reason able doubt of his use of the first three Gospels ; an his use of the fourth Gospel, though contested by mos of the critics of the Tiibingen school, is now concede even by Hilgenfeld (Zettschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1865, p 836). The subject of Justin Martyr’s quotations is dis cussed in a masterly manner by Mr. Norton in hii Genuineness of the Gospels, i. 200-239, and with fulle detail by Semisch, Die apostol. Denkwiirdigkeiten de Martyrers Justine (Hamb. 1848), and Westcott (Histor, of the Canon. of the N. T., 2a ed., pp. 88-145). I must not be forgotten that the “Memoirs of thi used by Justin Martyr were sacre] books GOSPELS sages from them, but not with verbal exactness. The testimony of Justin Martyr (born about a. D. 99, martyred A. D. 165) is much fuller; many of his quotations are found verbatim in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, and possibly of St. Mark also, whose words it is more difficult to separate. The quotations from St. Matthew are the most numerous. In historical references, the mode of quotation is more free, and the narrative oceasionally unites those of Matthew-and Luke: in a very few cases he alludes to matters not mentioned in the canonical Gospels. Besides these, St. Mat- thew appears to be quoted by the anthor of the Epistle to Diognetus, by Hegesippus, Irenzeus, 'Ta- tian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus. Eusebius re- cords that Pantzenus found in India (? the south of Arabia ?) Christians who used the Gospel of St. Matthew. All this shows that long before the end of the second century the Gospel of St. Matthew was in general use. From the fact that St. Mark’s Gospel has few places peculiar to it, it is more difficult to identify citations not expressly assigned to him; but Justin Martyr and Athenagoras appear to quote his Gospel, and Irenzeus does so by name. St. Luke is quoted by Justin, Irenzus, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus; and St. John by all of these, with the addition of Ignatius, the Epistle to Diognetus, and Polycrates. Irom these we may conclude that before the end of the second century the Gospel collection was well known and in general use. ‘There is yet another line of evidence. The heretical sects, as well as the Fathers of the Church, knew the Gospels; and as there was the greatest hostility between them, if the Gospels had become known in the Church afte the dissension arose, the heretics would never have accepted them as genuine from such a quarter. But the Gnostics and Marcionites arose early in the second century ; and therefore it is probable that the Gospels were then accepted, and thus they are traced back almost to the times of the Apostles (Olshausen). Upon a review of all the witnesses, from the Apostolic Fathers down to the Canon of the Laodicean Council read in the churches on the Lord’s day, in connection with the Prophets of the Old Testament (Justin, Apol. i. c. 67). The supposition that in the interval of 25 or 30 years between the time of Justin and Irenzeus these books disappeared, and a wholly different set was Silently substituted in their place throughout the Christian world, is utterly incredible. The ‘t Memoirs ”’ therefore of which Justin speaks must have been our present Gospels. The importance of the subject will justify the inser- tion of the following remarks of Mr. Norton on the peculiar nature of the evidence for the genuineness of the Gospels. He observes: “ The mode of reasoning by which we may establish the genuineness of the Gospels has been regarded as much more analogous than it is to that by which we prove historically the genuineness of other ancient books; that is to say, through the mention of their titles and authors, and quotations from and notices of them, in individual, unconnected writers. This mode of reasoning is, in its nature, satisfactory ; and would be so in its application to the Gospels, if the question of their genuineness did not involve the most moment- ous of all questions in the history of our race, — whether Christianity be a special manifestation of God's love toward man, or only the most remarkable devel- opment of those tendencies to fanaticism which exist in human nature. Reasoning in the manner supposed, we find their genuineness unequivocally asserted by Trenzeus } we may satisfy ourselves that they were teceived as genuine by Justin Martyr; we find the GOSPELS 943 in 364, and that of the third Council of Carthage in 397, in both of which the four Gospels are num- bered in the Canon of Scripture, there can hardly be room for any candid person to doubt that from the first the four Gospels were recognized as genuine and as inspired; that a sharp line of distinction was drawn between them and the so-called apocryphal Gospels, of which the number was very great; that, from the citations of passages, the Gospels bearing these four names were the same as those which we possess in our Bibles under the same names; that unbelievers, like Celsus, did not deny the genuine- ness of the Gospels, even when rejecting their con- tents; and, lastly, that heretics thought it necessary to plead some kind of sanction out of the Gospels for their doctrines: nor could they venture on the easier path of an entire rejection, because the Gospels were everywhere known to be genuine. As a matter of literary history, nothing can be better established than the genuineness of the Gospels; and if in these latest times they have been assailed, it is plain that theological doubts have been con- cerned in the attack. The authority of the books has been denied from a wish to set aside their contents. Out of a mass of authorities the following may be selected: Norton, On the Genuineness of the Gospels, 2 vols. London, 1847, 2d ed. [3 vols. Cambridge and Boston, 1846-48]; Kirchhofer, Quellensamm- - lung zur Geschichte des N. T. Canons, Ziirich, 1844; De Wette, Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einlei- tung, ete., 5th ed., Berlin, 1852 [translated by F. Frothingham, Boston, 1858; 6th ed. of the original, by Messner and Liinemann, Berl. 1860]; Hug’s Linleitung, ete., Fosdick’s [American] translation, with Stuart’s Notes [Andover, 1836]; Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar, Introduction, and his Echtheit der vier canon. Evangelien, 1823; Jer. Jones, Method of settling the Canonical Authority of the N. T., Oxford, 1798, 2 vols.; F. C. Baur, Krit. Untersuchungen iiber die kanon. Evangelien, Tiibingen, 1847; Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften N. T. [4th ed., Braunschweig, 1864] ; Dean Alford’s Greek Testament, Prolegomena, vol. Gospels of Matthew and Mark mentioned in the be- ginning of the second century by Papias ; and to the genuineness of St. Luke’s Gospel we have his own attestation in the Acts of the Apostles. Confining ourselves to this narrow mode of proof, we arrive at what in a common case would be a satisfactory con- clusion. But when we endeavor to strengthen this evidence by appealing to the writings ascribed to Apostolical Fathers, we in fact weaken its force. At the very extremity of the chain of evidence, where it ought to be strongest, we are attaching defective links which will bear no weight. But the direct historical evidence for the genuine ness of the Gospels . . . is of a very different kinu. from what we have just been considering. It consists in the indisputable fact, that throughout a community of millions of individuals, scattered over Europe, Asia, and Africa, the Gospels were regarded with the highest reverence, as the works of those to whom they are ascribed, at so early a period that there could be no difficulty in determining whether they were genuine or not, and when every intelligent Christian must have been deeply interested to ascertain the truth. And this fact does not merely involve the testimony of the great body of Christians to the genuineness of the Gospels ; it is itself a phenomenon admitting of no explanation, except that the four Gospels had all been handed down as genuine from the Apostolic age, and had every where accompanied our religion as it spread through the world.” (Genuineness of the Gospels vol. i. Additional Notes, p. cclxix. f.) A 944 - GOSPELS i.; Rev. B. F. Westcott’s History of N. T. Canon, London, 1859 [2d ed. 1866]; Gieseler, Historisch- kritischer Versuch tiber die Enstehung, §c., der schrifilichen Evangelien, Leipzig, 1818. [For vther works on the subject, see the addition to this article. | On comparing these four books one with another, a peculiar difficulty claims attention, which has had much to do with the controversy as to their genuine- ness. In the fourth Gospel the narrative coincides with that of the other three in a few passages only. Putting aside the account of the Passion, there are only three facts which John relates in common with the other Evangelists. Two of these are, the feed- ing of the five thousand, and the storm on the Sea of Galilee (ch. vi.), which appear to be introduced in connection with the discourse that arose out of the miracle, related by John alone. ‘The third is the anointing of His feet by Mary; and it is worthy of notice that the narrative of John recalls some- thing of each of the other three: the actions of the woman are drawn from Luke, the ointment and its value are described in Mark, and the admonition to Judas appears in Matthew; and John combines in his narrative all these particulars. Whilst the three present the life of Jesus in Galilee, John fol- lows him into Judea; nor should we know, but for him, that our Lord had journeyed to Jerusalem at the prescribed feasts. Only one discourse of our Lord that was delivered in Galilee, that in the 6th chapter, is recorded by John. The disciple whom Jesus loved had it put into his mind to write a Gospel which should more expressly than the others set forth Jesus as the Incarnate Word of God: if he also had in view the beginnings of the errors of Cerinthus and others before him at the time, as Irenzeus and Jerome assert, the polemical purpose is quite subordinate to the dogmatic. He does not war against a temporary error, but preaches for all time that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, in order that believing we may have life through His name. Now many of the facts omitted by St. John and recorded by the rest are such as would have contributed most directly to this great design; why then are they omitted? The received explanation is the only satisfactory one, namely, that John, writing last, at the close of the first century, had seen the other Gospels, and purposely abstained from writing anew what they had sufficiently re- corded. [JoHN.] In the other three Gospels there is a great amount of agreement. If we suppose the history that they contain to be divided into sections, in 42 of these all the three narratives coincide, 12 more are given by Matthew and Mark only, 5 by Mark and Luke only, and-14 by Matthew and Luke. To these must be added 5 peculiar to Matthew, 2 to Mark, and 9 to Luke; and the enumeration is complete. But this applies only to general coineidence as to the facts narrated: the amount of verbal coinci- dence, that is, the passages either verbally the same, or coinciding in the use of many of the same words, is much smaller. “By far the larger portion,” says Professor Andrews Norton (Genuwineness, i. p. 240, 2d ed. [Addit. Notes, p. evii. f., Amer. ed.]), ‘of this verbal agreement is found in the recital of the words of others, and particularly of the words of Jesus. ‘Thus, in Matthew’s Gospel, the passages verbally coincident with one or both of the other two Gospels amount to less than a sixth part of its contents; and of this about seven eighths occur in the recital of the words of others, and only about > GOSPELS one eighth in what, by way of distinction, I may call mere narrative, in which the Evangelist, speak- ing in his own person, was unrestrained in the choice of his expressions. In Mark, the proportion of coincident passages to the whole contents of the Gospel is about one sixth, of which not one fifth | occurs in the narrative. Luke has still less agree- ment of expression with the other Evangelists. | The passages in which it is found amount only to, about a tenth part of his Gospel; and but an in-_ considerable portion of it appears in the narrative —less than a twentieth part. These proportions ] should be further compared with those which the | narrative part of each Gospel bears to that in which the words of others are professedly repeated. Mat- | thew’s narrative occupies about one fourth of his | Gospel; Mark’s about one half, and Luke’s about one third. It may easily be computed, therefore, that the proportion of verbal coincidence found in the nar- rative part of each Gospel, compared with what ex- ists in the other part, is about in the following | ratios: in Matthew as one to somewhat more than | two, in Mark as one to four, and in Luke as one to | ten.” Without going minutely into the examination | of examples, which would be desirable if space per- : mitted, the leading facts connected with the sub- | ject may be thus summed up: The verbal and | material agreement of the three first Evangelists is | such as does not occur in any other authors who | have written independently of one another. The | verbal agreement is greater where the spoken words | of others are cited than where facts are recorded; and greatest in quotations of the words of our Lord. | But in some leading events, as in the call of the four first disciples, that of Matthew, and the Trans- | figuration, the agreement even in expression is _ remarkable: there are also narratives where there. is no verbal harmony in the outset, but only i in the | crisis or emphatic part of the story (Matt. viii. 83 =) Mark i. 41 = Luke y. 13, and Matt. xiv. 19, 20=, Mark vi. 41-43 = Luke ix. 16, 17). The narratives | of our Lord’s early life, as given by St. Matthew | and St. Luke, have little in common; while St. Mark does not include that part of the history in | his plan. The agreement in the narrative portions _ of the Gospels begins with the Baptism of John, and reaches its highest point in the account of the Passion of our Lord and the facts that preceded it; so that a direct ratio might almost be said to exist between the amount of agreement and the nearness of the facts related to the Passion. After this event, in the account of His burial and resurrection, the coincidences are few. The language of all three - is Greek, with Hebrew idioms: the Hebraisms are . most abundant in St. Mark, and fewest in St. Luke. In quotations from the Old Testament, the Evange- - lists, or two of them, sometimes exhibit a verbal agreement, although they differ from the Hebrew and from the Septuagint version (Matt. ili. 3 = - Mark i. 3= Luke iii. 4. Matt. iv. 10 = Luke iv. | 8. Matt. xi. 10 Mark i. 2= Luke vii. 27, &c.).) Except as to 24 verses, the Gospel of Mark con-_ tains no principal facts which are not found in Matthew and Luke; but he often supplies details omitted by them, and these are often such as would — belong to the graphic account of an eye-witness. There are no cases in which Matthew and Luke ~ exactly harmonize, where Mark does not also coin- cide with them. In several places the words of | Mark have something in common with each of the — other narratives, so as to form a connecting link GOSPELS yetween them, where their words slightly differ. [he examples of verbal agreement between Mark nd Luke are not so long or so numerous as those yetween Matthew and Luke, and Matthew and Mark; but as to the arrangement of events Mark ind Luke frequently coincide, where Matthew differs rom them. ‘These are the leading particulars; but hey are very far from giving a complete notion of , phenomenon that is well worthy of that attention ind reverent study of the sacred text by which lone it can be fully and fairly apprehended. These facts exhibit the three Gospels as three listinct records of the life and works of the Re- leemer, but with a greater amount of agreement han three wholly independent accounts could be xpected to exhibit. The agreement would be no lifficulty, without the differences; it would only nark the one divine source from which they are Il derived —the Holy Spirit, who spake by the ophets. The difference of form and style, with- ut the agreement, would offer no difficulty, since here may be a substantial harmony between ac- ounts that differ greatly in mode of expression, nd the very difference might be a guarantee of ndependence. ‘The harmony and the variety, the greement and the differences, form together the roblem with which Biblical critics have occupied hemselves for a century and a half. The attempts at a solution are so many, that hey can be more easily classified than enumerated. “he first and most obvious suggestion would be, hat the narrators made use of each other’s work. \ecordingly Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, and aany others, have endeavored to ascertain which rospel is to be regarded as the first; which is opied from the first; and which is the last, and opied from the other two. It is remarkable that ach of the six possible combinations has found dvocates; and this of itself proves the uncertainty f the theory (Bp. Marsh’s Michaelis, iii. p. 172; Je Wette, Handbuch, § 22 ff.) When we are told y men of research that the Gospel of St. Mark is lainly founded upon the other two, as Griesbach, biisching, and others assure us; and again, that ae Gospel of St. Mark is certainly the primitive tospel, on which the other two-are founded, as by Vilke, Bruno Bauer, and others, both sides relying iainly on facts that lie within the compass of the 2xt, we are not disposed to expect much fruit from qe discussion. But the theory in its crude form s in itself most improbable; and the wonder is qat so much time and learning have been devoted dit. It assumes that an Evangelist has taken up ae work of his predecessor, and without substantial iteration has made a few changes in form, a few dditions and retrenchments, and has then allowed ie whole to go forth under his name. Whatever tder of the three is adopted to favor the hypothesis, 1e omission by the second or third, of matter in- xrted by the first, offers a great difficulty; since it ‘ould indicate a tacit opinion that these passages te either less useful or of less authority than the st. The nature of the alterations is not such as ’e should expect to find in an age little given to terary composition, and in writings so simple and nlearned as these are admitted to be. ‘The re- lacement of a word by a synonym, neither more or less apt, the omission of a saying in one place ad insertion of it in another, the occasional trans- sition of events; these are not in conformity with te habits of a time in which composition was little ‘idied, and only practiced as a necessity. Besides, | 60 | : | GOSPELS 945 such deviations, which in writers wholly independ- ent of each other are only the guarantee of their independence, cannot appear in those who copy from each other, without showing a certain willful- ness —an intention to contradict and alter — that seems quite irreconcilable with any view of inspira- tion. These general objections will be found to take a still more cogent shape against any particular form of this hypothesis: whether it is attempted to show that the Gospel of St. Mark, as the shortest, is also the earliest and primitive Gospel, or that this very Gospel bears evident signs of being the latest, a compilation from the other two; or that the order in the canon of Scripture is also the chronological order — and all these views have found defenders at no distant date —the theory that each Evangelist only copied from his predeces- sor offers the same general features, a plausible argument from a few facts, which is met by in- superable difficulties as soon as the remaining facts are taken in (Gieseler, pp. 35, 36; Bp. Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. iii., part ii. p. 171 ff.). The supposition of a common original from which the three Gospels were drawn, each with more or less modification, would naturally occur to those who rejected the notion that the Evange- lists had copied from each other. A passage of Epiphanius has been often quoted in support of this (Heres. li. 6), but the é airiis THs mnyijs no doubt refers to the inspiring Spirit from which all three drew their authority, and not to any earthly copy, written or oral, of His divine mes- sage. The best notion of that class of specula- tions which would establish a written document as the common original of the three Gospels, will be gained perhaps from Bishop Marsh's (Michielis, vol. iii. part ii.) account of EKichhorn’s hypothesis, and of his own additions to it. It appeared to Eichhorn that the portions which are common to all the three Gospels were contained in a certain common document, from which they all drew. Niemeyer had already assumed that copies of such a document had got into circulation, and had been altered and annotated by different hands. Now Eichhorn tries to show, from an exact comparison of passages, that “the sections, whether great or small, which are common to St. Matthew and St. Mark, but not to St. Luke, and at the same time occupy places in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark which ecrrespond to each other, were ad- ditions made in the copies used by St. Matthew and St. Mark, but not in the copy used by St. Luke; and, in like manner, that the sections found in the corresponding places of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, but not contained in the Gos- pel of St. Matthew, were additions made in the copies used by St. Mark and St. Luke’’ (p. 192). Thus Eichhorn considers himself entitled to assume that he can reconstruct the original document, and also that there must have been four other docu- ments to account for the phenomena of the text. Thus he makes — 1. The original document. 2. An altered copy which St. Matthew used. 3. An altered copy which St. Luke used. 4. A third copy, made from the two preceding, used by St. Mark. 5. A fourth altered copy, used by St. Matthew and St. Luke in common. As there is no eaternal evidence worth consider- - ing that this original or any of its numerous copies ever existed, the value of this elaborate hypothesis 946 GOSPELS must depend upon its furnishing the only explana- tion, and that a sufficient one, of the facts of the text. Lishop Marsh, however, finds it necessary, in order to complete the account of the text, to raise the number of documents to eight, still with- out producing any external evidence for the exist- ence of any of them; and this, on one side, de- prives Eichhorn’s theory of the merit of complete- ness, and, on the other, presents a much broader surface to the obvious objections. He assumes the existence of — 1. A Hebrew original. 2. A Greek translation. 3. A transcript of No. 1, with alterations and additions. 4. Another, with another set of alterations and additions. 5. Another, combining both the preceding, used by St. Mark, who also used No. 2. 6. Another, with the alterations and additions of No. 8, and with further additions, used by St. Matthew. 7. Another, with those of No. 4 and further ad- ditions, used by St. Luke, who also used No. 2. 8. A wholly distinct Hebrew document, in which our Lord’s precepts, parables, and discourses were recorded, but not in chronological order; used both by St. Matthew and St. Luke. To this it is added, that ‘as the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke contain Greek translations of Hebrew materials, which were incorporated into St. Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel, the person who trans- lated St. Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel into Greek fre- quently derived assistance from the Gospel of St. Mark, where he had. matter in connection with St. Matthew: and in those places, but in those places only, where St. Mark had no matter in con- nection with St. Matthew, he had frequently re- course to St. Luke’s Gospel” (p. 861). One is hardly surprised after this to learn that Eichhorn soon after put forth a revised hypothesis (Lnleitung in das N. T. 1804), in which a supposed Greek translation of a supposed Aramaic original took a conspicuous part; nor that Hug was able to point out that even the most liberal assumption of written documents had not provided for one case, that of the verbal agreement of St. Mark and St. Luke, to the exclusion of St. Matthew; and which, though it is of rare occurrence, would require, on Eich- horn’s theory, an additional Greek version. It will be allowed that this elaborate hypothesis, whether in the form given it by Marsh or by Eich- horn, possesses almost every fault that can be charged against an argument of that kind. For every new class of facts a new document must be assumed to have existed; and Hug’s objection does not really weaken the theory, since the new class of coincidences he mentions only requires a new version of the ‘original Gospel,’ which can be supplied on demand. A theory so prolific in as- sumptions may still stand, if it can be proved that no other solution is possible; but since this cannot be shown, even as against the modified theory of Gratz (Newer Versuch, etc., 1812), then we are reminded of the schoolman’s caution, entia non sunt multiplicanda preter necessitatem. ‘To assume for every new class of facts the existence of another complete edition and recension of the original work is quite gratuitous; the documents might have been as easily supposed to be fragmentary memorials, wrought in by the Evangelists into the web of the original Gospel; or the coincidences might be, as | deep theological interest. We are offered here | oo if an ms * GOSPELS Gratz supposes, cases where one Gospel has be interpolated by pertions of another. ‘Then 4] “original Gospel’? is supposed to have been ¢ such authority as to be circulated everywhere: y| so defective, as to require annotation from ay hand; so little reverenced, that no hand spared j If all the Evangelists agreed to draw from such} work, it must have been widely if not universal! accepted in the Church; and yet there is no reco) of its existence. The force of this dilemma h) been felt by the supporters of the theory: if t] work was of high authority, it would have ber preserved, or at least mentioned; if of lower ai thority, it could not have become the basis of thr canonical Gospels: and various attempts have ber made to escape from it. Bertholdt tries to fi} traces of its existence in the titles of works oth than our present Gospels, which were current | the earliest ages; but Gieseler has so diminish the force of his arguments, that only one of the need here be mentioned. argues that a Gospel used by St. Paul, and trar mitted to the Christians in Pontus, was the bai| of Marcion’s Gospel; and assumes that it was al} the “ original Gospel: ”’ so that in the Gospel « Marcion there would be a transcript, though cc. rupted, of this primitive document. But there) no proof at all that St. Paul used any writt) Gospel; and as to that of Marcion, if the work | Hahn had not settled the question, the researel| of such writers as Volckmar, Zeller, Ritschl, a Hilgenfeld, are held to have proved that the ¢ opinion of Tertullian and Epiphanius is also t} true one, and that the so-called Gospel of Mareij was not an independent work, but an abridged w sion of St. Luke’s Gospel, altered by the heretic suit his peculiar tenets. (See Bertholdt, iii. 120 1223; Gieseler, p. 57; Weisse, Lvangelienfiay p. 73.) We must conclude then that the work I perished without record. Not only has this fa) befallen the Aramaic or Hebrew original, but t translation and the five or six recensions. But may well be asked whether the state of letters | Palestine at this time was such as to make tl) constant editing, translating, annotating, and € riching of a history a natural and probable proce) With the independence of the Jews their literatt had declined; from the time of Ezra and Nel miah, if a writer here and there arose, his wot became known, if at all, in Greek translatic) through the Alexandrine Jews. That the peri] of which we are speaking was for the Jews one | very little literary activity, is generally admitte) and if this applies to all classes of the people,| would be true of the humble and uneducated cl from which the first converts came (Acts iv. Jj James ii. 5). Even the second law (Sevrepacei| which grew up after the Captivity, and in whi! the knowledge of the learned class consisted, ¥ handed down by oral tradition, without being | duced to writing. he theory of Eichhorn is oy) probable amidst a people given to literary habi) and in a class of that people where education ¥) good and literary activity likely to prevail: 1 conditions here are the very reverse (see Giesele able argument, p. 59 ff). These are only a fj of the objections which may be raised, on criti] and historical grounds, against the theory of Ei horn and Marsh. } But it must not be forgotten that this quest reaches beyond history and criticism, and hag —_ ° * GOSPELS - & iginal Gospel composed by some unknown per- a; probably not an apostle, as Eichhorn admits, _his endeavor to account for the loss of the book. iis was translated by one equally unknown; and e various persons into whose hands the two docu- mts came, all equally unknown, exercised freely 2 power of altering and extending the materials us provided. Out of such unattested materials 2 three Evangelists composed their Gospels. So » as they allowed their materials to bind and ide them, so far their worth as independent wit- sses is lessened. But, according to Eichhorn, xy all felt bound to admit the whole of the origi- i document, so that it is possible to recover it m them by a simple process. As to all the pas- ses, then, in which this document is employed, is not the Evangelist, but an anonymous prede- sor to whom we are listening — not Matthew the sostle, and Mark the companion of apostles, and ke the beloved of the. Apostle Paul, are affording the strength of their testimony, but one witness ose name no one has thought fit to record. If, leed, all three Evangelists confined themselves to s document, this of itself would be a guarantee its fidelity and of the respect in which it was d; but no one seems to have taken it in hand 4% did not think himself entitled to amend it. rely serious people would have a right to ask, if critical objections were less decisive, with what w of inspiration such a hypothesis could be rec- ‘led. The internal evidence of the truth of: Gospel, in the harmonious and self-consistent resentation of the Person of Jesus, and in the mises and precepts which meet the innermost ds of a heart stricken with the consciousness of _ would still remain to us. But the wholesome fidence with which we now rely on the Gospels oure, true, and genuine histories of the life of us, composed by four independent witnesses in- ed for that work, would be taken away. Even testimony of the writers of the second century he universal acceptance of these books would be uidated, from their silence and ignorance about strange circumstances which are supposed to e affected their composition. BIBLIOGRAPHY. — The English student will find Bp. Marsh’s Translation of Michaelis’s Introd. N. T. iii. 2, 1803, an account of Eichhorn’s ier theory and of his own. Veysie’s Hxamina- of Mr. Marsh’s Hypothesis, 1808, has sug- ‘ed many of the objections. In Bp. Thirlwall’s mslation of Schleiermacher on St. Luke, 1825, ‘oduction, is an account of the whole question. er principal works are, an essay of Kichhorn, in ‘Oth yol. Allyemeine Bibliothek der biblischen watur, 1794; the Essay of Bp. Marsh, just ‘ed; Eichhorn, Linleitung in das N. T. 1804; tz, Neuer Versuch die Enstehung der drey en Evang. zu erkliren, 1812; Bertholdt, His- Avitische Einleitung in séimmtliche kanop. und % Schviften des A. und N. T., 1812-1819; ithe work of Gieseler, quoted above. See also Wette, Lehrbuch, and Westcott, Zntroduction, iy quoted; also Weisse, Lvangelienfrage, ie [For a fuller account of the literature of subject, see addition to the present article. | here is another supposition to account for these 4, of which perhaps Gieseler has been the most @expositor. It is probable that none of the sels was written until many years after the day fentecost, on which the Holy Spirit descended ‘he assembled disciples. From that day com- GOSPELS 947 menced at Jerusalem the work of preaching the Gospel and converting the world. So sedulous were the Apostles in this work that they divested themselves of the labor of ministering to the poor in order that they might give themselves “contin- ually to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts vi.). Prayer and preaching were the business of their lives. Now their preaching must have been, from the nature of the case, in great part historical; it must have been based upon an account of the life and acts of Jesus of Nazareth. They had been the eye-witnesses of a wondrous life, of acts and sufferings that had an influence over all the world: many of their hearers had never heard of Jesus, many others had received false accounts of one whom it suited the Jewish rulers to stigmatize as an impostor. The ministry of our Lord went on principally in Galilee; the first preaching was addressed to people in®Judxa. There was no writ- ten record to which the hearers might be referred for historical details, and therefore the preachers must furnish not only inferences from the life of our Lord, but the facts of the life itself. The preaching, then, must have been of such a kind as to be to the hearers what the reading of lessons from the Gospels is to us. So far as the records of apostolic preaching in the Acts of the Apostles 20, they confirm this view. Peter at Ceesarea, and Paul at Antioch, preach alike the facts of the Re- deemer’s life and death. There is no improbability in supposing that in the course of twenty or thirty years’ assiduous teaching, without a written Gos- pel, the matter of the apostolic preaching should have taken a settled form. Not only might the Apostles think it well that their own accounts should agree, as in substance so in form; but the teachers whom they sent forth, or left behind in the churches they visited, would have to be pre- pared for their mission; and, so long as there was no written Gospel to put into their hands, it might be desirable that the oral instruction should be as far as possible one and the same to all. It is by no means certain that the interval between the mission of the Comforter and his work of directing the writing of the first Gospel was so long as is here supposed: the date of the Hebrew St. Mat- thew may be earlier. [Marrnew.] But the ar- gument remains the same: the preaching of the Apostles would probably begin to take one settled form, if at all, during the first years of their min- istry. If it were allowed us to ask why God in his providence saw fit to defer the gift of a written Gospel to his people, the answer would be, that for the first few years the powerful working of the Holy Spirit in the living members of the church supplied the place of those records, which, as soon as the brightness of his presence began to be at all withdrawn, became indispensable in order to pre- vent the corruption of the Gospel history by false teachers. He was promised as one who should “teach them all things, and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsover ” the Lord had « said unto them’ (John xiv. 26). And more than once his aid is spoken of as needful, even for the proc~ lamation of the facts that relate to Christ (Acts i. 8; 1 Pet. i. 12); and he is described as a witness with the Apostles, rather than through them, of the things which they had seen during the course of a ministry which they had shared (John xv. 26, 27; Acts v. 32. Compare Acts xv. 28). The per- sonal authority of the Apostles as eye-witnesses of what they preached is not set aside by this divine 948 GOSPELS aid: again and again they describe themselves as «witnesses ” to facts (Acts ii. 82, iii. 15, x. 89, &.); and when a vacancy occurs in their number through the fall of Judas, it is almost assumed as a thing of course that his successor shall be chosen from those “which had companied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them’ (Acts i. 21). The teachings of the Holy Spirit consisted, not in whispering to them facts which they had not witnessed, but rather in re- viving the fading remembrance, and throwing out into their true importance events and sayings that had been esteemed too lightly at the time they took place. But the Apostles could not have spoken of the Spirit as they did (Acts v. 32, xv. 28) unless he were known to be working in nan with them and directing them, and manifesting that this was the case by unmistakable signs. Here is the answer, both td the question why was it not the first care of the Apostles to prepare a written Gospel, and also to the scruples of those who fear that the supposition of an oral Gospel would give a precedent for those views of tradition which have been the bane of the Christian church as they were of the Jewish. The guidance of the Holy Spirit supplied for a time such aid as made a written Gospel unnecessary; but the Apostles saw the dangers and errors which a traditional Gospel would be exposed to in the course of time; and, whilst they were still preaching the oral Gospel i in the strength of the Holy Ghost, they were admon- ished by the same divine Person to prepare those written records which were hereafter to be the daily spiritual food of all the church of Christ.¢ Nor is there anything unnatural in the supposition that the Apostles intentionally uttered their witness in the same order, and even, for the most part, in the same form of words. They would thus approach most nearly to the condition in which the church was to be when written books were to be the means of edification. They quote the scriptures of the Old Testament frequently in their discourses; and as their Jewish education had accustomed them to the use of the words of the Bible as well as the matter, they would do no violence to their prejudices in assimilating the new records to the old, and in reducing them to a“ form of sound words.”’ They were all Jews of Palestine, of humble origin, all alike chosen, we may suppose, for the loving zeal with which they would observe the works of their Master and afterwards propagate his name; so that the tendency to variance, arising from peculiarities of education, taste, and character, would be re- duced to its lowest in such a body. The language of their first preaching was the Syro-Chaldaic, which was a poor and scanty language; and though Greek was now widely spread, and was the language even of several places in Palestine (Josephus, Ant. xvii. 11, § 4; B. J. iii. 9, § 1), though it prevailed in Antioch, whence the first missions to Greeks and Hellenists, or Jews who spoke Greek, proceeded (Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1-3), the Greek tongue, as used by Jews, partook of the poverty of the speech which a, The opening words of St. Luke’s Gospel, ‘ Foras- much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most. surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, Which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,’ appear to mean that many persons who heard the preaching of the Apostles wrote down what they heard, in order to preserve it in a permanent form. The’ word ‘many’ cannot refer GOSPELS it replaced; as, indeed, it is impossible to bor a whole language without borrowing the habits thought upon ‘which it has built. itself. Wh modern taste aims at a variety of expression, ; abhors a repetition of the same phrases as mon nous, the simplicity of the men, and their ] guage, and their education, and the state of li ature, would all lead us to expect that the Apos would have no such feeling. As to this, we h more than mere conjecture to rely on. Occasic repetitions occur in the Gospels (Luke vii. 19, xix. 31, 34), such as a writer in a- more copi and cultivated language would perhaps have sou to avoid. In the Acts, the conversion of St. I is three times related (Acts ix., xxii., xxvi-), ¢ by the writer and twice by St. Paul himself; the two first harmonize exactly, except as to a expressions, and as to one more important cire stance (ix. 7 = xxii. 9), — which, however, adi of an explanation, — whilst the third deviates so what more in expression, and has one passage culiar to itself. The vision of Cornelius is three times related (Acts x. 3-6, 30-32; xi. 14), where the words of the angel in the two are almost precisely alike, and the rest very sim whilst the other is an abridged account of the s facts. The vision of Peter is twice related (. x. 10-16; xi. 5-10), and, except in one or expressions, the agreement is verbally exact. T places from the Acts, which, both as to thei semblance and their difference, may be comp to the narratives of the Evangelists, show the ¢ tendency to a common form of narrative wl according to the present view, may have influe the preaching of the Apostles. It is supp then, that the preaching of the Apostles, anc teaching whereby they prepared others to pri as they did, would tend to assume a common f more or less fixed; and that the portions of three Gospels which harmonize most exactly their agreement not +o the fact that they copied from each other, although it is impos to say that the later writer made no use 0} earlier one, nor to the existence of any ori document now lost to us, but to the fact that apostolic preaching had already clothed itself settled or usual form of words, to which the wi inclined to conform without feeling bound to d and the differences which occur, often in the el proximity to the harmonies, arise from the fe of independence with which each wrote whe had seen and heard, or, in the case of Mark Luke, what apostolic witnesses had told him. harmonies, as we have seen, begin with the oe of John; that is, with the consecration of the, to his messianic office; and with this event | ably the ordinary preaching of the Apostles | begin, for its purport was that Jesus is the Mes and that as Messiah he suffered, died, and again. They are very frequent as we approad period of the Passion, because the sufferings 0 Lord would be much in the mouth of ever who preached the Gospel, and all would be familiar with the words in which the Apostle to St. Matthew and St. Mark only ; and if the pe implies an intention to supersede the writings al to, then these two Evangelists cannot be inc under them. Partial and incomplete reports- ( preaching of the Apostles, written with a gre but without authority, are intended; and, if wi argue from St. Luke’s sphere of observation, ‘e probably composed by Greek converts. GOSPELS ribed it. But as regards the Resurrection, which ffered from the Passion in that it was a fact which ie enemies of Christianity felt bound to dispute Matt. xxviii. 15), it is possible that the divergence ose from the intention of each Evangelist to con- ibute something towards the weight of evidence r this central truth. Accordingly, all the four, en St. Mark (xvi. 14), who oftener throws a new tht upon old ground than opens out new, men- on distinct acts and appearances of the Lord to tablish that he was risen indeed. ‘The verbal yreement is greater where the words of others are corded, and greatest of all where they are those * Jesus, because here the apostolic preaching ould be especially exact; and where the historical et is the utterance of certain words, the duty of e historian is narrowed to a bare record of them. see the works of Gieseler, Norton, Westcott, Jeisse, and others already quoted.) That this opinion would explain many of the ets connected with the text is certain. Whether, sides conforming to the words and arrangement the apostolic preaching, the Evangelists did in 1y cases make use of each other's work or not, it ould require a more careful investigation of de- ils to discuss than space permits. Every reader ould probably find on examination some places hich could best be explained on this supposition. or does this involve a sacrifice of the independ- ice of the narrator. If each of the three drew ie substance of his narrative from the one com- on strain of preaching that everywhere prevailed, ) have departed entirely in a written account from le common form of words to which Christian is were beginning to be familiar, would not have sen independence but willfulness. To follow here id there the words and arrangement of another ritten Gospel already current would not compro- ise the writer’s independent position. If the ‘incipal part of the narrative was the voice of the hole church, a few portions might be conformed another writer without altering the character of ie testimony. In the separate articles on the Gos- als it will be shown that, however close may be le agreement of the Evangelists, the independent sition of each appears from the contents of his 90k, and has been recognized by writers of all ses. It will appear that St. Matthew describes 1e kingdom of Messiah, as founded in the Old estament and fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth; that t. Mark, with so little of narrative peculiar to imself, brings out by many minute circumstances more vivid delineation of our Lord’s completely uman life; that St. Luke puts forward the work f Redemption as a universal benefit, and shows esus not only as the Messiah of the chosen people ut as the Saviour of the world; that St. John, miting last of all, passed over most of what his redecessors had related, in order to set forth more ily all that he had heard from the Master who wed him, of his relation to the Father, and of he relation of the Holy Spirit to both. The inde- endence of the writers is thus established; and if hey seem to have here and there used each other's ecount, which it is perhaps impossible to prove or isprove, such cases will not compromise that, claim thich alone gives value to a plurality of witnesses. How does this last theory bear upon our belief n the inspiration of the Gospels? This momentous juestion admits of a satisfactory reply. Our blessed 4rd, on five different occasions, promised to the Apostles the divine guidance, to teach and enlighten GOSPELS 9498 them in their dangers (Matt. x. 19; Luke xii. 1]. 12; Mark xiii. 11; and John xiv., xv., xvi.). H bade them take no thought about defending them selves before judges; he promised them the Spirit of Truth to guide them into all truth, to teack them all things, and bring all things to their re- membrance. ‘That this promise was fully realized to them the history of the Acts sufficiently shows. But if the divine assistance was given them in their discourses and preaching, it would be rendered equally when they were about to put down in writing the same gospel which they preached; and, as this would be their greatest time of need, the aid would be granted then most surely. So that, as to St. Matthew and St. John, we may say that their Gospels are inspired because the writers of them were inspired, according to their Master’s promise; for it is impossible to suppose that He who put words into their mouths when they stood before a human tribunal, with no greater fear than that of death before them, would withhold his light and truth when the want of them would mis- lead the whole Church of Christ and turn the light that was in it into darkness. The case of the other two Evangelists is somewhat different. It has always been held that they were under the guid- ance of Apostles in what they wrote — St. Mark under that of St. Peter, and St. Luke under that of St. Paul. We are not expressly told, indeed, that these Evangelists themselves were persons to whom Christ’s promises of supernatural guidance had been extended, but it certainly was not confined to the twelve to whom it was originally made, as the case of St. Paul himself proves, who was admitted to all the privileges of an apostle, though, as it were, ‘‘ born out of due time;’’ and as St. Mark and St. Luke were the companions of apostles — shared their dangers, confronted hostile tribunals, had to teach and preach —there is reason to think that they equally enjoyed what they equally needed. In Acts xv. 28, the Holy Ghost is spoken of as the common guide and light of all the brethren, not of apostles only; nay, to speak it reverently, as one of themselves. So that the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke appear to have been admitted into the canon of Scripture as written by inspired men in free and close communication with inspired apostles. But supposing that the portion of the three first Gospels which is common to all has been derived from the preaching of the Apostles in gen- eral, then it is drawn directly from a source which we know from our Lord himself to have been in- spired. It comes to us from those Apostles into whose mouths Christ promised to put the words of his Holy Spirit. It is not from an anonymous writing, as Eichhorn thinks — it is not that the three witnesses are really one, as Story and others have suggested in the theory of copying — but that the daily preaching of all apostles and teachers has found three independent transcribers in the three Evangelists. Now the inspiration of an historical writing will consist in its truth, and in its selection of events. Everything narrated must be substan- tially and exactly true, and the comparison of the Gospels one with another offers us nothing that does not answer to this test. There are differences of arrangement of events; here some details of a narrative or a discourse are supplied which are wanting there; and if the writer had professed to follow a strict chronological order, or had pretended that his record was not only true but complete, then one inversion of order, or one omission of a 950 GOSPELS syllable, would convict him of inaccuracy. But if it is plain — if it is all but avowed —that minute chronological data are not part of the writer’s pur- pose — if it is also plain that nothing but a selection of the facts is intended, or, indeed, possible (John xxi. 25) — then the proper test to apply is, whether each gives us a picture of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth that is self-consistent and con- sistent with the others, such as would be suitable to the use of those who were to believe on His Name — for this is their evident intention. About the answer there should be no doubt. We have seen that each Gospel has its own features, and that the divine element has controlled the human, but not destroyed it. But the picture which they con- spire to draw is one full of harmony. The Saviour they all describe is the same loving, tender guide of his disciples, sympathizing with them in the sorrows and temptations of earthly life, yet ever ready to enlighten that life by rays of truth out of the infinite world where the Father sits upon his throne. It has been said that St. Matthew por- trays rather the human side, and St. John the divine; but this holds good only m a limited sense. It is in St. John that we read that « Jesus wept;” and there is nothing, even in the last discourse of Jesus, as reported by St. John, that opens a deeper view of his divine nature than the words in St. Matthew (xi. 25-30) beginning, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes.’ All reveal the same divine and human Teacher; four copies of the same portrait, perhaps with a difference of expression, yet still the same, are drawn here, and it is a portrait the like of which no one had ever delineated before, or, indeed, could have done, ex- cept from having looked on it with observant eyes, and from having had the mind opened by the Holy Spirit to comprehend features of such unspeakable radiance. Not only does this highest “ harmony of the Gospels”? manifest itself to every pious reader of the Bible, but the lower harmony — the agree- ment of fact and word in all that relates to the ministry of the Lord, in all that would contribute to a true view of his spotless character — exists also, and cannot be denied. For example, all tell us alike that Jesus was transfigured on the mount; that the shekinah of divine glory shone upon his face; that Moses the lawgiver and Elijah the prophet talked with him; and that the voice from heaven bare witness to him. Is it any imputation upon the truth of the histories that St. Matthew alone tells us that the witnesses fell prostrate to the earth, and that Jesus raised them? or that St. Luke alone tells us that for a part of the time they were heavy with sleep? Again, one Evangelist, in describing our Lord’s temptation, follows the order of the occurrences, another arranges according to the degrees of temptation, and the third, passing over all particulars, merely mentions that our Lord was tempted. Is there anything here to shake our faith in the writers as credible historians? Do we treat other histories in this exacting spirit? Is not the very independence of treatment the pledge to us that we have really three witnesses to the fact that Jesus was tempted like as we are? for if the Evangelists were copyists, nothing would have been more easy than to remove such an obvious difference as this. The histories are true according to any test that should be applied to a history; and the events that they select — tnough we could not pre- | 3 sume to say that they were more important A what are omitted, except from the fact of the om sion — are at least such as to have given the wh Christian Church a clear conception of thé i deemer’s life, so that none has ever complained insufficient means of knowing him. | There is a perverted form of the theory we ; considering which pretends that the facts of { Redeemer’s life remained in the state of ano tradition till the latter part of the second centa and that the four Gospels were not written till tl time. The difference is not of degree but of ki between the opinion that the Gospels were writt during the lifetime of the Apostles, who were e witnesses, and the notion that for nearly a centu after the oldest, of them had passed to his rest t events were only preserved in the changeable a insecure form of an oral account. But for the latt opinion there is not one spark of historical evideni Heretics of the second century who would glac have rejected and exposed a new gospel that ma against them never hint that the Gospels are spu ous; and orthodox writers ascribe without conti diction the authorship of the books to those whc names they bear. The theory was invented — accord with the assumption that miracles are it possible, but upon no evidence whatever; and t argument when exposed runs in this vicious circ], “There are no miracles, therefore the accounts them must have grown up in the course of a centu from popular exaggeration, and as the accounts | not contemporaneous it is not proved that there a| iiracles!’” That the Jewish mind in its lowe decay should have invented the character of Jes of Nazareth, and the sublime system of morali contained in his teaching — that four writers shou’ have fixed the popular impression in four plai simple, unadorned narratives, without any outburr of national prejudice, or any attempt to give political tone to the events they wrote of — won| be in itself a miracle harder to believe than th’ Lazarus came out at the Lord’s call from his fou days’ tomb. It will be an appropriate conclusion to this : perfect sketch to give a conspectus of the harmoi| of the Gospels, by which the several theories mi be examined in their bearing on the gospel accoun in detail. Let it be remembered, however, that, complete harmony, including the chronological a rangement and the exact succession of all event! was not intended by the sacred writers to be co} structed; indeed the data for it are pointedly wit held. Here most of the places where there is son special difficulty, and where there has been a que tion whether the events are parallel or distinct, a) marked by figures in different type. The sectio, might in many cases have been subdivided but fi the limits of space, but the reader can supply th defect for himself as cases arise. (The princip works employed in constructing it are, Griesbac Synopsis Evangeliorum, 1776; De Wette ar Liicke, Syn. Evang., [1818,] 1842; Rédiger, Sy. Evang., 1829; Clausen, Quatuor Evang. Tabul Synoptice, 1829; Greswell’s Harmony [ Harmoni Evangelica, ed. 5ta, Oxon. 1856] and Dissertatiol [2d ed., 4 vols. in 5, Oxford, 1837], 2 most in portant work; the Rey. I. Williams On the Gospels Theile’s Greek Testament ; and Tischendort’s Sy Evang. 1854 [2d ed. 1864]; besides the well-know works of Lightfoot, Macknight, Newcome, al Robinson.) [For other works of this class, & addition to the present article. ] WwW. ‘GOSPELS : | Ye | gu) bs GOSPELS , 951 ' TABLE OF THE HARMONY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. i. B. — In the following Table, where all the references under a given section are printed in heavy type, a under “Two Genealogies,” it is to be understood that some special difficulty besets the harmony Where one or more references under a given section are in light, and one or more in heavy type, it is to be understood that the former are given as in their proper place, and that it is more or less doubtful whether the latter are to be considered as parallel parratives or not. St. Matthew. St. Mark. St. Luke. St. John. ‘The Word”’ : ee : i. 1-14 *"retace, to Theophilus. . ... . a ‘ . : i. 1-4 {nnunciation of the Baptist’s birth. . 2 ‘ ; F i. 5-25 \nnunciation of the birth of Jesus . i. 26-38 Mary visits Elizabeth . i. 89-56 3irth of John the Baptist . : : i. 57-80 sirth of Jesus Christ i, 18-25 ii. 1-7 Two Genealogies. + . i. 1-17 iii. 23-38 ‘he watching Shepherds ‘ ii. 8-20 ‘he Circumcision aes : ii. 21 resentation in the Temple _ 3 , il. 22-38 ‘he wise men from the East . ii. 1-12 light to Egypt... . - ii. 13-23 ii. 39 Jisputing with the Doctors : , : : ii. 40-52 finistry of John the Baptist . - « | ili, 1-12 . 1-8 iii. 1-18 i. 15-31 faptism of Jesus Christ . iii. 13-17 9-11 iil. 21, 22 i. 82-34 he Temptation. . . .. iv. 1-11 i. 12, 13 iv. 1-13 andrew and another see Jesus ° : ; ; : i. 35-40 imon, now Cephas. . . . i. 41, 42 ‘hilip and Nathanael ‘ : . i. 43-51 ‘he water made wine Oates vie é ‘ . . ii, 1-11 ‘assover (1st) and cleansing the Temple ° 4 A . . ii. 12-22 licodemus “Sag ae A re : , d : : ii. 23-iii. 21 hhrist and John baptizing . . : . iii. 22-36 ‘he woman of Samaria ; ‘ 4 ° . : iv. 1-42 ohn the Baptist in prison iv. 12; xiv. 3] i. 14; vi. 17 | iii. 19, 20 iii. 24 feturn to Galilee iv. 12 i. 14, 15 iv. 14, 15 iv. 43-45 he synagogue at Nazareth ‘ : E iv. 16-30 he nobleman’s son . a eS : ; : . : : iv. 46-54 apernaum. Four Apostles called - | iv. 18-22 i. 16-20 v. 1-11 emoniac healed there . vies : 4 i. 21-28 iv. 81-37 imon’s wife’s mother healed . viii. 14-17 i. 29-34 iv. 38--41 ircuit round Galilee iv. 23-25 i. 35-39 iv. 42-44 lealingaleperr . . . .. viii. 1-4 i. 40-45 v. 12-16 hrist stills the storm . ede viii. 18-27 iv. 35-41 viii. 22-25 ‘emoniacs in land of Gadarenes . . . | viii. 28-34 | y. 1-20 viii. 26-39 ; airus’s daughter. Woman healed . ix. 18-26 v. 21-43 vili. 40-56 . lind men, and demoniac . ix. 27-34 : 3 : : ealing the paralytic ix. 1-8 ii, 1-12 v. 17-26 ‘atthew the publican ix. 9-13 ii. 13-17 v. 27-32 Thy disciples fast not” ets ix. 14-17 ii. 18-22 v. 33-39 durney to Jerusalem to 2d Passover ‘ ; : ‘. : . ve 2 ool of Bethesda. Power of Christ . : ‘ : é : v. 2-47 lucking ears of corn on Sabbath . . | xii. 1-8 ii. 23-28 vi. 1-5 he withered hand. Miracles . | xii. 9-21 iii. 1-12 vi. 6-11 he Twelve Apostles ‘ x, 2-4 iii. 13-19 vi. 12-16 he Sermon on the Mount v. 1-vii. 29 : ~ vi. 17-49 he centurion’s servant. : viii. 5-13 : vii. 1-10 iv. 46-54 he widow’s son at Nain . . : : ‘ vii. 11-17 ssengers from John . . : xi. 2-19 . vii. 18-35 Toe to the cities of Galilee xi. 20-24 ‘ : ‘ : all to the meek and suffering xi. 25-30 : . ae te i nointing the feet of Jesus é : : : vii. 86-50 2eond circuit round Galilee . F : ‘ : 4 viii. 1-3 arable of the Sower , * «Kili, 1-93 iv. 1-20 viii. 4-15 _ © Candle under a Bushel P ; iv. 21-25 viii. 16-18 “the Sower iv. 26-29 . . _ the Wheat and Tares . _“ Grain of Mustard-seed Mee eeayen-. ww ks ateaching by parables . . xiii. 24-30 xiii. 31, 32 xiii. 33 xiii. 34, 35 iv. 30-32 iv. 33, 34 xiii. 18, 19 xiii. 20, 21 952 GOSPELS TABLE OF THE HARMONY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS — (continued). St. Matthew. St. Mark. St. Luke. St. John. Wheat and tares explained . . . . | xiii. 36-43 ; : ; : The treasure, the pearl, the net . . . | xili. 44-52 ; . : » Fae His mother and His brethren. . . . xii. 46-50 | iii. 31-35 | viii. 19-21 Reception at Nazareth. . . . . . | xiii. 53-58 | vi. 1-6 : : Third circuit round Galilee . . . . | ix. 85-88; vi. 6 : Pa Sending forth of the Twelve . . . . |x. vi. 7-18 ix. 1-6 Herod’s opinion of Jesus . . . . . | xiv. 1,2 vi. 14-16 ix. 7-9 Death of John the Baptist . . . . | xiv. 8-12 vi. 17-29 . ; Approach of Passover (8d) . . . . : ; : . vi. 4 Feeding of the five thousand. . . . | xiv. 18-21 Vi. 30-44 ix. 10-17 vi. 1-15 Walking on the seaeiiae 660-8. ee | SVs Beas vi. 45-52 : . vi. 16-21 Miracles in Gennesaret. . . . . . | xiv. 34-36 | vi. 53-56 : : | Tie Dread of lites cu, Schl i Qieee a8 : « : Bary a vi. 22-65 sUhe-washenthands oes. ~ (6 oe vac eee | ee vii. 1-23 ; ; | The Syropheenician woman . . . . | xv. 21-28 vii. 24-30 : : | Miracles of healing . . Ae coats xy. 29-31 vii. 81-37 Feeding of the four thousand . - + « | Xv. 82-39 Vili. 1-9 The sign from heaven . . . . . «© | xvi. 1-4 viii. 10-13 A 3 | The ben of the Pharisees . .. . xvi. 5-12 viii. 14-21 a ; . Blind man hedled 22.454 Pier ts cama : . Vili. 22-26 Peter’s profession of faith. . . . . | xvi. 18-19 viii. 27-29 | ix. 18-20 vi. 66-71 Whe Passion forebelds ses! |..2) i... ses are xvi. 20-28 viii. 80-ix. 1 | ix. 21-27 | dives transfiguration 2... ..5 .00 xvii. 1-9 ix. 2-10 ix. 28-36 Elijah . oe a Gelb ao oe wt EVEL. ORES ee eee ; : The lunatic healed Rae ie Vee ce he xvii. 14-21 ix. 14-29 ix. 87-42 | | The Passion again foretold. . . . . | xvii. 22,23 | ix. 30-32 ix. 438-45 Fish caught for the tribute . . . . | xvii. 24-27 ° : b ; | Me TELS Child.) te tis te ak 1k hice Wee xvili. 1-5 ix. 338-37 ix. 46-48 One casting out devils . . . 2... ; 3 ix. 38-41 ix. 49, 50 | Genres 12 a AS na dle, wo Sa- Recune a Serene ix. 42-48 XVii. 2 The lost, sheep ic js er ehiethes ih eae) doe ete ; : xv. 4-7 | Forgiveness of injuries. . . . . . | xviii. 15-17 ‘ ‘ Binding and loosing . . . . . . | xviii. 18-20 ‘ | Forgiveness. Parable. . . . . « | xviii. 21-35 MP ASAILEC NILE BGC disel en Wie cdg ; , ix. 49, 50 : ‘ Journey to Jerusalem . . . ... 5 ° “i : ix. 51 vii. 1-10 - ire trom heaven» haces ita cuse’ bee) Ze : 3 ; . ix. 52-56 Answers to disciples. . . . . . . | viii. 19-22 , - + | ix. 57-62 The Seventy disciples . . . a: : : ‘ : x. 1-16 4 Discussions at Feast of Tabernacles mah : 3 ; : : j vii. 11-53 Woman taken in adultery . Apes , d , ‘ ; A viii. 1-11 | _ Dispute with the Pharisees . . . . ‘ ve ‘ : ‘ ; viii. 12-59 he man ‘bornsblind } pew to akong 0c : ‘ : : ; : ix. 1-41 — The good Shepherd . niet hear : : : ; ; : x. 1-21 The return of the Seventy . ere ee : . : : x. 17-24 The good Samaritan... . ... . : : : ‘ X. 25-37 BMaryiand Martha 0064 e ae : ‘ 5 . x. 38-42 ee horde Prayers ss 6 vey sec vi. 9-13 : : xi. 1-4 Prayer effectual . mais il Wiis Tae : ; xi. 5-13 i Through, Beelzebub,’ocueia. el tc ace. im xii. 22-37 | iii. 20-30 | xi. 14-23 The unclean spirit returning A Se oh xii. 43-45 ‘i xi. 24-28 EE Sign Ol Jopiala Sonics me penetuks we es xii. 38-42 5 . xi. 29-32 The light of the body . . . . . . Ves 15; vi. og Ape 22, 23 The Pharisees xxiii. ; ; xi. 87-54 What to fear . : hare en x. 26-33 : . xii. 1-12 “« Master, speak to my brother ” ctoegnts ‘ ; : : xii. 13-15 Covetousness : a ae Fp Pe ; . ; . xii. 16-31 Watchfulness . . . : : | ie pe ee : 4 xii. 82-59 Galileans that perished . 5 a re Oe ’ : : ‘ xiii. 1-9 Woman healed on Sabbath . . . . ‘ i A xiii. 10-17 The grain of mustard-seed . . sp ati xiii. 31, 32 | iv. 80-32 | xiii. 18, 19 PRE CAVED 6 on uss 504s at eee | coed 33 . : xiii. 20, 21 Towards Jerusalem . . . (3.) The apodosis, other ascents see ADUMMIM, AKRABBIM, ZIz. G GUR-BA/AL (OYD™7AA [abode of Baal}: wétpu: Gurbaal), a place or district in which dwelt Arabians, as recorded in 2 Chr. xxvi. 7. It ap- pears from the context to have been in the country lying between Palestine and the Arabian peninsula ; but this, although probable, and although the LXX. reading is in favor of the conjecture, cannot be proved, no site having been assigned to it. The Arab geographers mention a place called Baal, on the Syrian road, north of El-Medeeneh (Marasid, 8. V. Aes). marks, reads W722 PANT YWATY — « Arabs living in Gerar”” — suggesting “I instead of The Targum, as Winer (s. v.) re- fo) b) “A but there is no further evidence to strengthen this supposition. [See also GrRAR.] The inge- nious conjectures of Bochart (Phaleg, ii. 22) re- specting the Mehunim, who are mentioned together with the “ Arabians that dwelt in Gur-Baal,’* may be considered in reference to the Mehunim, although they are far-fetched. [Mrnunim.] E.S. P. * GUTTER. This word occurs in the difficult passage 2 Sam. v. 6-8, translated in the A. V. as follows: ‘(6.) And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land; which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither; thinking, David cannot come in hither. (7.) Nevertheless, David took the strong- hold of Zion; the same is the city of David. (8.) And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame, and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief’ and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.”’ So long ago as 1546, Sebastian Miinster (Hebrew Bible, fol. ed., in loc.) said of this passage, ‘“ Est locus ille valde obscurus.”’ The lapse of more than 300 years has not much mended the matter, and the passage is still ‘valde obscurus.’”’ Our limits here forbid a full discussion of the points at issue.@ But without attempting to examine every gram- matical difficulty, we may reach a better translation than the above, by attending to the following points: — (1.) The two clauses, “ except thou take away the blind and the lame,’’ and “thou shalt not come in hither,’ are improperly transposed in the above version; and this transposition puts the next following clause out of its proper connection, a * See, for the later criticism of the passage, Mau- rer, Com. gram. crit. vol. i. p. 180; Thenius, die Bii- cher Samuels erklart (Exeget. Handbuch) 2te Aufl. 1864 ; Bertheau, die Biicher der Chrontk erklart (in the same work) 1854; Bottcher, in the Zeitschrift der D. Morg. Gesellschaft, 1857, pp. 540-42, and Neue exeget. krit. @hrenlese, 1te Abth., 1863, p. 151; Keil, die Biicher Samuels, 1864. baa ek Os b * There is no necessity for a change of pointing (TOM). The Infin. form is the more emphatic expression (Ges. Heb. Gram. § 181, 4). Draid «Os c * In the A. V. the aftor-clause is supplied in the words, “he shall be chief und captain,” italicized to or after-clause, corresponding to the expression, “any one that smites’’ (= if any one smites), is not expressed in. the Hebrew. ‘This is a favorite Hebrew idiom, where for any reason it is felt to be unnecessary to complete the construction. See, é. g., Ex. xxxii. 32, in the A. V. Here, the object was two-fold: first, to state what David proposed to his warriors as the means of capturing the strong- hold; and secondly, to account for the proverbial saying that arose from this occurrence. Neither of these objects required the completion of the sen- tence, which would readily be understood to be the offer of a reward for the service. A dash should therefore be put (as in the A. V. Ex. xxxii. 32) after the word ‘soul’’ (omitting the words in ital- ics), to indicate that the sentence is incomplete.¢ (4.) In ver. 8 there is also, as in ver. 6, an im- ‘proper transposition of two clauses, ‘+ whosoever getteth up to the gutter,” ‘“‘and smiteth the Jebu- sites.’ (5.) In ver. 8, instead of “the Jebusites (plural with the def. art.), we should translate, ‘a Jebusite.’’ (6.) The word translated ‘“ gutter,” “WARS, is here properly a water-course. It is de- rived from a verb which apparently expresses the sound of rushing water. It occurs in only one other passage, Ps. xlii. 8, and is there applied to a mountain torrent, or a cataract (A. V. “ water- spouts’’). (7.) The words, ‘the blind and the lame,’ may be taken in the same construction as ‘ca Jebusite’”’ (even the blind and the lame); or, as the sentence is manifestly left unfinished, they may be regarded as a part of the incomplete con- struction, “having no grammatical relation to the preceding words. Thus without resorting to the violent method of conjectural emendation of the text, which Maurer. Thenius, Bottcher, and others, think necessary, o1 to a change of punctuation and an unauthorized sense of the word NDE, proposed by Ewald and adopted by Keil, we obtain the following gram matically correct rendering : ‘“¢(6.) And the king and his men went to Jone salem, to the Jebusite inhabiting the land. And he spake to David, saying, Thou shalt not come in hither; but the blind and the lame will turn thee away, saying, David shall not come in hither. (7.) And David took the stronghold of Zion; that is, the city of David. (8.) And David said on thal day, Any one that smites a Jebusite, and gets te the water-course, and the lame and the blind hated of David's soul Therefore they say, Blind and lame shall not come into the house.’’ 4 | The Jebusites, confident in the strength of, thelt | } show that they are not in the Hebrew text. To the common reader, with nothing but the translation t guide him, they seem to be * clutched out of the air,’ as the Germans express it. But a reference to 1 Chr xi. 6 shows that these words, though they have ne right here, are not a pure invention of the translator The reader of the Hebrew text, if those words are ne cessary to make sense of the passage, was in the sami predicament as the English reader of the A. V. woul¢ be without them. T. J. Ce d * The above translation is nearly word for wort the same as that of De Wette ; which is so close to th Hebrew that any literal rendering must be almost ver bally coincident with it. 1, J. Ome | HAAHASHTARI josition, which had successfully resisted repeated ‘ttempts to capture it, sneeringly said to David, ‘the blind and the lame will turn thee away;” \eeding only to say, “David shall not come in ither.”: @ David took this stronghold (ver. 7); and how ‘his was effected is intimated in ver. 8. If the ‘yater-course could be reached, by which water was ‘upplied to the besieged, the reduction of the strong- ‘old must soon follow. On the import of the last ‘Jause in ver. 8, compare the suggestion in the ar- ‘icle Jerusalem, II., fourth paragraph, foot-note. ' A review of the principal interpretations of Jew- ‘sh and Christian scholars would be interesting and nstructive; but there is not space for it here. t Poy. 0. ' H. . HAAHASH’TARI OOAWTINT, with the ‘article, =the Ahashtarite [perh. courier, messenger’, first]: roy "AacOhp; [Vat. Aonpar;] Alex. Ao- Inpa: Ahasthari), a man, or a family, immediately lescended from Ashur, “father of Tekoa”’ by his econd wife Naarah (1 Chr. iv. 6). The name does 1ot appear again, nor is there any trace of a place if similar name. | HABA‘IAH [3 syl.] (3207, in Neh. HAN ‘but MSS. and editions vary in both places; whom Tehovah protects]: AaBela, "EBia; Alex. OBa.a, 'EBeia; in Neh., Vat. EBeia, FA. ABeia:] Hobia, abia). Bene-Chabaijah were among the sons of the priests who returned from Babylon with Zerub- abel, but whose genealogy being imperfect, were not allowed to serve (Ezr. ii. 61; Neh. vii. 63). it is not clear from the passage whether they were mong the descendants of Barzillai the Gileadite. n the lists of 1 Esdras the name is given as JBpIA [marg. Hobaiah]. | HABAK’KUK HAB/AKKUK PPIX [embracing, as a token of love, Ges., Tirst]: Jerome, Prol. in Hab., renders it by the sreek mepiAnwis; "AuBakovu: Habacuc). Other areek forms of the name are ’ABBakovu, which Suidas erroneously renders mathp éyépoews, ‘ABarovw, (Georg. Cedrenus), ’"AuBaxovx, and ‘ABBaxove (Dorotheus, Doctr. 2). The Latin ‘orms are Ambacum, Ambacuc, and Abacuc. 1. Of the facts of the prophet’s life we have no pertain information, and with regard to the period xf his prophecy there is great division .of opinion. The Rabbinical tradition that Habakkuk was the von of the Shunammite woman whom Elisha re- itored to life is repeated by Abarbanel in his com- ‘nentary, and has no other foundation than a fanci- ul etymology of the prophet’s name, based on the oxpression in 2 K. iv. 16. Equally unfounded is he tradition that he was the sentinel set by Isaiah 0 watch for the destruction of Babylon (comp. Is. cxi. 16 with Hab. ii. 1). In the title of the history of Bel and the Dragon, as found in the LXX. version in Origen’s Tetrapla, the author is called f or @ * Recent excavations on the southern slope of Mount Zion show that this vaunting of the Jebusites was not without some foundation. ‘From the posi- jion and appearance of this escarpment [one discovered there] it must have formed part of the defenses of the old city, the wall running along the crest; ... the steps which lead down the valley of Hinnom could HABAKKUK O71 “© Habakkuk, the son of Joshua, of the tribe of Levi.’ Some have supposed this apocryphal writer to be identical with the prophet (Jerome, Prom. in Dan.). The psalm in ch. 3 and its title are thought to favor the opinion that Habakkuk was a Levite (Delitzsch, Habakuk, p. iii.). Pseudo-[piphanius (vol. ii. p. 240, de Vitis Prophetarum) and Doro- theus (Chron. Pasch. p. 150) say that he was of BnOCoKhp or BynOrrovxdp (Bethacat, Isid. Hispal. c. 47), of the tribe of Simeon. This may have been the same as Bethzacharias, where Judas Mac- cabzeus was defeated by Antiochus Eupator (1 Mace. vi. 32, 33). The same authors relate that when Jerusalem was sacked by Nebuchadnezzar, Habak- kuk fled to Ostracine, and remained there till after the Chaldzans had left the city, when he returned to his own country and died at his farm two years before the return from Babylon, B. Cc. 538. It was during his residence in Judzea that he is said to have carried food to Daniel in the den of lions at Babylon. This legend is given in the history of Bel and the Dragon, and is repeated by Eusebius, Bar-Hebreus, and Eutychius. It is quoted from Joseph ben Gorion (B. J. xi. 3) by Abarbanel (Comm. on Hab.), and seriously refuted by him on chronological grounds. ‘I'he scene of the event was shown to medieval travellers on the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem (arly Travels in Pales- tine, p. 29). Habakkuk is said to have been buried at Keilah in the tribe of Judah, eight miles E. of Eleutheropolis (Eusebius, Onomasticon). Rab- binical tradition places his tomb at Chukkok, of the tribe of Naphtali, now called Jakuk. In the days of Zebenus, bishop of Eleutheropolis, according to Nicephorus (//. /. xii. 48) and Sozomen (//. #. vii. 28), the remains of the prophets Habakkuk and Micah were discovered at Keilah. 2. The Rabbinical traditions agree in placing Habakkuk with Joel and Nahum in the reign of Manasseh (ef. Seder Olam Rabba and Zuta, and Tsemach David). This date is adopted by Kimchi and Abarbanel among the Rabbis, and by Witsius, Kalinsky, and Jahn among modern writers. The general corruption and lawlessness which prevailed in the reign of Manasseh are supposed to be referred to in Hab. i. 2-4. Both Kalinsky and Jahn con- jecture that Habakkuk may have been one of the prophets mentioned in 2 K. xxi. 10. Syncellus (Chronographia, pp. 214, 230, 240) makes him contemporary with Ezekiel, and extends the period of his prophecy from the time of Manasseh to that of Daniel and Joshua the son of Josedech. The Chronicon Paschale places him later, first. mention- ing him in the beginning of the reign of Josiah (Olymp. 32), as contemporary with Zephaniah and Nahum; and again in the beginning of the reign of Cyrus (Olymp. 42), as contemporary with Daniel and Ezekiel in Persia, with Haggai and Zechariah in Judea, and with Baruch in Egypt. Davidson (Horne’s Intr. ii. 968), following Keil, decides in favor of the early part of the reign of Josiah. Calmet, Jaeger, Ewald, De Wette, Rosenmiiller, Knobel, Maurer, Hitzig, and Meier agree in assign- ing the commencement of Habakkuk’s prophecy to be defended by a couple of men against any force, be- fore the invention of fire-arms. The escarpment was probably carried down to the valley in a succession of terraces ; the large amount of rubbish, however, will not allow anything to be seen clearly.” (See Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, p. 61, Lond. 1865.) H. 972 HABAKKUK the reign of Jehoiakim, though they are divided as to the exact period to which it is to be referred. Knobel (Der Prophetism. d. Hebr.) and Meier (Gesch. d. poet. nat. Liter. d. Hebr.) are in favor of the commencement of the Chaldean era, after the battle of Carchemish (B. c. 606), when Judea was first threatened by the victors. But the ques- tion of the date of Habakkuk’s prophecy has been discussed in the most exhaustive manner by Delitzsch (Der Prophet Habakuk, Einl. § 3), and though his arguments are rather ingenious than convincing, they are well deserving of consideration as based upon internal evidence. The conclusion at which he arrives is that Habakkuk delivered his prophecy about the 12th or 13th year of Josiah (B. C. 630 or 629), for reasons of which the follow- ing is a summary. In Hab. i. 5 the expression “in your days’’ shows that the fulfillment of the prophecy would take place in the lifetime of those to whom it was addressed. The same phrase in Jer. xvi. 9 embraces a period of at most twenty years, while in Ez. xii. 25 it denotes about six years, and therefore, reckoning backwards from the Chaldean invasion, the date above assigned would involve no violation of probability, though the argument does not amount to a proof. From the similarity of Hab. ii. 20 and Zeph. i. 7, Delitzsch infers that the latter is an imitation, the former being the original. He supports this conclusion by many collateral arguments. Now Zephaniah, according to the superscription of his prophecy, lived in the time of Josiah, and from iii. 5 must have prophesied after the worship of Jehovah was restored, that is, after the twelfth year of that king’s reign. It is probable that he wrote about B. C. 624. Between this period therefore and the 12th year of Josiah (B. c. 630) Delitzsch places Habakkuk. But Jeremiah began to prophesy in the 13th year of Josiah, and many passages are borrowed by him from Habakkuk (cf. Hab. ii. 13 with Jer. li. 58, &e.). The latter therefore must have written about 630 or 629 3B. c. This view receives some confirmation from the position of his prophecy in the O. T. Canon. 3. Instead of looking upon the prophecy as an organic whole, Rosenmiiller divided it into three parts corresponding to the chapters, and assigned the first chapter to the reign of Jehoiakim, the second to that of Jehoiachin, and the third to that of Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was besieged for the third time by Nebuchadnezzar. Kalinsky (Vatic. Chabac. et Nah.) makes four divisions, and refers the prophecy not to Nebuchadnezzar, but to Esar- haddon. But in such an arbitrary arrangement the true character of the composition as a perfectly developed poem is entirely lost sight of. The prophet commences by announcing his office and important mission (i. 1). He bewails the corruption and social disorganization by which he is sur- rounded, and cries to Jehovah for help (i. 2-4). Next follows the reply of the Deity, threatening swift vengeance (i. 5-11). The prophet, trans- ferring himself to the near future foreshadowed in the divine threatenings, sees the rapacity and boast- ful impiety of the Chaldzean hosts, but, confident that God has only employed them as the instru- ments of correction, assumes (ii. 1) an attitude of hopeful expectancy, and waits to see the issue. He receives the divine command to write in an enduring form the vision of God’s retributive justice, as revealed to his prophetic eye (ii. 2, 3). The doom of the Chaldeans is first foretold in gen- sd ee) HABAKKUK > eral terms (ii. 4-6), and the announcement is fol lowed by a series of denunciations pronounced upo them by the nations who had suffered from thei oppression {ii. 6-20). The strophical arrangemen of these ‘‘woes’’ is a remarkable feature of th prophecy. They are distributed in strophes of thre verses each, characterized by a certain regularit of structure. The first four commence with | “Woe!” and close with a verse beginning witl ‘D (for). The first verse of each of these contain the character of the sin, the second the developmen of the woe, while the third is confirmatory of th woe denounced. ‘The fifth strophe differs from th others in form in having a verse introductory t the woe. The prominent vices of the Chaldzans character, as delineated in i. 5-11, are made th subjects of separate denunciations: their insatiabl ambition (ii. 6-8), their covetousness (ii. 9-11) cruelty (ii. 12-14), drunkenness (ii. 15-17), an idolatry (ii. 18-20). The whole concludes witl the magnificent psalm in chap. iii., “ Habakkuk’ Pindaric ode”? (Ewald), a composition unrivale for boldness of conception, sublimity of thought and majesty of diction. This constitutes, in De litzsch’s opinion, “the second grand division of th entire prophecy, as the subjective reflex of the tw subdivisions of the first, and the lyrical recapitula tion of the whole.”’ It is the echo of the feeling aroused in the prophet’s mind by the divine answer to his appeals; fear in anticipation of the threatene judgments, and thankfulness and joy at the prom ised retribution. But, though intimately connecte with the former part of the prophecy, it is in itsel a perfect whole, as is sufficiently evident from it lyrical character, and the musical arrangement b which it was adapted for use in the temple service In other parts of the A. V. the name is given a HABBACUC, and ABACUC. W. A. W. * Among the few separate commentaries on thi prophet we have Der Prophet Habakuk, ausgelegi by Franz Delitzsch (Leipz. 1843). This autho gives a list in that volume (p. xxiv. f.) of othe single works of an earlier date, with critical notice of their value. Of these he commends especial’ that of G. F. L. Baumlein, Comm. de Hab. Vatic (1840). For a list of the still older writers, se Keil’s Lehrb. der hist.-krit. Einl. in das A. T.p 302 (2te Aufl.). The commentaries on the Mino Prophets, or the Prophets generally, contain 0! course Habakkuk: F. Hitzig, Die zwolf kl. Prophe ten, pp. 253-277 (1838, 8e Aufl. 1863); Ewald, Di Propheten des A. B. i. 373-889 (1840); Maurer Comm. Gram. Hist. Crtt. in Proph. Minores, ii 528 ff.; Umbreit, Prakt. Comm. ib. d. Proph. Bd iv. Th. i. (1845); Keil and Delitzsch, Bibl. Comm ib. d. 12 kl. Proph. (1866); Henderson, Mino Prophets (1845, Amer. ed. 1860); G. R. Noyes New Trans. of the Heb. Prophets, 3d ed. (1866) vol. i.; Henry Cowles, Minor Prophets, with Note Critical, Explanatory, and Practical (New York 1866). | For the personal history of the prophet, se especially Delitzsch’s De Habacuci Prophete Vit atque Attate (2d ed. 1844), and Umbreit’s Haba kuk in Herzog’s Real-Encyk. vy. 435-488. Th latter represents him as “a great prophet amon; the minor prophets, and one of the greatest amonj the great prophets.” De Wette says of his style am genius: ‘ While in his sphere of prophetic repr sentation he may be compared with the best of th prophets, a Joel, Amos, Nahum, Isaiah, in the lyri HADAR ‘ng to the ordinary interpretation of Zech. xii. 11, place in the valley of Megiddo, named after two yrian idols, where a national lamentation was held ‘or the death of king Josiah in the last of the four rreat battles (see Stanley, S. ¢ P. ix.) which have ‘nade the plain of Esdraelon famous in Hebrew nistory (see 2 K. xxiii. 29; 2 Chr. xxxv. 23; Jo- eph. Ant. x. 5, § 1). The LXX. translate the ‘yord “ pomegranate;’’ and the Greek commenta- ors, using that version, see here no reference to Josiah. Jonathan, the Chaldee interpreter, fol- jowed by Jarchi, understands it to be the name of she son of king Tabrimon who was opposed to Ahab at Ramoth-Gilead. But it has been taken vor the place at which Josiah died by most inter- »reters since Jerome, who states (Comm. in Zach.) vhat it was the name of a city which was called in ais time Maximianopolis, and was not far from Jezreel. Van de Velde (i. 355) thinks that he has dentified the very site, and that the more ancient name still lingers on the spot. There is a treatise oy Wichmanshausen, De planctu Hadadr. in the ‘Nov. Thes. Theol.-phil. i. 101. W. T. B. | HA/DAR (I [perh. chamber]: Xodddv: Hadar), a son of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 15); written ‘n 1 Chr. i. 30 Hadad (W177: Xovddy; [Alex. Kod5a5:] LZadad); but Gesenius supposes the for- mer to be the true reading of the name. It has not been identified, in a satisfactory way, with the appellation of any tribe or place in Arabia, or on ‘he Syrian frontier; but names identical with, or “ery closely resembling it, are not uncommon in hose parts, and may contain traces of the Ish- ‘naelite tribe sprung from Hadar. The mountain Hadad, belonging to Teyma ['TEMA] on the bor- ers of the Syrian desert, north of /l- Medeeneh, is yerhaps the most likely to be correctly identified with the ancient dwellings of this tribe; it stands among a group of names of the sons of Ishmael, zontaining Dumah (Doomah), Kedar (Keydar), and Tema (Teyimda). E..S. P: | i i ‘erent aspirate to [from] the preceding: ’"Apad vibs ‘Bapad, Alex. Apa@: Adar). One of the kings of Edom, successor of Baal-hanan ben-Achbor (Gen. Bleek, and others are purely Hamath which borders thereon, Tyre and Sidon; for it is very wise’ (comp. Ez. xxviii. 3 ff.). He b *Movers does not propose any local identification | (if that be meant here), but supposes Adark, an Assyr- jan war-god (Phdniz. i. 478), to be intended. For Bleek's theory, see above HF THER: HAGAB | hypothetical, and the same must be said of the theory of Alphens [Van Alphen], in his monograph De terra Hadrach et Damasco (Traj. Rh. 1723, A solution of the difficulties surrounding the name may perhaps be found by supposing that it is derived from HApDAr. referred to by Winer, s. v.). B.S. P. * Another conjecture may be mentioned, namely, that Hadrach is the name of some Syrian king It was not uncommon for heathen kings to bear the names of their gods. Gesenius ( Thesauwr. i. 449) favors this opinion after (See Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 268.) Vaihinger argues for it, and attempts to show that ‘the king in question may have been the one who ‘reigned between Benhadad III. and Rezin, about the ‘time of Uzziah and Jeroboam II. (See Herz. Real- Encyk. vy. 445.) The data are insufficient for so defi- ‘nite a conclusion. Hengstenberg adopts the Jewish ‘symbolic explanation, namely, that Hadrach (de- rived from TTT and J = strong-weak) denotes the Persian kingdom as destined, according to pro- ‘phetic announcement, notwithstanding its power, otherwise unknown. Bleek. ‘to be utterly overthrown. Winer (Bibl. Realw. ‘i. 454) speaks of this as not improbably correct. Christology of the O. T-, iii. 871 ff. (trans. Edinb. 1858). H. HA’GAB (2379 [locust]: *Ayd8: Hayab). bel (Ezr. ii. 46). In the parallel list in Nehemiah, jthis and the name preceding it are omitted. In AGABA. 3a:| Hagaba). Nethinim who came back from captivity with Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 48). The name is slightly jlifferent in form from — | HAG ABAH (FIAIN [locust] : “Ayapd : ‘Tagaba), under which it is found in the parallel ist of Ezr. ii. 45. In Esdras it is given as GRABA. HA’GAR (37 [fight]: ~Ayap: Agar), an Igyptian woman, the handmaid, or slave, of Sarah ‘Gen. xvi. 1), whom the latter gave as a concubine 9 Abraham, after he had dwelt. ten years in the ind of Canaan and had no children by Sarah (xvi. 'and 3). That she was a bondwoman is stated oth in the O. T. and in the N. T. (in the latter 3 part of her typical character); and the condition jf a slave was one essential of her position as a gal concubine. It is recorded that “when she jw that she had conceived, her mistress was des- ‘ised in her eyes” (4), and Sarah, with the anger, /@ may suppose, of a free woman, rather than of a ‘fe, reproached Abraham for the results of her /™m act: “My wrong be upon thee: I have given ‘fy maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that te had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: Je- ovah judge between me and thee.” Abraham’s aswer seems to have been forced from him by his Ve for the wife of many years, who besides was his ufsister; and with the apparent want of purpose SS od @ It seems to be unnecessary to assume (as Kalisch 8, Comment. on Genesis) that we have here another oof of Abraham’s faith. This explanation of the 62 Hengstenberg discusses the question at length un- ‘der the head of “The Land of Hadrach,” in his ‘Bene-Hagab [sons of Hagab] were among the Ne- thinim who returned from Babylon with Zerubba- the Apocryphal Esdras [v. 30] it is given as HAG’ABA (S221): ’Ayagd; [Alex. Ayya- Bene-Hagaba were among the HAGAR 977 that he before displayed in Egypt, and afterwards at the court of Abimelech @ (in contrast to his firm courage and constancy when directed by God), he said, “ Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee.” This permission was neces- sary in an eastern household, but it is worthy of remark that it is now very rarely given; nor can we think, from the unchangeableness of eastern cus- toms, and the strongly-marked national character of those peoples, that it was usual anciently to allow a wife to deal hardly with a slave in Hagar’s position. Yet the truth and individuality of the vivid narrative is enforced by this apparent depart- ure from usage: “And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face,’’ turning her steps towards her native land through the great wilder- ness traversed by the Egyptian road. By the foun- tain in the way to Shur, the angel of the Lord found her, charged her to return and submit herself under the hands of her mistress, and delivered the remarkable prophecy respecting her unborn child, recorded in ver. 10-12. [IsHMAEL.] “And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God art a God of vision; for she said, Have I then seen [i. e. lived] after vision [of God] ? Wherefore the well was called BeER-LAWAI-ROI”’ (13, 14). On her return, Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, and Abraham was then eighty-six years old. Mention is not again made of Hagar in the his- tory of Abraham until the feast at the weaning of Isaac, when “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham, mocking ”?; and in exact sequence with the first flight of Hagar, we now read of her expulsion. ‘Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bond- woman shall not be heir with my son, [even] with Isaac” (xxi. 9,10). Abraham, in his grief, and unwillingness thus to act, was comforted by God, with the assurance that in Isaac should his seed be called, and that a nation should also be raised of the bondwoman’s son. In his trustful obedience, - we read, in the pathetic narrative, “‘ Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave [it] unto Hagar, putting [it] on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away, and she departed and wandered in the wil- derness of Beersheba. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against [him] a good way off, as it were a bow- shot; for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against [him], and lifted up her voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad, and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not, for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he [is]. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand, for I will make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water, and she went and filled the bottle [skin] with water, and gave the lad to drink” (xxi. 14- 19). The verisimilitude, oriental exactness, and simple beauty of this story are internal evidences attesting its truth apart from all other evidence; and even Winer says (in alluding to the subterfuge of skepticism that Hagar = flight — would lead to event is not required, nor does the narrative appear to warrant it, unless Abraham regarded Hagar’s son ag the heir of the promise: comp. Gen. xvii. 18. 978 HAGAR the assumption of its being a myth), “ Das Ereig- niss ist so einfach und den orientalischen Sitten so -angemessen, das wir hier gewiss eine rein histor- ‘ische Sage vor uns haben ” (Realwort. s. « Hagar 5), The name of Hagar occurs elsewhere only when she takes a wife to Ishmael (xxi. 21), and in the genealogy (xxv. 12). St. Paul refers to her as the type of the old covenant, likening her to Mount Sinai, the Mount of the Law (Gal. iv. 22 ff.). In Mohammedan tradition Hagar ( sole a _ Hajir, or Hagir) is represented as the wife of Abra- * ham, as might be expected when we remember that Ishmael is the head of the Arab nation, and the reputed ancestor of Mohammed. In the same manner she is said to have dwelt and been buried at Mekkeh, and the well Zemzem in the sacred in- closure of the temple of Mekkeh is pointed out by the Muslims as the well which was miraculously formed for Ishmael in the wilderness. E. S. P. * The truthfulness to nature which is so mani- fest in the incidents related of Hagar and Ishmael (as suggested above), bears strong testimony to the fidelity of the narrative. See especially Gen. xvi. 6; xxi. 10, 11, and 14 ff Dean Stanley very prop- erly calls attention to this trait of the patriarchal history as illustrated in this instance, as well as others. (Jewish Church, i. 40 ff.) See also, on this characteristic of these early records, Blunt’s Veracity of the Books of Moses. Hess brings out impressively this feature of the Bible in his Ge- schichte der Patriarchen (2 Bde. Tiibing. 1785). It appears from Gal. iv. 24, where Paul speaks of the dissensions in Abraham’s family, that the jealousy _ between Hagar’s son and the heir of promise pro- ceeded much further than tbe O. T. relates. Rii- etschi has a brief article on “‘ Hagar’’ in Herzog’s Real-Encyk. v. 469 f. Mr. Williams (Holy City, i. 463-468) inserts an extended account of the sup- posed discovery by Mr. Rowlands of Beer-lahai-roi, the well in the desert, at which, after her expulsion from the house of Abraham, the angel of the Lord _ appeared to Hagar (Gen. xvi. 7 ff). It is said to _ be about 5 hours from Kadesh, on the way from ' Beer-sheba to Egypt, and is called Moilahhi (more correctly Muweilih, says Riietschi), the name being regarded as the same, except in the first syllable the change of Beer, “ well,” for Mot, “ water.’ Near it is also found an elaborate excay ation in the rocks which the Arabs call Bezt-Hagar, i. e. ‘house of Hagar.’? Keil and Delitzsch (in Gen. xvi. 14) incline to adopt this identification. Knobel (Gen- esis, p- 147) is less decided. Dr. Robinson’s note (Bibl. Res., 2d ed. i. 189) throws some discredit on the accuracy of this report. Hagar occurs in Gal. iv. 25 (T. R. & A. V.), not as a personal name (7 “Ayap), but as a word or local name (7d ”A-yap) applied to Mount Sinai in Arabia. The Arabic bce pronounced very much like this name, means a ‘stone,’’ and may have been in use in the neighborhood of Sinai as one of its local designations. (See Meyer.on Gal. iv. 25). There is no testimony that the mount was so called out of this passage; but as [Ewald remarks respecting this point (Nachtrag in his Sendschreiben des Apostels, p. 493 ff.), Paul is so much the less to be charged with an error here, inasmuck as he himself had travelled in that part | but also, according to Kdmoos, masa as \ HAGARENES of Arabia, and as an apostle, had remained there long time.’? (See Gal. i. 17 f.) Some conjectu that this name was transferred to the mountain fro y.|an Arabian town so called, where, according to 0 account, Hagar is said to have been buried. Bi on the thier’ hand, it is not certain that 7d” Ay really belongs to the Greek text, though the weig of critical opmion affirms it (see Meyer, in loc The questions both as to the origin of the nai and the genuineness of the reading are careful examined in Lightfoot’s Commentary on Galatia (pp. 178, 189 ff Qd ed. ), though perhaps he y ?| derstates the testimony for 7d ”Ayap. HAGARENES, HA’GARITES (O73: DST: "Ayapnvol, "Ayapato, [ete.:] Ag reni, Agaret), a people dwelling to the east of P. estine, with whom the tribe of Reuben made ¥ in the time of Saul, and “who fell by their har and they dwelt in their tents throughout all t east [land] of Gilead’ (1 Chr. v. 10); and aga in ver. 18-20, the sons of Reuben, and the Gadit and half the tribe of Manasseh “made war wi the Hagarites, with Jetur, and Nephish, and dab, and they were helped against them, and 1 Hagarites were delivered into their hand, and that were with them.’ ‘The spoil here recorded have been taken shows ‘the wealth and importai of these tribes; and the conquest, at least of 1 territory occupied by them, was complete, for 1 Israelites “ dwelt in their steads until the Captivit; (ver. 22). The same people, as confederate agai Israel, are mentioned in Ps. Ixxxiii.: “ The t ernacles of Edom and the Ishmaelites; of Mc and the Hagarenes; Gebal, Ammon, and Amal the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; Asi also is joined with them; they have holpen ‘ children of Lot’’ (ver. 6-8). Who these people were is a question that cam readily be decided, though it is generally belie that they were named after Hagar. Their g graphical position, as inferred from the above ¢ sages, was in the “east country,’’ where dwelt descendants of Ishmael; the occurrence of | names of two of his sons, Jetur and Nephish Chr. v. 19), as before quoted, with that of Nod whom Gesenius supposes to be another son (thot he is not found in the genealogical lists, and m remain doubtful [NoDAB]), seems to indicate t these Hagarenes were named after Hagar; bul the passage in Ps. Ixxxiii., the Ishmaelites are. parently distinguished from the Hagarenes (cf. I iii. 23). May “they have been thus called afte town or district named after Hagar, and not 0 because they were her descendants? It is need to follow the suggestion of some writers, that Ha may have been the mother of other children a her separation from Abraham (as the Bible : | tradition are silent on the question), and iti) itself highly improbable. | It is also uncertain whether the important 1 t and district of Herjer (the inhabitants of wl were probably the same as the Agrei of Strabo, : p. 767, Dionys. Perieg. 956, Plin. vi. 82, and E v. 19, 2) represent the ancient name and a dv ing of the Hagarenes; but it is reasonable to pose that they do. Heyer, or Hejera ( indeclinable, according to YAakoot, Mushtar‘uk, 8 be > ea] Ge G& - - HAGERITE snd Winer write it), is the capital town, and also 1 subdivision of the province of northeastern Arabia called El-Bahreyn, or, as some writers say, she name of the province itself (Mushtarak and Marasid, s. y.), on the borders of the Persian Gulf. 't is a low and fertile country, frequented for its ibundant water and pasturage by the wandering Tibes of the neighboring deserts and of the high and of Ned. For the Agrewi, see the Dictionary if Geography. There is another Hejer, a place ear Ei]-Medeeneh. S-- | The district of Hajar ( : By on the borders ‘f Desert Arabia, north of £l-Medeeneh, has been hought to possess a trace, in its name, of the Ha- arenes. It is, at least, less likely than Hejer to 'o so, both from situation and etymology. The ract, however, is curious from the caves that it is eported to contain, in which, say the Arabs, dwelt he old tribe of Thamood. | Two Hagarites are mentioned in the O. T.: see LIBHAR and J Aziz. E. S. P. \HA’GERITE, THE (72777: 5 ‘Ayapirns; Vat. Taperrns:] Agareus). Jaziz the Hagerite, _¢. the descendant of Hagar, had the charge of ‘avid's sheep QS, A. V. “flocks; ”? 1 Chr. xxvii. t). The word appears in the other forms of Ha- ARITEs and HAGARENEs. /HAG’GAT [2 syl.] (X27 [festive]: "Ayyaios; sin. Ayyeos in Hag., except inscription, and so lex. in the inser. of Ps. exly.-cxlviii. :] Aggeus), e tenth in order of the minor prophets, and first | those who prophesied after the Captivity. With gard to his tribe and parentage both history and adition are alike silent. Some, indeed, taking ‘its literal sense the expression m7 JNoD valac yhovdh) in i. 13, have imagined that’ he ‘san angel in human shape (Jerome, Comm. in 2). In the absence of any direct evidence on ® point, it is more than probable that he was one ‘the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel and shua; and Ewald (Die Proph. d. Alt. B.) is nm tempted to infer from ii. 3 that he may have 1 one of the few survivors who had seen the first nple in its splendor. The rebuilding of the ‘ple, which was commenced in the reign of Cyrus - €. 535), was suspended during the reigns of " Successors, Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis, in sequence of the determined hostility of the Sa- ritans. On the accession of Darius Hystaspis €. 921), the prophets Haggai and Zechariah sed the renewal of the undertaking, and obtained ‘permission and assistance of the king (Ezr. y. vi. 14; Joseph. Ant. xi. 4). Animated by the courage (magni spiritus, Jerome) of these de- ed men, the people prosecuted the work with or, and the temple was completed and dedicated in ‘sixth year of Darius (B. c. 516). According to lition, Haggai was born in Babylon, was a young when he came to Jerusalem, and was buried A honor near the sepulchres of the priests (Isidor. pal. c. 49; Pseudo-Dorotheus, in Chron. Pasch. dq). It has hence been conjectured that he was miestly rank. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, ding to the Jewish writers, were the men who with Daniel when he saw the vision related Dan. x. 7; and were after the Captivity mem- sof the Great Synagogue, which consisted of elders ( Cozri, iii 65). The Seder Olam Zuta of the promise (ii. 10-19). HAGGAI 979 places their death in the 52d year of the Medes and Persians; while the extravagance of another tradition makes Haggai survive till the entry of Alexander the Great into Jerusalem, and even till the time of our Saviour (Carpzoyv, /ntrod.). In the Roman Martyrology Hosea and Haggai are joined in the catalogue of saints (Acta Sanctor. 4 Julii). The question of Haggui’s probable con- nection with the authorship of the book of Ezra will be found fully discussed in the article under that head, pp. 805, 806. The names of Haggai and Zechariah are asso- ciated in the LXX. in the titles of Ps. 137, 145- 148; in the Vulgate in those of Ps. 111, 145; and in’ the Peshito Syriac in those of Ps. 125, 126, 145, 146, 147, 148. [It may be that. tradition assigned to these prophets the arrangement of the above- mentioned psalms for use in the temple service, just as Ps. lxiv. is in the Vulgate attributed to Jere- miah and Ezekiel, and the name of the former is inscribed at the head of Ps. cxxxvi. in the LXX. According to Pseudo. Epiphanius (de Vitis Proph.), Haggai was the first who chanted the Hallelujah in the second temple: “wherefore,” he adds, “‘ we say ‘ Hallelujah, which is the hymn of Haggai and Zechariah.’ ’’ Haggai is mentioned in the Apoe- rypha as AGGEus, in 1 Esdr. vi. 1, vii. 3; 2 Esdr. i. 40; and is alluded to in Ecelus. xlix. 11 (cf. Hag. ii. 23) and Heb. xii. 26 (Hag. ii. 6). The style of his writing is generally tame and prosaic, though at times it rises to the dignity of severe invective, when the prophet rebukes his countrymen for their selfish indolence and neglect of God’s house. But the brevity of the prophecies is so great, and the poverty of expression which characterizes them so striking, as to give rise to a conjecture, not without reason, that in their present form they are but the outline or summary of the original discourses. They were delivered in the second year of Darius Hystaspis (B. c. 520), at intervals from the 1st day of the 6th month to the 24th day of the 9th month in the same year. In his first message to the people the prophet denounced the listlessness of the Jews, who dwelt in their “panelled houses,” while the temple of the Lord was roofless and desolate. The displeas-. ure of God was manifest in the failure of all their efforts for their own gratification. ‘The heavens were ‘“‘stayed from dew,’ and the earth was “stayed from her fruit.” They had neglected that which should have been their first care, and reaped the due wages of their selfishness (i. 4-11). The words of the prophet sank deep into the hearts of the people and their leaders. They acknowledced the voice of God speaking by his servant, and obeyed the command. ‘Their obedience was re- warded with the assurance of God's presence (i. 13), and twenty-four days after the building was resumed. A month had scarcely elapsed when the work seems to have slackened, and the enthusiasm of the people abated. The prophet, ever ready to rekindle their zeal, encouraged the flagging spirits of the chiefs with the renewed assurance of God’s presence, and the fresh promise that, stately and magnificent as was the temple of their wisest king, the glory of the latter house should be greater than the glory of the former (ii. 3-9). Yet the people were still inactive, and two months afterwards we find him again censuring their sluggishness, which rendered worthless all their ceremonial observances. But the rebuke was accompanied by a repetition On the same day, the 980 TLA/;GERI HAIR : four-and-twentieth’ of the ninth month, the prophet delivered his last prophecy, addressed to Zerubbabel, prince of Judah, the representative of the royal family of David, and as such the lineal ancestor of the Messiah. This closing prediction foreshadows the establishment of the Messianic kingdom upon vhe overthrow of the thrones of the nations (ii. 20-23). W. A. W. * For the later exegetical works on the prophets which include Haggai, see under HABAKKUK. Keil gives a list of the older commentaries or mon- ographs in his Lekrb. der hist. krit. inl. in d. A. T. p. 808 (2te Aufl.). Oechler treats of the prophet’s personal history in Herzog’s Real-Encyk. vy. 471 f. Bleek (/inl. in das A. Test. p. 549) agrees with those (Ewald, Hiivernick, Keil) who think that Haggai lived long enough to see both the first and the second,temples. On the Mes- sianic passage of this prophet (ii. 6-9), the reader may consult, in addition to the commentators, Hengstenberg, Christology of the O. T. iii. 243- 271 (Keith’s trans.); Hasse, Geschichte des Alten Bundes, p. 203 ff.; Smith, J. P., Scripture Tes- timony to the Messiah, i. 283 ff. (5th ed. Lond. 1859); and Tholuck, Die Propheten u. thre Weis- sagungen (2ter Abdruck), p. 156, a few words only. H. HAG’GERI (1737, i. e. Hagri, a Hagarite : ’Ayapt; [Vat. FA. -per;] Alex. Arapai: Agarat). « MipnAr son of Haggeri”’ was one of the mighty men of Davyid’s guard, according to the catalogue of 1 Chr. xi. 88. The parallel passage —2 Sam. xxiii. 36 — has “ Bani the Gadite’” (Y7277). This Kennicott decides to have been the original, from which Haggeri has been corrupted (Dissert. p. 214). The Targum has Bar Gedé (S73 rayon HAG’GI (037 [festive]: *Ayyis, Alex. Ay- yes; [in Num.,’Ay-yi, Vat. -yeu?] Haggi, Agg?), second son of Gad (Gen. xlvi. 16; Num. xxvi. 15), founder of the Haggites (“ATTi7). It will be ob- served that the name, though given as that of an individual, is really a patronymic, precisely the same . as of the family. HAGGVAH (7aT [festival of Jehovah]: *Ayyia; [Vat. Aua:] Haggia), a Levite, one of the descendants of Merari (1 Chr. vi. 30). HAG’GITES, THE (AMM: 6 ’Ayyt; [Vat. -yer:] Agite), the family sprung from Haaart, second son of Gad (Num. xxvi. 15). HAG/GITH (WSF, a dancer: *Ayyt6; Alex. bevyid, Ayi0, [Ayes8,] Ayyerd; [Vat. dey- ved, Ayye:03] Joseph. "Ayylén: Haggith, Ag- gith), one of David’s wives, of whom nothing is told us except that she was the mother of Adonijah, who is commonly designated as ‘the son of Hag- gith? (2 Sam. iii. 4; 1 K. i. 5, 11, ii. 18; 1 Chr. iii. 2). He was, like Absalom, renowned for his handsome presence. In the first and last of the above passages Haggith is fourth in order of men- tion among the wives, Adonijah being also fourth among the sons. His birth happened at Hebron (2 Sam. iii. 2, 5) shortly afte: that of Absalom (1 K. i. 6; where it will be observed that the words «éhig mother’ are inserted by the translators). G. HA/’GIA (Ayid [‘Ayid, Bos, Holmes & Par- sons]: Aggia), 1 Esdr. v. 84. [HATTIL.] HAI (DIT [the stone-heap, or ruins]: "A yal: Hai). The form in which the well-knoy place Ar appears in the A. V. on its first intr duction (Gen. xii. 8; xiii. 3). It arises from ¢ translators haying in these places, and these on! recognized the definite article with which AT invariably and emphatically accompanied in t Hebrew. [More probably it comes from the Vi gate. — A.]. In the Samaritan Version of t above two passages, the name is given in the fir Ainah, and in the second Cephrah, as if CEPE RAH. G. * HAIL. [Piacurs, Tue TEN; Snow.] HAIR. The Hebrews were fully alive to t importance of the hair as an element of perso beauty, whether as seen in the “curled locks, bla as a raven,’ of youth (Cant. v. 11), or in 4 “crown of glory’? that encircled the head of ud ave (Prov. xvi. 31). The customs of ancient 1 tions in regard to the hair varied considerably: { Fgyptians allowed the women to wear it long, 1 kept the heads of men closely shaved from ea childhood (Her. ii. 36, iii. 12; Wilkinson’s Anci Egyptians, ii. 327, 328). The Greeks admi; x Grecian manner of wearing the hair. (Hope’s ( tumes.) long hair, whether in men or women, as is | denced in the expression Kapnkoudwyres Ayal and in the representations of their divinities, pecially Bacchus and Apollo, whose long locks v a symbol of perpetual youth. The Assyrians i wore it long (Her. i. 195), the flowing curls be: gathered together in a heavy cluster on the bi: as represented in the sculptures of Nineveh. | Hebrews, on the other hand, while they encoura| the growth of hair, observed the natural tinction between the sexes by allowing the wo! to wear it long (Luke vii. 88; John xi. 2; 1 xi. 6 ff.), while the men restrained theirs by quent clippings to a moderate length. This di! ence between the Hebrews and the surroun( nations, especially the Egyptians, arose no di partly from natural taste, but partly also from I} enactments. Clipping the hair in a certain ma and offering the locks, was in early times conne} with religious worship. Many of the Arabi practiced a peculiar tonsure in honor of their Orotal (Her. iii. 8, Kefpoyvra: mepitpdxaara, § ptkvpoovres Tovs Kpordpous), and hence the! brews were forbidden to ‘+ round the corners (7 lit. the extremity) of their heads’’ (Lev. xix. meaning the locks along the forehead and tem: and behind the ears. This tonsure is describe! the LXX. by a peculiar expression gigén ©! classical oxdqiov), probably derived from thet brew FINS (comp. Bochart, Can. i. 6, p. That the practice of the Arabians was well kr f to the Hebrews, appears from the expre) TISD YPAZ), rounded as to the locks, by W HAIR they are described (Jer. ix. 26; xxv. 23; xlix. 32; ee marginal translation of the A. V.). . The pro- jibition against cutting off the hair on the death of a relative (Deut. xiv. 1) was pircbably grounded ona similar reason. In addition to these regula- tions, the Hebrews dreaded baldness, as it was fre- juently the result of leprosy (Lev. xiii. 40 ff), and ence formed one of the disqualifications for the sriesthood (Lev. xxi. 20, LXX.). [BALDNEss.] The rule imposed upon the priests, and probably ‘ollowed by the rest “of the community, was that ‘he hair should be polled (OO2, Ez. xliv. 20), neither being shaved, nor allowed to grow too long ‘Lev. xxi. 5; Ez. l. c.). What was the precise ength usually worn, we have no means of ascer- ‘aining; but from various expressions, such as Ps YB, lit. to let loose the head or the hair ‘=solvere crines, Virg. dn. iii. 65, xi. 35; demis- 10s lugentis more capillos, Ov. Ep. x. 137) by un- nding the head-band and letting it go disheveled ‘Ley. x. 6, A. V. “uncover your heads ’’), which ‘vas done in mourning (cf. Ez. xxiv. 17); and gain Ts 13, to uncover the ear, previous to aking any communication of importance (1 Sam. ax. 2, 12, xxii. 8, A. V., margin), as though the vai fell over the ear, we may conclude that men vore their hair somewhat longer than is usual with is. The word vB, used as =hair (Num. vi. 5; iz. xliv. 20), is especially indicative of its free yrowth (cf. Knobel, Comm. in Lev. xxi. 10). Long iair was admired in the case of young men; it is specially noticed in the description of Absalom’s verson (2 Sam. xiv. 26), the inconceivable weight if whose hair, as given in the text (200 shekels), tas led to a variety of explanations (comp. Har- ner’s Observations, iv. 321), the more probable deing that the numeral 5 (20) has been turned into 1 (200): Josephus (Ant. vii. 8, § 5) adds, that it vas cut every eighth day. ‘The hair was also worn ‘ong by the body-guard of Solomon, according to the ame authority (Ant. viii. 7, § 3, unkloras Kader vevot xaitas). The care requisite to keep the hair n order in such cases must have been very great, md hence the practice of wearing long hair was usual, and only resorted to as an act of religious »bservance, in which case it was a “ sign of humil- bets and self-denial, and of a certain religious lovenliness ”’ (Lightfoot, Exercit. on 1 Cor. xi. 14), ind was practiced by the Nazarites (Num. vi. 5; ludg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17; 1 Sam. i. 11), and occa- ionally by others in token of special mercies (Acts will. 18); it was not unusual among the Egyptians vhen on a journey (Diod. i. 18). [NAZARITE.] n times of affliction the hair was altogether cut off | ise ii. 17, 24, xv. 2, xxii. 12; Jer. vii. 29, xlviii. 7; Am. viii. 10; Joseph. B. J. ii. 15, § 1), the wactice of the Hebrews being in this respect. the it a of that of the Egyptians, who let their hair stow long in time of mourning (Herod. ii. 36), md their heads when the term was over (Gen. di. 14); but resembling that of the Greeks, as fre- uently noticed by classical writers (e. g. Soph. 4). ‘174; Eurip. Electr. 143, 241). Tearing the hair ‘Ezr. ix. 3) and letting it go disheveled, as already toticed, were similar tokens of grief. [MouRNING. | he practice of the modern Arabs in regard to the ength of their hair varies; generally the men allow t to grow its natural length, the tresses hanging a HAIR 98i down to the breast and sometimes to the waist, af- fording substantial protection to the head and neck against the violence of the sun’s rays (Burckhardt’s Notes, i. 49; Wellsted’s Travels, i. 33, 53, 73). The modern Egyptians retain the practices of their ancestors, shaving the heads of the men, but suffer- ing the women’s hair to grow long (Lane’s od. Egypt. i. 52, 71). Wigs were comimonly used by the latter people (Wilkinson, ii. 324), but not by the Hebrews: Josephus (Vié. § 11) notices an in- stance of false hair (epi8er?) dun) being used for the purpose of disguise. Whether the ample ring- lets of the Assyrian monarchs, as represented in the sculptures of Nineveh, were real or artificial, is doubtful (Layard’s Nineveh, ii. 328). Among the Medes the wig was worn by the upper classes (Xen. Cyrop. i. 3, § 2). Egyptian Wigs. (Wilkinson.) The usual and favorite color of the hair was black (Cant. v. 11), as is indicated in the comparisons to a “flock of goats’? and the “tents of Kedar’’ (Cant. iv. 1, 1.5): a similar hue is probably in- tended by the purple of Cant. vii. 5, the term being broadly used (as the Greek aop@upeos in a similar application ="uéAas, Anacr. 28). A fictitious hue was occasionally obtained by sprinkling gold-dust on the hair (Joseph. Ant. viii. 7,§ 3). It does not appear that dyes were ordinarily used; the ‘Carmel’? of Cant. vii. 5 has been understood as—= DYDD (A. V. “crimson,” margin) with- out good reason, though the similarity of the words may have suggested the subsequent reference to purple. Herod is said to have dyed his gray hair for the purpose of concealing his age (Ant. xvi. 8, § 1), but the practice may have been borrowed from the Greeks or Romans, among whom it was com- mon (Aristoph. Eccles. 736; Martial, “p. iii. 43; Propert. ii. 18, 24, 26): from Matt. v. 86, we may infer that it was not usual among the Hebrews. The approach of age was marked by a sprinkling (D2, Hos. vii. 9; comp. a similar use of spargere, Propert. iii. 4, 24) of gray hairs, which soon over- spread the whole head (Gen. xlii. 38, xliv. 29; 1 K. ii. 6, 9; Prov. xvi. 31, xx. 29). The reference to the almond in Eccl. xii. 5, has been explained of the white blossoms of that tree, as emblematic of old age: it may be observed, however, that the color of the flower is pink rather than white, and that the verb in that passage, according to high authorities (Gesen. and Hitzig), does not bear the sense of blossoming at all. Pure white hair was deemed characteristic of the Divine Majesty (Dan. vii. 9; Rey. i. 14). The chief beauty of the hair consisted in curls, whether of a natural or artificial character. The Hebrew terms are highly expressive: to omit the word rT2>", — rendered “Jocks”? in Cant. iv. 1, 3, vi. 7, and Is. xlvii. 2, but more probably mean- ing a veil,—we have oy>abm (Cant. v. 11), ‘properly pendulous flexible boughs (according to 982 HAIR s the LXX., éadra:, the shoots of the palm-tiee, which supplied an image of the coma pendula; FWY (Ez. viii. 3), a similar image borrowed from the curve of a blossom: )22Y (Cant. iv. 9), a lock falling over the shoulders like a chain of ear-pendants (in wnd crine colli tui, Vulg., which is better than the A. V., “ with one chain of thy neck”); DY) (Cant. vii. 5, A. V. “galleries*’), properly the channels by which water was brought to the flocks, which supplied an image either of the coma jfluens, or of the regularity in which the locks were ar- L, : t 3 : ranged; 772"7 (Cant. vii. 5), again an expression ia for coma pendula, borrowed from the threads hang- ing down from an unfinished wocf; and_ lastly PTW) FTWYID (Is. iii, 24, A. V. « well set hair”), properly plaited work, i. e. gracefully curved locks. With regard to the mode of dressing the hair, we have no very precise information; the terms used are of a general character, as of Jezebel (2 K. ix. 80), 2IOWA, 7. e. she adorned her head; of Judith (x. 3), Sudrate, i.e. arranged (the A. V. has ‘‘braided,’”’ and the Vulg. discriminavit, here used in a technical sense in the reference to the discriminale or hair-pin); of Herod (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 9, § 4), kexoounuevos TH cvvOéce THs Kduns, and of those who adopted feminine fashions (2B. J. iv. 9, § 10), Kéuas cuvOeTiCduevor, The terms used in the N. T. (wAéyuaciv, 1 Tim. ii. 9; €umAokns Tpix@v, 1 Pet. ili. 3) are also of a gen- eral character; Schleusner (Lez. s. vy.) understands them of curling rather than plaiting. The arrange- ment of Samson’s hair into seven locks, or more properly braids (MDM, from Fn, to inter- Egyptian Wigs. (Wilkinson.) change: geipal, LXX.; Judg. xvi. 13, 19), in- volves the practice of plaiting, which was also! HAKKATAN familiar to the Egyptians (Wilkinson, ii. 335) ay Greeks (Hom. //. xiv. 176). The locks were prob ably kept in their place by a fillet, as in Egyp (Wilkinson, J. c.). Ornaments were worked into the hair, as prac ticed by the modern Egyptians, who “ add to eael braid three black silk cords with little ornament of gold’? (Lane, i. 71): the LXX. understands th term po a"? (Is. iii, 18, A. V. “cauls’’), a applying to such ornaments (€umAdsia); Schroede (de Vest. Mul. Heb. cap. 2) approves of this, an conjectures that they were swn-shaped, i. e. circular as distinct from the “round tires like the moon,’ 2. €. the crescent-shaped ornaments used for neck laces. The Arabian women attach small bells t the tresses of their hair (Niebuhr, Voyage, i. 133) Other terms, sometimes understood as applying to the hair, are of doubtful signification, e. g DOE) (Is. iii. 22: acus: “crisping-pins”) more probably purses, as in 2 K. y. 23; Dw (Is. iii. 20, “head-bands”’), bridal girdles, accord ing to Schroeder and other authorities; EY NE (Is. iii. 20, discriminalia, Vulg. 7. e. pins used fo keeping the hair parted; cf. Jerome in Rujin. iii cap. ult.), more probably turbans. Combs anc hair-pins are mentioned in the Talmud; the Egyp. tian combs were made of wood and double, one sid having large, and the other small teeth (Wilkinson il. 348); from the ornamental devices worked or them we may infer that they were worn in the hair, With regard to other ornaments worn about the head, see HEAD-pREss. The Hebrews, like othe nations of antiquity, anointed the hair profusely with ointments, which were generally compounded of various aromatic ingredients (Ruth iii. 3; 2 Sam, xiv. 2; Ps. xxiii. 5, xly. 7, xcii. 10; Ecel. ix. 8; Is. iii. 24); more especially on occasion of festivities or hospitality (Matt. vi. 17, xxvi. 7; Luke vii. 46; cf. Joseph. Ant. xix. 4, § 1, xpioduevos pdpors Thy Kepadnhy, ws amd cuvovalas). It is perhaps in reference to the glossy appearance so imparted to it that the hair is described as purple (Cant. vii. 5). It appears to have been the custom of the Jews in our Saviour’s time to swear by the hair (Matt. v. 36), much as the Egyptian women still swear by the side-lock, and the men by their beards (Lane, i. 52, 71, notes). Hair was employed by the Hebrews as an image of what was least valuable in man’s person (1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 K. i. 52; Matt. x. 30; Luke xii. 7, xxi. 18; Acts xxvii. 34); as well as of what was innumerable (Ps. xl. 12, Ixix. 4); or particularly jine (Judg. xx. 16). In Is. vii. 20, it represents the various productions of the field, trees, crops, etc.; like dpos kexounpévoy vAn of Callim. Dian. 41, or the humus comans of Stat. Theb. v. 502. Hair “as the hair of women” (Rey. ix. 8), means long and undressed hair, which in later times was regarded as an image of barbaric rude- ness (Hengstenberg, Comm. in loc.). # W. L. Bas HAK’KATAN (JO)27 [the small or young]: "Axkarav; [Vat. Axarav:] Eccetan). Johanan, son of Hakkatan, was the chief of the Bene-Azgad [sons of A.] who returned from Babylon with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 12). The name is probably Katan, with the definite article prefixed. In the Apocryphal Esdras it is ACATAN. ‘ HAKKOZ HAK’KOZ (VP [the thorn]: 6 Kéds; [Comp.] Alex. ’Axxds: Accos), a priest, the chief of the seventh course in the service of the sanctuary, is appointed by David (1 Chr. xxiv. 10). In Ezr. j. 61 the name occurs again as that of a family of oriests; though here the prefix is taken by our elatore —and no doubt correctly — as the lefinite article, and the name appears as Koz. The same thing also occurs in Neh. iii. 4,21. In Esdras ACCOz. ' HAKU’PHA (SDAPT [bent, crooked, Ges. ; ‘neitement, Fiirst] : ’"Akoupa, "Axidd; [Vat. iv ELK, Axetpa; FA. in Neh., Akeipa:] Hacu- Bl Bene-Chakupha [sons of C.] were among he families of Nethinim who returned from Baby- on with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 51; Neh. vii. 53). ‘n Esdras (1 Esdr. v. 31) the name is given as (CIPHA. HA’LAH (T2TT: *AAaé, Xadyx; [Alex. AA- we, AAae, Xada:] Hala, [ Lahela)) is probably a \ifferent place from the Calah of Gen. x. 11. [See JALAH.] It may with some confidence be identi- ed with the Chalcitis (XaAxtris) of Ptolemy (v. 8), which he places between Anthemusia (ef. Strab. vi. 1, § 27) and Gauzanitis.¢ The name is thought 2 remain in the modern Gla, a large mound on ae upper Khabour, above its junction with the erwer (Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 312, note; 2 \. [xvii. 6,] xviii. 11; 1 Chr. v. 26). GOR: _HA’LAK, THE MOUNT (with the article, ona WATT = the smooth mountain: dpos rod leAX GS: [ Vat. in Josh. xv Adex;] Alex. AAak, * Adok: pais montis), a mountain twice, and vice only, named as the southern limit of Joshua's »nquests — “ the Mount Halak which goeth up to eir” (Josh. xi. 17, xii. 7), but which has not yet xen identified —has not apparently been sought t—bDy travellers. Keil suggests the line of chalk ‘iffs which cross the valley of the Ghor at about 6 ‘iles south of the Dead Sea, and form at once the ‘uthern limit of the Ghor and the northern limit ‘the Arabah. [ARABAH, p. 135 a.] And this ‘ggestion would be plausible enough, if there were ty example of the word har, “mountain,” being ‘plied to such a vertical cliff as this, which rather iswers to what we suppose was intended by the 1m Sela. The word which is at the root of the ‘sme (supposing it to be Hebrew), and which has ‘e force of smoothness or baldness, has ramified ‘to other terms, as Helkah, an even plot of ground, te those of Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 19) or Naboth (2 - ix. 25), or that which gave its name to Helkath it-tzurim, the “field of the strong’? (Stanley, ‘pp. § 20). G. * HALE (Luke xii. 58; Acts viii. 3) is the iginal form of “haul,” sometimes still used in mal discourse. In both the above passages it ans to drag men by force before magistrates. iat is the import also of the Greek terms (kata- Jpn and cipwy). , HAVHUL (AT9T [ full “of hollows, irst]: AiAoud; [ Vat. “Adova;] Alex. AdovA: uhul), a town of Judah in the mountain district, @ of the group containing Beth-zur and Gedor Remeeeriutney fri ce Sop bhp ol at @ * Viirst says (Hebr. Lex. s. v.) that the Talmud derstands the place to be Holwan, a five days’ urney from Bagdad. ii. HALL 983 (Josh. xv. 58). Jerome, in the Onomasticon (under Elul), reports the existence of a hamlet (villula named “ Alula,’” near Hebron.2 The name still remains unaltered, attached to a conspicuous hill a mile to the left of the road from Jerusalem to Hebron, between 3 and 4 miles from the latter. Opposite it, on the other side of the road, is Beit- su, the modern representative of Beth-zur,; and a little further to the north is Jediir, the ancient Gedor. [Beru-zur.] ‘The site is marked by the ruins of walls and foundations, amongst which stands a dilapidated mosk bearing the name of Neby Yunus — the prophet Jonah (Rob. i. 216). In a Jewish tradition quoted by Hottinger (Cippi Hebraici, p. 82) it is said to be the burial-place of Gad, David’s seer. See also the citations of Zunz in Asher’s Benj. of Tudela (ii. 437, note). G. HA‘LI eon [necklace]: "Arép; Alex. Ooret: Chali), a town on the boundary of Asher, named between Helkath and Beten (Josh. xix. 25). Noth- ing is known of its situation. Schwarz (p. 191) compares the name with Chelmon, the equivalent in the Latin of CyAmon in the Greek of Jud. vil. 3. G. HALICARNAS’SUS $ (‘Adukdpvacoos) in CARIA, a city of great renown, as being the birth- place of Herodotus and of the later historian Diony- sius, and as embellished by the Mausoleum erected by Artemisia, but of no Biblical interest except as the residence of a Jewish population in the periods between the Old and New Testament histories. In 1 Mace. xy. 23, this city is specified as containing such a population. The decree in Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10, § 23, where the Romans direct that the Jews of Halicarnassus shall be allowed r&s TpooEevxas Troteio Oa mpos TH Oadrdaon Kata Td TaTpLoOV eos, is interesting when compared with Acts xvi. 13. This city was celebrated tor its harbor and for the strength of its fortifications; but it never recovered the damage which it suffered after Alexander's siege. A plan of the site is given in Ross, Riisen auf den Griech. Inseln. (See vol. iv. p. 30.) The sculptures of the Mausoleum are the subject of a paper by Mr. Newton in the Classical Muscum, and many of them are now in the British Museum. The modern name of the place is Budriim. A Bag. ed & * See particularly on Halicarnassus the impor- tant work of Mr. Newton, History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus, and Branchide, 2 vols. text and 1 vol. plates, London, 1862-63. A. HALLELU‘JAH. [Atvevuta.] HALL (atAn: atrium), used of the court of the high-priest’s house (Luke xxii. 55). Avdad is in A. V. Matt. xxvi. 69, Mark xiv. 66, John xviii. 15, “palace;”? Vulg. atrium; mpoavAiov, Mark : xiv. 68, * porch;”? Vulg. ante atrium. In Matt. xxvil. 27 and Mark xv. 16, adaAf is syn. with mpaitépioy, Which in John xviii. 28 is in A. V. ‘“‘judgment-hall.”” AdAg is the equivalent for “VZTI, an inclosed or fortified space (Ges. p. 512), in many places in O. T. where Vulg. and A. V. have respectively villa or viculus, “ village,’ or atrium, ‘court,”’ chiefly of the tabernacle or temple. The hall or court of a house or palace would prob- ably be an inclosed but uncovered space, impluviumn, 6 It is not unworthy of notice that, though so far from Jerusalem, Jerome speaks of it as ‘in the dis trict of Alia.” 984 HALLOHESH on a lower level than the apartments of the lowest floor which looked into it. The rpoavaroy was the vestibule leading to it, called also, Matt. xxvi. 71, muddy. [Court, Amer. ed.; Housr.] H.. Week, HALLO’HESH (wb [the whisperer, enchanter|: "AAwhs; Alex. Adw: Alohes), one of the “chief of the people’’ who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 24). he name is Lochesh, with the definite article prefixed. That it is the name of a family, and not of an individual, appears probable from another passage in which it is given in the A. V. as HALO’HESH (wha [as above]: ’AA- Awjs; [Vat. FA. HAeia:] Alohes). Shallum, son of Hal-lochesh, was “ruler of the half part. of Jerusalem ”’ at the time of the repair of the wall by Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 12). According to the Hebrew spelling, the name is identical with HAL- LOHESH. [The A. V. ed. 1611, following the Genevan version, spells the name falsely Halloesh. iN] HAM (om [swarthy|: Xdu: Cham). 1. The name of one of the three sons ef Noah, apparently the second in age. It is probably derived from DfT, “to be warm,’ and signifies “warm” or “hot.” This meaning seems to be confirmed by that of the Egyptian word Krm (Egypt), which we believe to be the Egyptian equivalent of Ham, and which, as an adjective, signifies “black,’’ prob- ably implying warmth as well as_ blackness. [Eaypr.] If the Hebrew and Egyptian words be the same, Ham must mean the swarthy or sun- burnt, like A‘@foy, which has been derived from the Coptic name of Ethiopia, EOWW, but which we should be inclined to trace to OOw, sha boundary,” unless the Sahidic ECwyy) may be derived from Keesh (Cush). It is observable that the names of Noah and his sons appear to have had prophetic significations. This is stated in the case of Noah (Gen. v. 29), and implied in that of Japheth (ix. 27), and it can scarcely be doubted that the same must be concluded as to Shem. Ham may therefore have been so named as _pro- genitor of the sunburnt Egyptians and Cushites. Of the history of Ham nothing is related except his irreverence to his father, and the curse which that patriarch pronounced — the fulfillment of which is evident in the history of the Hamites. The sons of Ham are stated to have been ‘ Cush and Mizraim and Phut and Canaan”’ (Gen. x. 6; comp. 1 Chr. i. 8). It is remarkable that a dual form (Mizraim) should occur in the first generation, indicating a country, and not a person or a tribe, and we are therefore inclined to suppose that the gentile noun in the plural O° 7275, differing alone in the pointing from O12" 7, originally stood here, which would be quite consistent with the plural forms of the names of the Mizraite tribes which follow, and analogous to the singular forms of the names of the Canaanite tribes, except the . Sidonians, who are mentioned not as a nation, but ander the name of their forefather Sidon. The name of Ham alone, of the three sons of Noah, if our identification be correct, is known to have been given to a country. Egypt is recognized HAM | as the “land of Ham” in the Bible (Ps. lxxviii 51, cv. 23, evi. 22), and this, though it does no’ prove the identity of the Egyptian name with that of the patriarch, certainly favors it, and establishe: the historical fact that Egypt, settled by the de. scendants of Ham, was peculiarly his territory. The name Mizraim we believe to confirm this. The restriction of Ham to Egypt, unlike the case, if we may reason inferentially, of his brethren, may be accounted for by the very early civilization of thi: part of the Hamite territory, while much of the rest was comparatively barbarous. Egypt may als have been the first settlement of the Hamite: whence colonies went forth, as we know to have been the case with the Philistines. [Capuror.] The settlements of the descendants of Cush haye occasioned the greatest difficulty to critics. The main question upon which everything turns i whether there was an eastern and a western Cush like the eastern and western Ethiopians of the Greeks. This has been usually decided on the Biblical evidence as to the land of Cush and th Cushites, without reference to that as to the severa names designating in Gen. x. his progeny, or, ex. cept in Nimrod’s case, the territories held by it, o both. By a more inductive method we have beer led to the conclusion that settlements of Cush ex tended from Babylonia along the shores of th Indian Ocean to Ethiopia above Egypt, and to th supposition that there was an eastern as well as; western Cush: historically the latter inference mus be correct; geographically it may be less certair of the postdiluvian world. The ancient Egyptian: applied the name KrxEsu, or Kersn, which i obviously the same as Cush, to Ethiopia abov Egypt. The sons of Cush are stated to have beer Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtechah: i is added that the sons of Raamah were Sheba anc Dedan, and that “ Cush begat Nimrod.’ Certait of these names recur in the lists of the descendant of Joktan and of Abraham by Keturah, a circum stance which must be explained, in most cases, ai historical evidence tends to show, by the settlement of Cushites, Joktanites, and Abrahamites in thi same regions. [ARABIA.] Seba is generally identi. fied with Meroé, and there seems to be little doubt that at the time of Solomon the chief kingdom of Ethiopia above Egypt was that of Seba. [SEBA. The postdiluvian Havilah seems to be restricted t Arabia. [HAVILAH.] Sabtah and Sabtechah ar probably Arabian names: this is certainly the casi with Raamah, Sheba, and Dedan, which are ree ognized on the Persian Gulf. [Sapran; SAB. TECHAH; RAAMAH; SHEBA; DEDAN.] Nimro¢ is a descendant of Cush, but it is not certain thai he is a son, and his is the only name which i positively personal and not territorial in the list of the descendants of Cush. The account of his firsi kingdom in Babylonia, and of the extension of hit rule into Assyria, and the foundation of Nineveh — for this we take to be the meaning of Gen. x. 11 12 — indicates a spread of Hamite colonists alon, the Euphrates and Tigris northwards. [CusH.] If, as we suppose, Mizraim in the lists of Gen. x and 1 Chr. i. stand for Mizrim, we should take thi singular Mazor to be the name of the progenito! of the Egyptian tribes. It is remarkable that Mazo appears to be identical in signification with Ham! so that it may be but another name of the patti! arch. [Ecypr.] In this case the mention of Miz raim (or Mizrim) would be geographical, and n0 indicative of a Mazor, son of Ham. i bi HAM . HAM O85 | The Mizraites, like the descendants of Ham, ‘ccupy a territory wider than that bearing the name f Mizraim. We may, however, suppose that Miz- aim included all the first settlements, and that in emote times other tribes besides the Philistines uigrated, or extended their territories. This we nay infer to have been the case with the Lehabim ‘Lubim) or Libyans, for Manetho speaks of them 's in the remotest period of Egyptian history sub- ect to the Pharaohs. He tells us that under the rst king of the Third Dynasty, of Memphites, Techerophes, or Necherochis, “the Libyans re- sited from the Egyptians, but, on account of a ‘onderful increase of the moon, submitted through ar” (Cory’s Anc. Frag. 2d ed. pp. 100, 101). ; is unlikely that at this very early time the femphite kingdom ruled far, if at all, beyond the estern boundary of Egypt. The Ludim appear to have been beyond Egypt ) the west, so probably the Anamim, and certainly te Lehabim. [Lupim; ANAmim; LEHABIM.] he Naphtuhim seem to have been just beyond the estern border. [NApHruniM.|] The Pathrusim id Caphtorim were in Egypt, and probably the asluhim also. [PArHRos; CapPHroR; CASLU- tm.] The Philistim are the only Mizraite tribe ‘at we know to have passed into Asia: their first tablishment was in Egypt, for they came out of iphtor. [CAPHTOR. ] ‘Phut has been always placed in Africa. In the ‘ble, Phut occurs as an ally or supporter of LEgyp- in Thebes, mentioned with Cush and Lubim ‘ah. iii. 9), with Cush and Ludim (the Mizraite idim?), as supplying part of the army of Pha- oh-Necho (Jer. xlvi. 9), as involved in the calam- es of Egypt together with Cush, Lud, and Chub ’auB] (Ez. xxx. 5), as furnishing, with Persia, id, and other lands or tribes, mercenaries for the ‘vice of Tyre (xxvii. 10), and with Persia and ish as supplying part of the army of Gog (xxxviii. \ There can therefore be little doubt that Phut to be placed in Africa, where we find, in the ‘yptian inscriptions, a great nomadic people cor- ponding to it. [Puur.] ‘Respecting the geographical position of the naanites there is no dispute, although all the es are not identified. ‘The Hamathites alone ‘those identified were settled in early times wholly yond the land of Canaan. Perhaps there was a meval extension of the Canaanite tribes after ‘ir first establishment in the land called after fir ancestor, for before the specification of its Hits as those of their settlements it is stated fterward were the families of the Canaanites ead abroad” (Gen. x. 18, 19). One of. their st important extensions was to the northeast, yere was a great branch of the Hittite nation in i valley of the Orontes, constantly mentioned in | wars of the Pharaohs [Eayrr], and in those ‘the kings of Assyria. Two passages which have asioned much controversy imay be here noticed. the account of Abraham's entrance into Pales- or to indicate that the Pentateuch was written at a late period. A comparison of all the passages re- ferring to the primitive history of Palestine and Idumea shows that there was an earlier population expelled by the Hamite and Abrahamite settlers. This population was important in the time of the war of Chedorlaomer; but at the Exodus, more than four hundred years afterwards, there was but a remnant of it. It is most natural therefore to infer that the two passages under consideration mean that the Canaanite settlers were already in the land, not that they were still there. Philologers are not agreed as to a Hamitic class of languages. Recently Bunsen has applied the term “ Hamitism.” or as he writes it Chamitism, to the Egyptian language, or rather family. He places it at the head of the “Semitic stock,” to which he considers it as but partially belonging, and thus describes it: —“Chamitism, or ante-his- torical Semitism: the Chamitie deposit in Egypt; its daughter, the Demotic Egyptian; and its end the Coptic” ( Outlines, vol. i. p. 183). Sir H. Raw- linson has applied the term Cushite to the primitive language of Babylonia, and the same term has been used for the ancient language of the southern coast of Arabia. This terminology depends, in every in- stance, upon the race of the nation speaking the language, and not upon any theory of a Hamitic class. There is evidence which, at the first view, would incline us to consider that the term Semitic, as applied to the Syro-Arabie class, should be changed to Hamitic; but on a more careful exami- nation it becomes evident that any absolute classi- fication of languages into groups corresponding to the three great Noachian families is not tenable. The Biblical evidence seems, at first sight, in favor of Hebrew being classed as a Hamitic rather than a Semitic form of speech. It is called in the Bible “the language of Canaan,” 7Y2D DW (Is. xix. 18), although those speaking it are elsewhere said to speak FY TAT, Judaice (2 K. xviii. 26, 28; Is. xxxvi. 11, 13; Neh. xiii. 24). But the one term, as Gesenius remarks (Gram. Introd.), indi- cates the country where the language was spoken, the other as evidently indicates a people by whom it was spoken: thus the question of its being a Hamitic or Semitic language is not touched; for the circumstance that it was the language of Ca- naan is agreeable with its being either indigenous (and therefore either Canaanite or Rephaite), or adopted (and therefore perhaps Semitic). The names of Canaanite persons and places, as Gese- nius has observed (J. c.), conclusively show that the Canaanites spoke what we call Hebrew. Elsewhere we might find evidence of the use of a so-called Semitic language by nations either partly or wholly of Hamite origin. This evidence would favor the theory that Hebrew was Hamitic; but on the other hand we should be unable to dissociate Semitic languages from Semitic peoples. The Egyptian _—.. : © | language would also offer great, difficulties, unless it 2 It is said, “ And the Canaanite [was] then in were held to be but partly of Hamitic origin, since _land” (xii. 6); and as to a somewhat later | i¢ jg mainly of an entirely different class to [from] é, that of the separation of Abraham and Lot, |the Semitic. It is mainly Nigritian, but it also ‘Tead that “the Canaanite and the Perizzite | contains Semitic elements. We are of opinion that ‘lled then in the Jand (xiii. 7). These pas- | the groundwork is Nigritian, and that the Semitic have been supposed either to be late glosses, | nart is a layer added to a complete Nigritian lan- It has been Supposed that some or all of, the | with most of those notices that occur 1n the older ‘ces of events in Manetho’s lists were inserted by | dynasties. ‘ist? This cannot, we think, have been the case 986 HAM guage. The two elements are mixed, but not fused. This opinion those Semitic scholars who have studied the subject share with us. Some Iranian scholars hold that the two elements are mixed, and that the ancient Egyptian represents the transition from Turanian to Semitic. The only solution of the difficulty seems to be, that what we call Semitic is early Noachian. An inquiry into the history of the Hamite na- tions presents considerable difficulties, since it can- not be determined in the cases of the most impor- tant of those commonly held to be Hamite that they were purely of that stock. It is certain that the three most illustrious Hamite nations — the Cushites, the Phcenicians, and the Egyptians — were greatly mixed with foreign peoples. In Baby- lonia the Hamite element seems to have been ab- ' sorbed by the Shemite, but not in the earliest times. There are some common characteristics, however, which appear to connect the different branches of the Hamite family, and to distinguish them from the children of Japheth and Shem. Their archi- tecture has a solid grandeur that we look for in vain elsewhere. LEgypt, Babylonia, and Southern Arabia alike afford proofs of this, and the few re- maining monuments of the Pheenicians are of the same class. What is very important as indicating the purely Hamite character of the monuments to which we refer is that the earliest in Egypt are the most characteristic, while the earlier in Babylonia do not yield in this respect to the later. The na- tional mind seems in all these cases to have been [represented in ?] these material forms. The early history of each of the chief Hamite nations shows great power of organizing an extensive kingdom, of acquiring material greatness, and checking the in- roads of neighbori ing nomadic peoples. The Philis- tines afford a remarkable instance of these qualities. In every case, however, the more energetic sons of Shem or Japheth have at last fallen upon the rich Hamite territories and despoiled them. Egypt, favored by a position fenced round with nearly im- passable barriers — on the north an almost haven- less coast, on the east and west sterile deserts, held its freedom far longer than the rest; yet even in the days of Solomon the throne was filled by for- eigners, who, if Hamites, were Shemite enough in their belief to revolutionize the religion of the coun- try. In Babylonia the Medes had already captured Nimrod’s city more than 2000 years before the Christian era. The Hamites of Southern Arabia were so early overthrown by the Joktanites that the scanty remains of their history are alone known to us through tradition. Yet the story of the mag- nificence of the ancient kings of Yemen is so per- fectly in accordance with all we know of the Ham- ites that it is almost enough of itself to prove what other evidence has so well established. ‘The history of the Canaanites is similar; and if that of the Pheenicians be an exception, it must be recollected that they became a merchant class, as Ezekiel’s famous description of Tyre shows (chap. xxvii). In speaking of Hamite characteristics we do not in- tend it to be inferred that they were necessarily altogether of Hamite origin, and not at least partly borrowed. 2. (on [multitude, people, Fiirst], Gen. xiv. 5; Sam. OFT, Cham) According to the Masoretic text, Chedorlaomer and his allies smote the Zuzim wp a place called Ham. If, as seems likely, the Bs HAMATH |Zuzim be the sume as the Zamzummin, Hs must be placed in what was afterwards the Amm nite territory. Hence it has been conjectured Tuch, that Ham is but another form of the nai of the chief stronghold of the children of Amme Rabbah, now Am-man. The LXX. and Vul, however, throw some doubt upon the Masore reading: the former has, as tke rendering | DID OVI): ad evn loxupa &ua o rots; and the latter, et Zuzim cum eis, whi shows that they read EYJ2: but the Mas. re dering seems the more likely, as each clause me tions a nation, and its capital or stronghold; though it must be allowed that if the Zuzim b gone to the assistance of the Rephaim, a deviati would have been necessary. The Samaritan Versi has my, Lishah, perhaps intending the Last of Gen. x. 19, which by some is identified wi Callirhoé on the N. E. quarter of the Dead & The Targums of Onkelos and Pseudojon. he NEWS, Hemta. Schwarz (217) suggests Hum math (in Van de Velde’s map Hiimeitat), one m above Ltabba, the ancient Ar-Moab, on the Rom road. [ZuzIMs. | 3. In the account of a migration of the Simec ites to the valley of Gedor, and their destroying 1 pastoral inhabitants, the latter, or possibly th predecessors, are said to have been “of Han (OM yS : éx Tav viav Xdu: de stirpe Cham Chr. iv. 40). This may indicate that 1 Ham tribe was settled here, or, more precisely, that th: was an Egyptian settlement. The conection Egypt with this part of Palestine will be noti under ZERAH. Ham may, however, here be in way connected with the patriarch or with Lgypt. HA’MAN (jn [celebrated (Pers.), or Mercw 'y (Sansk. ); First]: ‘Audy: Aman), the ch minister or vizier of king Ahasuerus (Esth. iii. After the failure of his attempt to cut off all 1 Jews in the Persian empire, he was hanged on | gallows which he had erected for Mordecai. M probably he is the same Aman who is mentior as the oppressor of Achiacharus (Tob. xiv. 1 The Targum and Josephus (Ant. xi. 6, § 5) int pret the description of him —the Agagite— signifying that he was of Amalekitish descent; 1 he is called a Macedonian by the LXX. in Es ix. 24 (cf. iii. 1), and a Persian by Sulpicius Se rus. Prideaux (Connexion, anno 453) compu the sum which he offered to pay into the ro treasury at more than £2,000,000 sterling. Mi ern Jews are said to be in the habit of designati any Christian enemy by his name (Bisco Ent. Jud. i. 721). [See addition under EstH] Book orF.] W. T. B. HAMATH (man [ fortress, std ‘Hudé, ’Huad, Aipudd: Emath) appears to h: been the principal city of Upper Syria from time of the Exodus to that of the prophet Am It was situated in the valley of the Orontes, abi half-way between its source near Baalbek, and { bend which it makes at Jisr-hadid. It thus nai rally commanded the whole of the Orontes vall from the low screen of hills which forms the wat shed between the Orontes.and the Litdny- 1 ‘entrance of Hamath,”’ as it is called in Seriptt (Num. xxxiy. 8; Josh. xiii. 5, &c.) —~to the de! HAMATH HAMATH 987 | Daphne below Antioch; and this tract appears following reasons: (1.) The northern boundary of have formed the kingdom of Hamath, during the Israelites was certainly north of Riblah, for the e time of its independence. east border descends from Hazar-enan to Shepham, The Hamathites were a Hamitic race, and are and from Shepham to Riblah. Riblah is still eluded among the descendants of Canaan (Gen. known by its ancient name, and is found south of 18). There is no reason to suppose with Mr. Hums Lake about six or eight hours. The “en- anrick (Phenicia, p. 60), that they were ever in trance’’ must therefore lie north of this town. (2.) y sense Phoenicians. We must regard them as It must lie east of Mount Hor. ° Now, if Mount ysely akin to the Hittites on whom they bordered, | Hor be, as it probably is, the range of Lebanon, id with whom they were generally in alliance.) the question is readily solved by a reference to the othing appears of the power of Hamath, beyond | physical geography of the region. The ranges of e geographical notices which show it to be a well-| Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon terminate opposite jowr: plice (Nun. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 8; Josh. xiii.} Hums Lake by bold and decided declivities. ‘There | &¢ }, until the time of David, when we hear} is then a rolling country for a distance of about hat Toi, king of Hamath, had “ had wars ”’ with |ten miles north of the Lebanon chain, after which adadezer, king of Zobah, and on the defeat of | rises the lower range of the Nusairiyeh mountains. e latter by David, sent his son to congratulate} A wider space of plain intervenes between Anti- e Jewish monarch (2 Sam. viii. 10), and (appa-| Lebanon and the low hills which lie eastward of atly) to put Hamath under his protection. Ha-|Hamath. The city of Hums lies at the intersec- ath seems clearly to have been included in the} tion of the arms of the cross thus formed, and minions of Solomon (1 K. iv. 21-4); and its king | toward each of the cardinal points of the compass is no doubt one of those many princes over whom | there is an “entering in ’’ between the hills. at monarch ruled, who “brought presents and| Thus northward the pass leads to Hamath; west- ‘ved Solomon all the days of his life.’ The| ward to Kuldt el-Husn and the Mediterranean: store-cities,’’ which Solomon “ built in Hamath”’ | eastward to the great plain of the Syrian desert: Chr. viii. 4), were perhaps staples for trade, the| and southward toward Baal-gad in Ccele-Syria. ‘portance of the Orontes valley as a line of traffic | This will appear at a glance from the accompany- ing always great. On the death of Solomon and | ing plan of the country, in which it will be seen 2 separation of the two kingdoms, Hamath omg to have regained its independence. In 2 Assyrian inscriptions of the time of Ahab . ©. 900) it appears as a separate power, in jance with the Syrians of Damascus, the ittites, and the Pheenicians. About three- } arters of a century later Jeroboam the sec- HN d “recovered Hamath”’ (2 K. xiv. 28); he I ems to have dismantled the place, whence \\ 2 prophet Amos, who wrote in his reign \\\ m. i. 1), couples “ Hamath the great” \\ th Gath, as an instance of desolation (2. vi. Soon afterwards the Assyrians took it (2 _Xviii. 34, xix. 13, &c.), and from this time ceased to be a place of much importance. atiochus Epiphanes appears to have changed /name to Epiphaneia, an appellation under Aich it was known to the Greeks and Romans m his time to that of St. Jerome (Com- mt. in Ezek. xlvii. 16), and possibly later. 1e natives, however, called it Hamath, even St. Jerome’s time; and its present name, ‘mah, is but very slightly altered from the cient form. -Barckhardt visited Humah in 1812. He ‘scribes it as situated on both sides of the sontes, partly on the declivity of a hill, ily in the plain, and as divided into four arters — Hadher, El Djisr, 1 Aleyat, and ! Medine, the last being the quarter of the mistians. The population, according to } m, was at that time 30,000. The town & ‘ssessed few antiquities, and was chiefly re- ( arkable for its huge water-wheels, whereby Region around Hums, showing the “ entrance to Hamath.” © gardens and the houses in the upper town wre supplied from the Orontes. The neighboring , that the plain of Hums opens to the four points of sritory he calls «the granary of Northern Syria” | the compass. Especially to one journeying from "ravels in Syria, pp. 146-147. See also Pococke, the south or the west would this locality be appro- ravels in the Kast, vol. i.; Irby and Mangles, priately described as an entrance. (3.) It is im- ravels, p. 244; and Stanley, S. ¢ P. pp. 406, probable that the lands of Hamath ever extended | G.R. ‘as far south as the height of land between the * The “entrance of Hamath” is not, as stated, Leontes and the Orontes, or in fact into the south- the water-shed between the Litény and the ern division of Cole-Syria at all. Hums would routes, which would place it too far south, for the have been its natural limit from the sea, to oné Tontes 3 my 77 “ . O r ae % ta we eirat Mescingt Pe" 1° . 488 HAMATHITE, THE journeying along the coast from Tripoli to La- vakia. Lebanon and the Nusairiyeh range are seen| _, in profile, with the gap between them. A similar | %* view is presented from the remaining cardinal GaP: points. ¥SS NX Nusairtyeh Mts descended from Canaan, HAMMER HAMATHITE, THE (O07: Fe | Amatheus, Hamatheus), one of the | named last in the |) (Gen. x. 18; 1 Chr. i. 16). The place of their tlement was doubtless HAMATH. es SS | Entrance to Hamath from the W. HA’MATH-ZO’BAH (TIEN 3 BaiowBa; [Alex. Aiwad SwBa:] Emath-Suba) is said to have been attacked and conquered by Sol- omon (2 Chr. viii. 8). It has been conjectured to be the same as Hamath, here regarded as included in Aram-Zobah — a geographical expression which has usually a narrower meaning. But the name Hamath-Zobah would seem rather suited to an- other Hamath which was distinguished from the “Great Hamath,”’ by the suffix ‘ Zobah.’’ Com- pare Ramoth-Gilead, which is thus distinguished from Ramah in Benjamin. i. ae * HAMI’TAL, 2 K. xxiii. 81, is the reading of the A. V. ed. 1611 for HAMUTAL. A. HAM MATH (8 [warm spring]: ’Omad- adaxée@ — the last two syllables a corruption of the name following; [Alex. Auge; [Ald. *Auude:] math), one of the fortified cities in the territory allotted to Naphtali (Josh. xix. 35). It is not possible from this list to determine its position, but the notices of the Talmudists, collected by Lightfoot in his Chorographical Century, and Chor. Decad, leave no doubt that it was near Ti- berias, one mile distant —in fact that it had its name, Chammath, “hot baths,’’ because it con- tained those of Tiberias. In accordance with this are the slight notices of Josephus, who mentions it under the name of Emmaus as a “ village not far (ndun .. . ove &mwOev) from Tiberias” (Ant. xviii. 2, § 3), and as where Vespasian had en- camped ‘before (apd) Tiberias” (B. J. iv. 1, § 3). Remains of the wall of this encampment were rec- ognized by Irby and Mangles (p. 89 6). In both cases Josephus names the hot springs or baths, add- ing in the latter, that such is the interpretation of the name ’Auuaods, and that the waters are me- dicinal. The Hammdm, at present three® in number, still send up their hot and sulphureous waters, at a spot rather more than a mile south of the modern town, at the extremity of the ruins of the ancient city (Rob. ii. 883, 384; Van de Velde, ii. 899). It is difficult, however, to reconcile with this position other observations of the Talmudists, yuoted on the same place, by Lightfoot, to the effect that Chammath was called also the ‘“ wells of Gadara,’’ from its proximity to that place, and also that half the town was on the east side of the Jordan and half on the west, with a bridge between them —the fact being that the ancient Tiberias a *Mr. Porter (Handb. for Syr. § Pal. ii. 422) speaks of four springs: one under the old bath-house, was at least 4 miles, and the Hammam 23, fri the present embouchure of the Jordan. The sai| difficulty besets the account of Parchi (in Zun Appendix to Benjamin of Tudela, ii. 403). places the wells entirely on the east of Jordan. | In the list of Levitical cities given out of Nay, tali (Josh. xxi. 82), the name of this place see, to be given as HAMMOTH-DoR, and in 1 Chr.) 76 it is further altered to HAMMON. G. HAMMEDA’THA (SINTST : Apadde) [Alex. Avauabados, Apadados:] Amadathi father of the infamous Haman, and commonly d! ignated as “the Agagite”’ (Esth. iii. 1, 10; v 5; ix. 24), though also without that title (ix. 1) By Gesenius (Lew. 1855, p. 539) the name is tal) to be Medatha, preceded by the definite artiy For other explanations, see Fiirst, Handwb. [Ze = given by Haomo, an Ized], and Simonis, 0 masticon, p. 586. ‘The latter derives it from a P sian word meaning “double.’? For the terminat compare ARIDATHA. HAMME/LECH (327 [the hing]: +} BaoiAéws: Amelech), rendered in the A. YV.i a proper name (Jer. xxxvi. 26; xxxviii. 6); Jj there is no apparent reason for supposing it to! anything but the ordinary Hebrew word for “} king,” 2. é. in the first case Jehoiakim, and in latter Zedekiah. If this is so, it enables us to e: nect with the royal family of Judah two perso Jerachmeel and Malciah, who do not appear in ' A. V. as members thereof. HAMMER. eral names for this indispensable tool. oS The Hebrew language has s- (1.) Pati (WOH, connected etymologically with ordi to strike), which was used by the gold-beater | xli. 7, A. V. “carpenter’’) to overlay with silt and ‘‘smooth’’ the surface of the image; as as by the quarry-man (Jer. xxiii. 29). (2.) M> ee pee i 7), and generally any workman's hammer (Ju: iv. 21; Is. xliv. 12; Jer..x. 4). (3.) a (mars), used only in Judg. y. 26, and ti with the addition of the word ‘ workmen’s” / way of explanation, (4.) A kind of hamm; named mappétz (Y©%9), Jer. li. 20 (A. V. bat axe’), or méphitz (Y"D%D), Prov. xxv. 18 (A:! and three others a few paces further south (see ! Rob. Bibl. Res. iii. 259). B HAMMOLEKETH naul’’), was used as a weapon of war. “ Ham- wr” is used figuratively for any overwhelming wer, whether worldly (Jer. 1. 23), or spiritual er. xxiii. 29 [comp. Heb. iv. 12]). W. L. B. * From May comes Maccabzeus or Maccabee [ACCABEES, THE]. The hammer used by Jael udg. v. 26) was not of iron, but a wooden mal- , such as the Arabs use now for driving down air tent-pins. (See Thomson’s Land and Book, 149.) In the Hebrew, it is spoken of as ‘the mmer,” as being the one kept for that purpose. ie nail driven through Sisera’s temples was also e of the wooden tent-pins. This particularity ints to a scene drawn from actual life. It is said ‘1K. vi. 7 that no sound of hammer, or axe, or y iron tool, was heard in building the Temple, zause it “was built of stone made ready ”’ at the arry. The immense cavern under Jerusalem, iere undoubtedly most of the building material the ancient city was obtained, furnishes inci- otal confirmation of this statement. ‘ The heaps chippings which lie about show that the stone 's dressed on the spot. . . . There are no other arries of any great size near the city, and in the gn of Solomon this quarry, in its whole extent, 's without the limits of the city’ (Barclay’s City the Great King, p. 468, 1st ed. (1865)). See ‘0 the account of this subterranean gallery in the vdnance Survey of Jerusalem, pp. 63, 64. H. HAMMOLE’KETH (3'2°377, with the licle = the Queen: 4 Madcexé0: Regina), a ‘man introduced in the genealogies of Manasseh ‘daughter of Machir and sister of Gilead (1 Chr. . 17, 18), and as having among her children 3I-EZER, from whose family sprang the great ‘dge Gideon. The Targum translates the name noon T= who reigned. The Jewish tra- ion, as preserved by Kimchi in his commentary the passage, is that “she used to reign over a rtion of the land which belonged to Gilead,’’ d that for that reason her lineage has been pre- ved. HAM’MON (7AM [hot or sunny]: [Epe- @v;| Alex. Auwy: Hamon). 1. A city in sher (Josh. xix. 28), apparently not far from Zi- ‘a-rabbah, or “Great Zidon.”” Dr. Schultz sug- sted its identification with the modern village of wmul, near the coast, about 10 miles below Tyre ob. ili. 66), but this is doubtful both in etymology 1 position. 2. [Xaué0; Alex. Xauwv.] A ity. allotted t of the tribe of Naphtali to the Levites (1 Chr. 76), and answering to the somewhat similar “mes HAMMATH and HAMMOTH-DoR in Joshua. | G. HAMMOTH-DOR’ (ANT AM [warm rings, abode]: Newudd; Alex. EuadSwp: Am- ith Dor), a city of Naphtali, allotted with its curbs to the Gershonite Levites, and for a city ‘refuge (Josh. xxi. 32). Unless there were two ees of the same or very similar name in Naph- 1, this is identical with HAmMMATH. Why the &x Dor is added it is hard to tell, unless the word ers in some way to the situation of the place on 2 coast, in which fact only had it (as far as we ow) any resemblance to Dor, on the shore of the editerranean. In 1 Chr. vi. 76 the name is con- eted to Hammon. G. 989 HAMO/NAH (TIVIT [tumult, noise of a multitude]: TloAvavSpiov: Amona), the vame of a city mentioned in a highly obscure passage of Ezekiel (xxxix. 16); apparently that of the place in or near which the multitudes of Gog should be buried after their great slaughter by God, and which is to derive its name — ‘“ multitude ’’— from that. circumstance. G. HA’MON-GOG’, THE VALLEY OF (AVA FVWATT SA = ravine of Gog’s multitude : Tal 7d mwoAvdvdpioy tod Tey: vallis multitudinis Gog), the name to be bestowed on a ravine or glen, previously known as ‘the ravine of the passengers on the east of the sea,’’ after the burial there of ‘Gog and all his multitude’ (lz. xxxix. 11, 15). HA’MOR (VST), i. e. in Hebrew a large he- ass, the figure employed by Jacob for Issachar: "Euuop: Hemor), a Hivite (or according to the Alex. LX X. a Horite), who at the time of the en- trance of Jacob on Palestine was prince (N«as/) of the land and city of Shechem, and father of the impetuous young man of the latter name whose ill treatment of Dinah brought destruction on himself, his father, and the whole of their city (Gen. xxxiii. 19; xxxiv. 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, 18, 20, 24, 26). Hamor would seem to have been a person of great influ- ence, because, though alive at the time, the men of his tribe are called after him Bene-Hamor, and he himself, in records narrating events long subsequent to this, is styled /Zamor-Abi Shecem (Josh. xxiv. 32:4 Judg. ix. 28; Acts vii. 16). In the second of these passages his name is used as a signal of revolt, when the remnant of the ancient Hivites attempted to rise against Abimelech son of Gideon. [SuHecuHEM.] For the title Abi-Shecem, ‘father of Shechem,’’ compare “father of Bethlehem,”’ ‘father of Tekoah,’’ and others in the early lists of 1 Chr. ii., iv. In Acts vii. 16 the name is given in the Greek form of EmMMmor, and Abraham is said to have bought his sepulchre from the “ sons of Emmor.”’ HAMU’EL (Omar [see infra], 7. e. Ham- miiel: "AuouhdA: Amuel), a man of Simeon; son of Mishma, of the family of Shaul (1 Chr. iv. 26), from whom, if we follow the records of this pas- sage, it would seem the whole tribe of Simeon located in Palestine were derived. In many He- brew MSS. the name is given as Chammiel. * The latter form exchanges the soft guttural for the hard. It signifies ‘heat ’’ and hence ‘“ anger of God’’ (Gesen.), or “God is a sun”’ (Fiirst). H. HAMULITES, THE HA/MUL (Ovary [ pitied, spared]: Sam. ONIOTT: rewoufa, "Ianodv; [Alex. in Num., IauwoundA; Comp. ’AuovaA, XapwovA:] Hamul), the younger son of Pharez, Judah’s son by Tamar (Gen. xlvi. 12; 1 Chr. ii. 5). Hamul was head of the family of the Hamulites (Num. xxvi. 21), but none of the genealogy of his descendants is pre- served in the lists of 1 Chronicles, though those of the descendants of Zerah are fully given. HA’MULITES, THE (“PVOT [see above]: "Ianouvt, Alex. IanoundAr; [Comp. ’Auou- a The LXX. have here read the word without its initial guttural, and rendered it mapa trav ‘Apoppatwy, from the Amorites.”’ 930 HAMUTAL Af:] Hamulite), the family Cuimi=iaet=)) of the preceding (Num. xxvi. 21). HAMU’TAL (POVET =perh. kin to the dew: "AMITAA 5 [ Vat. Ametrat, Mirar; Alex. Api Tad, -ra0;] in Jer. "Amerrdad [Alex. -yi-]: Ami- tal), daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah; one of the wives of “king Josiah, and mother of the unfor- tunate princes Jehoahaz (2 K. xxiii. 31), and Mat- taniah or Zedekiah (2 K. xxiv. 18; Jer. lii. 1). In the two last passages the name is given in the original text as Sonn, Chamital, a reading which the LXX. follow throughout. * Curiously enough, in the first passage, but in neither of the two last, the A. V. ed. 1611 reads Hamital. A. HANAM’EEL [properly Hanamel, in 3 syl ] ( Owain [perh. ON2207 whom God has given, Gesen. ] : "Avapmenr: Hanameel), son of Shallum, and cousin of Jeremiah. When Judea was occupied by the Chaldeans, Jerusalem be- leaguered, and Jeremiah in prison, the prophet bought a field of Hanameel in token of his assur- ance that a time was to come when land should be once more a secure possession (Jer. xxxii. 7, 8, 9, 12; and comp 44). The suburban fields belong- ing to the tribe of Levi could not be sold (Lev. xxv. 34); but possibly Hanameel may have inher- ited property from his mother. Compare the case of Barnabas, who also was a Levite; and the note of Grotius on Acts iv. 37. Henderson (on Jer. xxxii. 7) supposes that a portion of the Levitical estates might be sold within the tribe. Wri: HA/NAN (an [gracious, merciful]: ’Avdv: Hanan). 1. One of the chief people of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chr. viii. 23). 2. The last of the six sons of Azel, a descend- ant of Saul (1 Chr. viii. 88; ix. 44). 3. [FA. Avvay.] ‘Son of Maachah,’’ 7. e. possibly a Syrian of Aram-Maachah, one of the heroes of David’s guard, according to the extended list of 1 Chr. xi. 43. 4. [FA. Tavav.] Bene-Chanan [sons of C.] were among the Nethinim who returned from Bab- ylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 46; Neh. vii. 49). In the parallel list, 1 Esdr. v. 30, the name is given as ANAN. 5. (LXX. omits [Rom. and Alex. in Neh. x. 10 read Avay, but Vat. and FA.! omit].) One of the Levites who assisted Ezra in his public exposition of the law (Neh. viii. 7). The same person is probably mentioned in x. 10 as sealing the cov- enant, since several of the same names occur in both passages. 6. [Vat. omits.] One of the “heads” of the ‘people,’ that is of the laymen, who also sealed the covenant (x. 22). 7. (Aivav; [FA. Awa.]) Another of the chief laymen on the same occasion (x. 26). 8. [FA. Aavay.|] Son of Zaccur, son of Mat- taniah, whom Nehemiah made one of the store- keepers of the provisions collected as tithes (Neh. xili. 13). He was probably a layman, in which ease the four storekeepers represented the four chief classes of the people — priests, scribes, Levites, and jaymen. 9. Son of Igdaliahu “the man of God” (Jer. xxxy. 4). The sons of Hanan had a chamber in! In the 4th year of his reign, B. C. 595, Hana HANANIAH the Temple. The Vat. LXX. gives the name t —Iwvav viod ’Avaviov [FA. Avvay viou vav.ou |. t if HANAN’EEL [properly Hananel, in 3s. THE TOWER OF (8227) Say: by "Avamehar: turris Hananeel), a tower which fin i part of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 1, xii, | Krom these two passages, particularly from | former, it might almost be inferred that Hana | was but another name for the Tower of M, (TISIDIT = the hundred): at any rate they 4 close together, and stood between the sheep-¢; and the fish-gate. This tower is further mentio| in Jer. xxxi. 38, where the reference appears tes to an extensive breach in the wall, reaching | that spot to the “ gate of the corner” (comp. N, ili. 24, 82), and which the prophet is announc shall be “rebuilt to Jehovah’ and * not be | down any more for ever.’’ The remaining pass: in which it is named (Zech. xiv. 10) also conn this tower with the “corner gate,’ which lay) the other side of the sheep-gate. his verse is 1} dered by Ewald with a different punctuation) [from] the A. V. — ‘from the gate of Benjan, on to the place of the first (or early) gate, on) the corner-gate and Tower Hananeel, on to } king’s wine-presses.”” [JERUSALEM. ] ! HANA/NI (2377 [gracious]: [Rom. Ap, Avavias: Alex. ] Koaoks Hanani). 1. One of } sons of Heman, David's Seer, who were separal for song in the house of the Lord, and head of } 18th course of the service (1 Chr. xxv. 4, 25). 2. PAvavt; Vat. “vel, ONCE -MeEL; Alex. 1 xvi. 7, Avavia.-] A Seer who rebuked (B. c. 9) Asa, king of Judah, for his want of faith in G) which he had showed by buying off the hosti/ of Benhadad I. king of Syria (2 Chr. xvi. 7). | this he was imprisoned by Asa (10). He (or anot? Hanani) was the father of Jehu the Seer, who te! fied against Baasha (1 K. xvi. 1, 7), and Jehe: aphat 2 Chr. xix. 2, xx. 34). 3. [’Avayi: Vat. FA. -ver; Alex. Avavia-] @ of the priests who in the time of Ezra were c: nected with strange wives (Iizr. x. 20). In Esdi the name is ANANIAS. 4 4. [Avavi, Avavia; FA. in i. 2, Avay.] | brother of Nehemiah, who returned B. c. 446 fr} Jerusalem to Susa (Neh. i. 2); and was afterwa made governor of Jerusalem under Nehemi (vii. 2.) | 5. [’Avavi; Vat. Alex. FAl omit.] A pr mentioned in Neh. xii. 36. Woe B HANANYVAH (7330 and WWII] [wh Jehovah has gwen]: ‘ngeimien [A neurons] A: nics, [Hananta,} and Hananias. In New Te "Avavias: Ananias). | 1. One of the 14 sons of Heman the singer, ¢| chief of the sixteenth out of the 24 courses or wa’ into which the 288 musicians of the Levites w divided by king David. The sons of Heman w watiedl employed to blow the horns (1 Chr. x 4, 5, 23). | 2. One of the chief captains of the army of k Uzziah (2 Chr. xxvi. 11). >| 3. Father of Zedekiah, one of the princes i ‘i reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah (Jer. xxxvie 4. Son of Azur, a “Benjamite of Gibeon ani false prophet in the reign of Zedekiah king of Ind) ) oF 4 ic ha % 4 HANANIAH ithstood Jeremiah the prophet, and publicly rophesied in the temple that within two years econiah and all his fellow-captives, with the vessels f the Lord’s house which Nebuchadnezzar had ken away to Babylon, should be brought back to erusalem (Jer. xxviii.): an indication that treach- sous negotiations were already secretly opened with ‘haraoh-Hophra (who had just succeeded Psam- ais on the Egyptian throne), and that strong opes were entertained of the destruction of the abylonian power by him. The preceding chapter cxyii. 3) shows further that a league was already 1 progress between Judah and the neighboring ‘ations of Edom, Ammon, Moab, Tyre, and Zidon, w the purpose of organizing resistance to Nebu- jadnezzar, in combination no doubt with the pro- acted movements of Pharaoh-Hophra. Hananiah orroborated his prophecy by taking from off the eck of Jeremiah the yoke which he wore by Di- ine command (Jer. xxvii., in token of the subjec- ‘on of Judea and the neighboring countries to the ‘abylonian empire), and breaking it, adding, “ Thus vith Jehovah, Even so will I break the yoke of Tebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from the neck of | nations within the space of two full years.”’ But eremiah was bid to go and tell Hananiah that for 1e wooden yokes which he had broken he should 1ake yokes of iron, so firm was the dominion of abylon destined *to be for seventy years. The rophet Jeremiah added this rebuke and prediction f Hananiah’s death, the fulfillment of which closes ne history of this false prophet. ‘Hear now, fananiah; Jehovah hath not sent thee; but thou aakest this people to trust in a lie. Therefore thus Aith Jehovah, Behold I will cast thee from off the ce of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because 10u hast taught rebellion against Jehovah. So fananiah the prophet died the same year, in the wenth month” (Jer. xxviii.). The above history ‘ Hananiah is of great interest, as throwing much ght upon the Jewish politics of that eventful time, ivided as parties were into the partizans of Baby- mon one hand, and Egypt on the other. It also chibits the machinery of false prophecies, by which 1e irreligious party sought to promote their own olicy, in a very distinct form. At the same time »0 that it explains in general the sort of political Meulation on which such false prophecies were azarded, it supplies an important clew in partic- Jar by which to judge of the date of Pharaoh- {ophra’s (or Apries’) accession to the Egyptian irone, and the commencement of his ineffectual fort to restore the power of Egypt (which had een prostrate since Necho’s overthrow, Jer. xlvi. ) upon the ruins of the Babylonian empire. The ‘aning to Egypt, indicated by Hananiah’s prophecy ‘3 having begun in the fourth of Zedekiah, had in ‘ae sixth of his reign issued in open defection from febuchadnezzar, and in the guilt of perjury, which st Zedekiah his crown and his life, as we learn rom Ez. xvii. 12-20; the date being fixed by a pmparison of Ez. viii. 1 with xx. 1. The tem- orary success of the intrigue which is described 1 Jer. xxxvii. was speedily followed by the return *the Chaldeans and the destruction of the city, beording to the prediction of Jeremiah. This his- ory of Hananiah also illustrates the manner in \hich the false prophets hindered the mission, and »structed the beneficent effects of the ministry, of : _@ Pharaoh-Hophra succeeded Psammis, B. ¢. 595. ‘he dates of the Egyptian reigns from Psammetichus ‘ | HANANIAH ~ 991 the true prophets, and affords a remarkable example of the way in which they prophesied smooth things, and said peace when there was no peace (comp. 1 K. xxii. 11, 24, 25). 5. Grandfather of Irijah, the captain of the ward at the gate of Benjamin who arrested Jeremiah on a charge of deserting to the Chaldeans (Jer. xxxvii. 13). 6. Head of a Benjamite house (1 Chr. viii. 24). 7. The Hebrew name of Shadrach. [Snap- RACH.| He was of the house of David, according to Jewish tradition (Dan. i. 3, 6,7, 11,19; ii. 17). [ANANIAS. | 8. Son of Zerubbabel, 1 Chr. iii. 19, from whom Curisr derived his descent. He is the same person who is by St. Luke called ’Iwayvas, Joanna, and who, when Rhesa is discarded, appears there also as Zerubbabel’s son [GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. | The identity of the two names Hananiah and Joanna is apparent immediately we compare them in Hebrew. pe? ia (Hananiah) is compounded of 7207 and the Divine name, which always takes the form mM, or wT, at the end of compounded names (as in Jerem-iah, Shephet-iah, Nehem-iah, Azar-iah, etc.). It meant gratiose dedit Dominus. Joanna (JIT) is compounded of the Divine name, which at the beginning of compound names takes the form nt or Wa (as in Jeho-shua, Jeho- : ’ shaphat, Jo-zadak, ete.), and the same word, 7217, and means Dominus gratiosé dedit. Examples of a similar transposition of the elements of a compound name in speaking of the same individual, are 193139, Jecon-iah, and JWT), Jeho-jachin, of the same king of Judah; Ahaz-iah and Jeho- ahaz of the same son of Jehoram; Eli-am, and Ammi-el, of the father of Bath-sheba; and El-asah for Asah-el, and Ishma-el, for Eli-shama, in some MSS. of Ezr. x. 15 and 2 K. xxv. 25. This iden- tification is of great importance, as bringing St. Luke’s genealogy into harmony with the Old Testa- ment. Nothing more is known of Hananiah. 9. The two names Hananiah and Jehohanan stand side by side, Ezr. x. 28, as sons of Bebai, who returned with Ezra from Babylon. 10. A priest, one of the “apothecaries”? (which see) or makers of the sacred ointments and incense (Ex. xxx. 22-38, 1 Chr. ix. 30), who built a portion of the wall of Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 8). He may be the same as is mentioned in ver. 30 as haying repaired another portion. If so, he was son of Shelemiah; perhaps the same as is mentioned xii. 41. 11. Head of the priestly course of Jeremiah in the days of Joiakim the high-priest, Neh. xii. 12. 12. Ruler of the palace (7°27 72) at Jerusalem under Nehemiah. He is described as “a faithful man, and one who feared God above many.’ His office seems to have been one of authority and trust, and perhaps the same as that of Eliakim, who was “ over the house” in the reign of Hezekiah. [Etrakim.] The arrangements for guarding the gates of Jerusalem were intrusted tc him with Hanani, the Tirshatha’s brother. Prideaux thinks that the appointment of Hanani and Hananiabh are fixed by that of the conquest of Egypt by Cam byses. 992 HANDICRAFT indicates that at this time Nehemiah returned to Persia, but without sufficient ground. Nehemiah seems to have been continuously at Jerusalem for some time after the completion of the wall (vii. 5, 65, viii. 9, x. 1). If, too, the term (7737 means, as Gesenius supposes, and as the use of it in Neh. ii. 8 makes not improbable, not the palace, but the fortress of the Temple, called by Josephus Bdpis — there is still less reason to imagine Nehe- miah’s absence. In this case Hananiah would be a priest, perhaps of the same family as the preced- ing. ‘The rendering moreover of Neh. vii. 2, 3, should probably be, “ And I enjoined (or gave orders to) Hanani . . and Hananiah the captaifs of the fortress . . . . concerning Jerusalem, and said, Let not the gates,” etc. There is no authority for rendering Sy by “ over’? —‘“ He gave such an one charge over Jerusalem.’’? The passages quoted by Gesenius are not one of them to the point. 13. An Israelite, Neh. x. 23 (Hebr. 24). [ANa- NIAS. | 14. Other Hananiahs will be found under ANA- NIAS, the Greek form of the name. A. C. H. HANDICRAFT (réxvn, epyacta : ars, artificum, Acts xviii. 3, xix. 25; Rev. xviii. 22). Although the extent cannot be ascertained to which tose arts were carried on whose invention is as- cribed to Tubal-Cain, it is probable that this was proportionate to the nomadic or settled habits of the antediluvian races. Among nomad races, as the Bedouin Arabs, or the tribes of Northern and Central Asia and of America, the wants of life, as well as the arts which supply them, are few; and it is only among the city-dwellers that both of them are multiplied and make progress. This sub ject cannot, of course, be followed out here; in the present article brief notices can only be given of such handicraft trades as are mentioned in Scrip- ture. 1. The preparation of iron for use either in war, in agriculture, or for domestic purposes, was doubt- less one of the earliest applieations of labor; and, together with iron, working in brass, or rather cop- per alloyed with tin, bronze (TT, Gesen. p. 875), is mentioned in the same passage ‘as practiced in antediluvian times (Gen. iv. 22). The use of this last is usually considered as an art of higher antiquity even than that of iron (Hesiod. Works and Days, 150; Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. ii. p. 152, abridg.), and there can be no doubt that metal, whether iron or bronze, must have been largely used, either in material or in tools, for the con- struction of the Ark (Gen. vi. 14, 16). Whether the weapons for war or chase used by the early warriors of Syria and Assyria, or the arrow-heads of the archer Ishmael were of bronze or iron, cannot be ascertained; but we know that iron was used for warlike purposes by the Assyrians (Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 194), and on the other hand that stone-tipped arrows, as was the case also in Mexico, were used in the earlier times by the Egyptians as well as the Persians and Greeks, and that stone or flint knives continued to be used by them, and by the inhabitants of the desert, and also by the Jews, for religious purposes after the introduction of iron into general use (Wilkinson, Anc. Kg. i. 853, 354, ii. 163; Prescott, Meaico, i. 118; Ex. iv. 25; Josh. v. 2; 1st Egypt. room, Brit. Mus. case 36, 37). In the construction of the Tabernacle, copper, HANDICRAFT but no iron, appears to have been used, though use of iron was at the same period well known t the Jews, both from their own use of it and fron their Egyptian education, whilst the Canaanit inhabitants of Palestine and Syria were in full pos session of its use both for warlike and domesti purposes (Ix. xx. 25, xxv. 3, xxvii. 19; Num xxxv. 16; Deut. iii. 11, iv. 20, viii. 9; Josh. vii} 31, xvii. 16, 18). After the establishment of th Jews in Canaan, the occupation of a smith (wan became recognized as a distinct. employment ( Sam. xiii, 19). The designer of a higher orde| appears to have been called specially nw (Ges p. 531; Ex. xxxv. 30, 35; 2 Chr. xxvi a) Saalschiitz, Arch. Hebr. c. 14, § 16). The smith’) work and its results are often mentioned in Serip| ture (2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 K. vi. 7; 2 Chr. xxvi. 14 Is. xliv. 12, liv. 16). Among the captives take to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar were 1000 * crafts men’’ and smiths, who were probably of th superior kind (2 K. xxiv. 16; Jer. xxix. 2). The worker in gold and silver (7/713: dpryupo Kém0S, XwvevThs: argentarius, aurifex) mus have found employment both among the Hebrew) and the neighboring nations in very early times as appears from the ornaments sent by Abrahan| to Rebekah (Gen. xxiv. 22, 53, &xxv. 4, xxxviii. 18) Deut. vii. 25). But whatever skill the Hebrew) possessed, it is quite clear that they must hav learned much from Egypt and its “ iron-furnaces,’| both in metal-work and in the arts of setting ani polishing precious stones; arts which were turne(| to account both in the construction of the Taber} nacle and the making of the priests’ ornaments) and also in the casting of the golden calf as wel as its destruction by Moses, probably, as suggeste by Goguet,- by a method which he had learnt ii) Egypt (Gen. xli. 42; Ex. iii. 22, xii. 35, xxxi. 4| 5, xxxii. 2, 4, 20, 24, xxxvii. 17, 24, xxxviii. 4, 8) 24, 25, xxxix. 6, 39; Neh. iii. 8; Is. xliy. 72) Various processes of the goldsmiths’ work (No 1) are illustrated by Egyptian monuments (Wilkin son, Anc. Egypt. ii. 1386, 152, 162). After the conquest frequent notices are fount both of moulded and wrought metal, includini soldering, which last had long been known it Egypt; but the Phcenicians appear to have pos sessed greater skill than the Jews in these arts, al least in Solomon’s time (Judg. viii. 24, 27, xvii 4; 1 K. vii. 18, 45, 46; Is. xli. 7; Wisd. xy. 4) Egyptian Blow-pipe, and small fire-place with cheek to confine and reflect the heat. (Wilkinson.) Ecclus. xxxviii. 28; Bar. vi. 50, 55, 57 [or of Jer. vi. 50, 55, 57]; Wilkinson, ii. 162). [Z. PHATH.] Even in the desert, mention is of beating gold into plates, cutting it into wir HANDICRAFT HANDICRAFT 993 0 of setting precious stones in gold (Ex. xxxix. 6, &c.; Beckmann, Hist. of Inv. ii. 414; Ges. 1229). : ‘Among the tools of the smith are mentioned — p- 101), envil (OY, Ges. p. 1118), bellows ags (om, AaBis, forceps, Ges. p. 761, (7272, guontnp, sufflatorium, Ges. p. 896; Is. Is. vi. 6), hammer (W>tdS, opupd, malleus, Ges. | Ta ‘§ ‘Atjomof Suryey -g ‘T “sty Rue INS \ LA ‘PIO ou SurySyoay “fF “plod eq} Suyjour soy oxy oy} Satmo “STVIUSploy wend Aaq (‘mwosury]t 44) q} Jo uonvirderd 04} 07 sozeTar 47ed Surutreurel 3 "POYIOM ST 4T O1OJoq [eJouT 3 *OqIIOS 10 YI “Gg 8 ‘1 ‘9 *plos Suryseyy ¢ ‘ +Tepuszuledng ‘gy : : | . 3 Jer. vi. 29; Ecclus. xxxviii. 28; Wilkinson, | silversmith (apyupoxdmos) as being in danger from 15). the spread of Christianity (Acts xix. 24, 28; 2 N. T. Alexander “ the coppersmith ” (4 xaa- | Tim. iv. 14). [See also SMIrH. ] of Ephesus is mentioned, where also was 4 d on that trade in ‘silver shrines” (yao)| 2 The work of the carpenter (Osy won, vot), Which was represented by Demetrius the Téxtwy, artifex lignarius) is often mentioned in 63 §94 HANDICRAFT HANDICRAFT : Scripture (e. g. Gen. vi. 14; Ex. xxxvii.; Is. xliv.;the rebuilding under Zerubbabel, no mention 13). In the palace built by David for himself the| made of foreign workmen, though in the la) workmen employed were chiefly Phoenicians sent |case the timber is expressly said to have } by Hiram (2 Sam. y. 11; 1 Chr. xiv. 1), as most | brought by sea to Joppa by Zidonians (2 K. | 41; 2 Chr. xxiv. 12; Ezra iii) That the Jewish carpenters m have been able to carve y some skill is evident from Is, 7, xliv. 13, in which last pass some of the implements use, the trade are mentioned: rule (Ta » BéeTpov, Nor possibly a chalk pencil, Ger, 1337), measuring-line OD, ( p- 1201), compass (TTY, maparypadis, circinus, ~ |, p- 450), plane, or smoot] instrument (TYAZ /7"9, Kr, runcina, Ges. pp. 1228, 13) axe ({773, Ges. p. 302,{ DT, Ges. p. 1236, af securis). The process of the work, j the tools used by Egyptian penters, and also coopers | wheelwrights, are displayeci Egyptian monuments and re the former, including dovetai veneering, drilling, glueing, nishing, and. inlaying, may seen in Wilkinson, Anc. Ey ii. 111-119. Of the lattern specimens, including saws, he! ets, knives, awls, nails, a I} and a drill, also turned ob| in bone, exist in the Bri Museum, Ist Egyptian n case 42-43, Nos. 6046-) See also Wilkinson, ii. p. } SES eI =e Ss aE 5 Sn Sera nhen yale sae 2! gine LGA aed ah ORE stoning ; but this is, by Selden (de Ux. Heb. iii. 18), shown to be unfounded. @ So at Corinth were 1000 icpoSodAcr dedicated to Aphrodite and the gross sins of her worship, and sim- ilarly at Comana, in Armenia (Strabo, Ui. c.). € Adras ai yuvatces ex tis OS00 Tods maplovTas Evvapragover (Theophr. Char. xxviii.). So Catullus Philo (Lid. de spec. Legib. 6, 7) contends that |(Carm. xxxvii. 16) speaks conversely of semitarit dom was punished under the Mosaic law with | machi. a The term TWIP (meaning properly “con- ated "”) points to one description of persons, bh) ” i 7D) (“strange woman”) to another, of ke this class mostly consisted. The first term *s to the impure worship of the Syrian @ Astarte m. xxv. 1; comp. Herod. i. 199; Justin, xviii. Strabo, Vili. p. 378, xii. p. 559; Wal. Max. ii. 6, August. de Civ. Det, iv. 4), whose votaries, as utry progressed, would be recruited from the ‘shters of Israel; hence the common mention oth these sins in the Prophets, the one indeed 3.4 metaphor of the other (Is. i. 21, lvii. 8; Al. 20; comp. Ex. xxxiv. 15, 16; Jer. iii. 1, 2, %. Xvi. xxiii; Hos. i. 2, ii. 4, 5, iv. dT 3 14, . 3). The latter class would grow up with va of great cities and of foreign intercourse, . 2 * Jorah (7D), Jirst or early rain)is simply — oh, if the latter means (see above) the early rain P begins to fall in Palestine about the middle of ver. lal Yeyling, Observ. Sacr. ii. 476, NSVPTI, i. €, ‘KeuT pia, 1004 HARODITE, THE ! HAROSHETH =| We have here an example of the minute dlisore; ancies which exist between these two parallel list. In this case it appears to have arisen from an e spring of Charod [i. e. of trembling], mn raph mnyh ’Apdd, Alex. rnv ynv Iaep: fons qui voca- tur Harad), a spring by (SY) which Gideon and his great army encamped on the morning of the day which ended in the rout of the Midianites (Judg. vii. 1), and where the trial of the people by their mode of drinking apparently took place. The word, slightly altered, recurs in the proclamation to the host: “ Whosoever is fearful and trembling (T27, chared) let him return’? (ver. 3): but it is impos- sible to decide whether the name Charod was, as Prof. Stanley proposes, bestowed on account of the trem- bling, or whether the mention of the trembling was suggested by the previously existing name of the fountain: either would suit the paronomastic vein in which these ancient records so delight. The word chared (A. V. “was afraid’’) recurs in the description of another event which took place in this neighborhood, possibly at this very spot — Saul’s last encounter with the Philistines — when he “was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly,” at the sight of their fierce hosts (1 Sam. xxviii. 5). The ’Ain Jalid, with which Prof. Stanley would identify Harod (S. ¢ P.) is very suitable to the circumstances, as being at present the largest spring in the neighborhood, and as forming a pool of con- siderable size, at which great numbers might drink (Rob. ii. 823). But if at that time so copious, would it not have been seized by the Midianites before Gideon's arrival? However, if the ’ Ain Ja- lid be not this spring, we are very much in the dark, since the “hill of Moreh,” the only land- mark afforded us (vii. 1), has not been recognized. The only hill of Moreh of which we have any certain knowledge was by Shechem, 25 miles to the south. If Ain Jalid be Harod, then Jebel Duhy must be Moreh. It is quite possible that the name Jalid is a corruption of Harod. In that case it is a good example of the manner in which local names ac- quire a new meaning in passing from one language to another. Harod itself probably underwent a similar process after the arrival of the Hebrews in Canaan, and the paronomastic: turn given to Gid- eon’s speech, as above, may be an indication of the change. HA’/RODITE, THE (TON [patronym., see below]: 6 ‘Povdaios; Alex. o Apovdaios, [o Apwdaios:| de Harodt), the designation of two of the thirty-seven warriors of David's guard, SHAM- MAH and EL1KA (2 Sam. xxiii. 25), doubtless de- rived from a place named Harod, either that just spoken of or some other. In the parallel passage of Chronicles by a change of letter the name ap- pears as HARORITE. HARO’EH (N77, 7. ©. ha-Roeh = the seer: ’Apad, [ Vat. corrupt]), a name occurring in the genealogical lists of Judah as one of the sons of “Shobal, father of Kirjath-jearim’’ (1 Chr. ii. 52). The Vulg. translates this and the following words, “qui videbat dimidium requietionum.”’ A somewhat similar name— REAIAH —is given in iy. 2.as the son of Shobal, but there is nothing to establish the identity of the two. HA’RORITE, THE (“TNT [see Ha- RODITE]: 6 ’Apwpi; [Vat. FA. o Adi;] Alex. @as:: Arorites), the title given to SHAMMOTH, one of the warriors of David’s guard (1 Chr. xi. 27). change of T, D, for 1, R, and that at a very cart date, since the LXX. is in agreement with tl present Hebrew text. But there are other diffe) ences, for which see SHAMMAH. f HARO/SHETH (FW, Chardshe [working in wood. stone, ete., Ges.; or city ¢ crafts, of artificial work, First]: ’Apioo0; [Ve Apetow0; Alex. Aceipw0, in ver. 16, 6 upou Haroseth), or rather “‘ Harosheth of the Gentiles as it was called (probably for the same reason th) Galilee was afterwards), from the mixed races th inhabited it, a city in the north of the land of C naan, supposed to have stood on the west coast — the lake Merom (e/-Hileh)}, from which the Jord issues forth in one unbroken stream, and in t portion of the tribe of Naphtali. It was the n idence of Sisera, captain of Jabin, king of Cana) (Judg. iv. 2), whose capital, Hazor, one of t fenced cities assigned to the children of Napht! (Josh. xix. 36), lay to the northwest of it; and was the point to which the victorious Israeli under Barak pursued the discomfited host a chariots of the second potentate of that na’ (Judg. iv. 16). Probably from intermarriage w) the conquered Canaahites, the name of Sisera came afterwards a family name (Ezr. ii. 5) Neither is it irrelevant to allude to this coincide) in connection with the moral effects of this de sive victory; for Hazor, once “the head of all th) kingdoms ’”’ (Josh. xi. 6, 10), had been taken ¢ burnt by Joshua; its king, Jabin I., put to | sword; and the whole confederation of the Cana) ites of the north broken and slaughtered in | celebrated battle of the waters of Merom (Josh. 5-14) — the first time that “chariots and horse appear in array against the invading host, and } so summarily disposed of, according to Div command, under Joshua; but which subsequer’ the children of Joseph feared to face in the va/ of Jezreel (Josh. xvii. 16-18); and which Jul actually failed before in the Philistine plain (Ju) i. 19). Herein was the great difficulty of sub: ing plains, similar to that of the Jordan, be? which Harosheth stood. It was not till the Isr: ites had asked for and obtained a king, that t/ began “to multiply chariots and horses ’’ to th: selves, contrary to the express words of the | (Deut. xvii. 16), as it were to fight the enemy his own weapons. (The first instance occu: Sam. viii. 4, comp. 1 Chr. xviii. 4; next in | histories of Absalom, 2 Sam. xv. 1, and of Ad- jah, 1 K.i. 5; while the climax was reached wl Solomon, 1 K. iv. 26.) And then it was | their decadence set in! They were strong} faith when they hamstrung the horses and but! the chariots with fire of the kings of Hazor Madon, of Shimron, and of Achshaph (Josh. xi! And yet so rapidly did they decline when t illustrious leader was no more, that the city Hazor had risen from its ruins; and in contrat} the kings of Mesopotamia and of Moab (Judg. } who were both of them foreign potentates, and’ Jabin, the territory of whose ancestors had | assigned to the tribe of Naphtali, claimed the’ tinction of being the first to revolt against shake off the dominion of Israel in his 2 acquired inheritance. But the victory won a ¥ 13 HARP leborah and Barak was well worthy of the song of jumph which it inspired (Judg. v.), and of the roverbial celebrity which ever afterwards attached ) it (Ps. Ixxxiii. 9, 10). The whole territory was radually won back, to be held permanently, as it ould seem (Judg. iv. 24); at all events we hear othing more of Hazor, Harosheth, or the Canaan- es of the north, in the succeeding wars. The site of Harosheth does not appear to have een identified by any modern traveller. E. S. Ff. * Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, ii. 443) sup- oses Harosheth to be the high Tell called Haro- veh, near the base of Carmel, where the Kishon ows along toward the sea. “I have no doubt,” e says, ‘of this identification.’ A castle there ould guard the pass along the Kishon into the lain of Esdraelon, and the ruins still found on this enormous double mound ”’ show that a strong for- ‘ess must have stood here in former times. A village ? the same name occurs higher up on the other de of the river, and hence somewhat nearer the ene of the Deborah-Barak battle. This writer says tat Harothieh is the Arabic form of the Hebrew ‘arosheth, and (according to his view of the di- ction of the flight) lies directly in the way of the ‘treat of Sisera’s forces. It is about eight miles om Megiddo, and in the neighborhood of Accho Akka), and hence exactly in the region where the entile “ nations,’ to which Harosheth belonged, ill dwelt and were powerful; for we learn from adg. i. 31 that the Hebrews had been unable to sive them out from that part of the country. En-dor is mentioned (Ps. Ixxxiii. 10) as a place ‘ slaughter on this occasion. Hence, Stanley, in is graphic sketch (Jewish Church, i. 359), repre- mts the Canaanites as escaping in the opposite ‘rection, through the eastern branch of the plain, id thence onward to Harosheth, supposed by him ' be among the northern hills of Galilee. En-dor as not far from Tabor (the modern village is dis- ‘actly visible from its top), and in that passage of e Psalmist it may be named as a vague designa- m of the battle-field, while possibly those who ‘perished at En-dor’’ were some of the fugitives ‘iven in that direction, about whose destruction ere was something remarkable, as known by some adition not otherwise preserved. H. HARP fs) D2), Kinnor), in Greek kwvipa _ xwupa, from the Hebrew word, the sound of ich corresponds with the thing signified, like the arman knarren, “to produce a shrill tone”’ ‘iddell and Scott). Gesenius inclines to the ‘inion that “V132 is derived from 12D, “an vused onomatopoetic root, which means to give ‘rth a tremulous and stridulous sound, like that 4 string when touched.” The kinnor was the tional instrument of the Hebrews, and was well own throughout Asia. There can be little doubt ‘at it was the earliest instrument with which man ‘s acquainted, as the writer of the Pentateuch signs its invention, together with that of the WY, Ugad, incorrectly translated “ organ” in A. V., to the antediluvian period (Gen. iv. 21). *. Kalisch (Hist. and Crit. Com. on the Old Test.) insiders Kinnor to stand for the whole class of winged instruments (Neginoth), as Ugab, says , “is the type of all wind instruments.’ Writers 10 connect the Kwvpa with kivupds (wailing), viooua (I lament), conjecture that this instru- HARP 1005 ment was only employed by the Greeks on occa- sions of sorrow and distress. If this were the case with the Greeks it was far different with the He- brews, amongst whom the kinnor served as an ac- companiment to songs of cheerfulness and mirth as well as of praise and ¢hanksgiving to the Su- preme Being (Gen. xxxi. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 23; 2 Chr xx. 28; Ps xxxiii. 2), and was very rarely Egyptian harp. (Champollion.) used, if ever, in times of private or national afflic- tion. The Jewish bard finds no employment for the kinnor during the Babylonian Captivity, but describes it as put aside or suspended on the wil- lows (Ps. exxxvii. 2); and in like manner Job’s harp “is changed into mourning ’’ (xxx. 31), whilst the hand of grief pressed heavily upon him. The passage ‘“*my bowels shall sound like a harp for Assyrian harps. (Nineveh marbles.) Moab”? (Is. xvi. 11) has impressed some Biblical critics with the idea that the kinnor had a lugu- brious sound; but this is an error, since 1)J>2 TT refers to the vibration of the chords and not to the sound of the instrument (Gesen. and Hitzig, in Comment.). . Touching the shape of the kinnor a great differ- ence of opinion prevails. The author of Shilte Haggibborim describes it as resembling the modern harp; Pfeiffer gives it the form of a guitar; and St. Jerome declares it to have resembled in shape 1006 HARROW the Greek letter delta; and this last view is sup- ported by Hieronymus, quoted by Joel Brill in the preface to Mendelssohn's Psalms. Josephus re- cords (Antiq. vii. 12, § 3) that the kinnor had ten strings, and ‘hat it was played on with the plec- trum; others assign to it twenty-four, and in the Shille Haggibborim it is said to have had forty- seven. Josephus’s statement, however, ought not to be received as conclusive, as it is in open contra- diction to what is set forth in the 1st book of Samuel (xvi. 23, xviii. 10), that David played on the kinnor with his hand. As it is reasonable to suppose that there was a smaller and a larger kin- nor, inasmuch as it was sometimes played by the {sraelites whilst walkmg (1 Sam. x. 5), the opinion of Munk — “on jouait peut-étre des deux manieéres, suivant les dimensions de l’instrument ’’ — is well [Im ite AS (From the tomb at Thebes, called Belzoni’s.) er titled to consideration. The Talmud: (JZass. Beracoth) has preserved a curious tradition to the effect that over the bed of David, facing the north, a kinnor was suspended, and that when at midnight the north wind touched the chords they vibrated and produced musical sounds. The SPIOW PY. TD — “harp on the Sheminith ’’ (1 Chr. xv. 21) — was so called from its eight strings. Many learned writers, including the author of Shilte Haggibborim, identify the word «¢ Sheminith ”’ with the octave; but it would indeed be rash to conclude that the ancient Hebrews un- derstood the octave in the sense in which it is em- ployed in modern times. [SHEemrniTH.] The skill of the Jews on the kinnor appears to have reached its highest point of perfection in the age of David, the effect of whose performances, as well as of those by the members of the “Schools of the Prophets,’”’ are described as truly marvelous (comp. 1 Sam. x. 5, xvi. 23, and xix. 20). DoW, M. HARROW. The word so rendered 2 Sam. xij. 31, 1 Chr. xx. 3 CY) is probably a thresh- ing-machine, the verb rendered “to harrow”? (TIW), Is. xxviii. 24; Job xxxix. 10; Hos. x. 11, expresses apparently the breaking of the clods, and is so far analogous to our harrowing, but whether done by any such machine as we call “a harrow,” ss very doubtful. Egyptian harps. In modern Palestine, oxen are | P- HART - a occur (not after, but) before the seed is committed to the soil. [See AGRICULTURE. ] H. Hoge HARSHA (SW [deaf, Ges. 6te Aufl; see First]: ’Apod; [’Adacdy; in Ezr., Vat. Ap7- ga:] Harsa). Bene-Charsha [sons of C.] were among the families of Nethinim who came back from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 52; Neh. vii. 54). In the parallel list in Esdras the name is CHAREA. | HART (8: zaagos: cervus). The hart is reckoned among the clean animals (Deut. xii. 15, xiv. 5, xv. 22), and seems, from the passages quoted as well as from 1 K. iv. 23, to have been commonly killed for food. Its activity furnishes an apt comparison in Is. xxxv. 6, though in this respect the hind was more commonly selected by the sacred writers. In Ps. xlii. 1 the feminine ter- mination of the verb renders an emendation neces- sary: we must therefore substitute the hind; and again in Lam. i. 6 the true reading is my, | ‘crams ’’ (as given in the XX. and Vulg.). The proper name Ajalon is derived from ayyal, and im- plies that harts were numerous in the neighbor- hood. W. L. Bae The Heb. masc. noun ayyal (O58), which is al- | ways rendered \agos by the LXX., denotes, there | can be no doubt, some species of Cervide (deer tribe), either the Dama vulgaris, fallow-deer, or the Cervus Barbarus, the Barbary deer, the south- ern representative of the European stag (C. ela- phus), which occurs in Tunis and the coast of Barbary. We have, however, no evidence to show - that the Barbary deer ever inhabited Palestine, | though there is no reason why it may not have done so in primitive times. Hasselquist (Trav. | Barbary deer. ‘a 211) observed the fallow-deer on Mount Tabor. | sometimes turned in to trample the clods, and in| Sir G. Wilkinson says (Anc. Egypt. p. 227, 8yo some parts of Asia a bush of thorns is dragged ed.), “The stag with branching horns figured a | over the surface, but all these processes, if used,! Beni Hassan is also unknown in the valley of the HARUM HASHABNAH 1007 Is; but it is still seen in the vicinity of the Na- Hasebia), a name signifying “regarded of Jeho- ‘n lakes, as about Tunis, though not in the des-|vah,’’ much in Tequest among the Levites, espe- between the river and the Red Sea.” This is cially at the date of the return from Babylon. ibtless the Cervus Barbarus. 1. A Merarite Levite, son of Amaziah, in the Most of the deer tribe are careful to conceal their.| line of Ethan the singer (1 Chr. vi. 45; Heb. 30) ves after birth for a time. May there not be| 2- Another Merarite Levite (1 Chr. ix. 14). ae allusion to this circumstance in Job xxxix. 1,|__3- CHAsHaBia’HU: another Levite, the fourth Meehon mark when the hinds do calve?” etc, | of the six sons of Jeduthun (the sixth is omitted haps, as the LXX. uniformly renders ayyal by here, but is supplied In ver. 17), who played the tos, we may incline to the belief that the Cer- id in the service of the house of God under Barbarus is the deer denoted. ‘The feminine | David's order (1 Chr. xxv. 3), and had charge of ae , the twelfth course (19). ‘n TN, ayyalah, occurs frequently in the} 4. CHASHABIA‘HU: one of the Hebronites, 7. e. T. For the Scriptural allusions see under descendants of Hebron the son of Kohath, one of ND. W.H. | the chief families of the Levites (1 Chr. xxvi. 30). He and the 1,700 men of his kindred had super- intendence for King David over business both sacred and secular on the west @ of Jordan. Pos- sibly this is the same person as 5. The son of Kemuel, who was « prince’? (WY) of the tribe of Levi in. the. time of David | G *The word haf in Arabic is not confined to | © ‘particular species, but is as general as our word ". It in fact applies as well to the mountain ae. - } he». PERS 914 Chexxvil. 17). TA‘RUM (O77 [elevated, lofty]: "laply; 6. CHASHABILA’HU: another Levite, one of the t.] Alex. Iapeyu: Arwm). A name occurring | “ chiefs ” (3) of his tribe, who officiated for ne of the most obscure portions of the geneal- King Josiah at his great passover-feast (2 Chr. s of Judah, in which Coz is said to have begot- | xxxy. 9). In the parallel account of 1 Esdras the 1 $6 the families of Aharhel son of Harum ”’ (1 name appears as ASSABIAS. » iy. 8). 7. A Merarite Levite who accompanied Ezra [ARUMAPH (F777 [slit-nosed, Ges.]: | from aut (Ezr. viii. 19). In 1 Esdras the : name is ASEBIA. map; [Vat. Epwuad:] Haromaph), father or = ‘ stor of Jedaiah, who assisted in the repair of f &. ae ve br pas f : ae hee 4g oe ag vall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 10). ore of the family of Kohath) who formed part o the same caravan (Ezr. viii. 24). In 1 Esdras the ‘ARU’PHITE, THE QD [patro- | name is ASSANTAs. +» See Hariph}: 6 Xapatna ; [Vat. FA. » (> scape re Ms Ald.] Alex. Apougi: [Haruphites}), the 9. “Ruler” (TW) of half the circuit or envi mation of Shephatiahu, one of the Korhites rons ( 725) of Keilah; he repaired a portion of ‘Yepaired to David at Ziklag when he was in the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh. iii. pss (1 Chr. xii. 5). The Masorets read the 17). ‘Hariphite, and point it accordingly, YOY, | 10. One of the Levites who sealed the covenant of reformation after the return from the Captivity A/RUZ (yan [zealous, active]: "Apo: | (Neh. x. 11). Probably this is the person named 4s), a man of Jotbah, father of Meshullemeth, as one of the “ chiefs” (te SI) ot RTS ey “ae pe magther. of Anon pipe, of the times immediately subsequent to the return from Babylon (xii. 24; comp. 26). ARVEST. [AGRIcULTURE.] 11. Another Levite, son of Bunni (Neh. xi. 15). AS ADI’AH (ASTON [whom Jehovah Notwithstanding the remarkable correspondenee ? Acadia: Hasadia), one of a croup of five between the lists in this chapter and those in 1 ? eyed Ss Chr. ix.— and in none more than in this verse el paged lg descendants of the royal line of compared with 1 Chr. ix. 14 —it does not appear i na a ei aye thy a Soak ton that they can be identical, inasmuch as this relates een conjectured that this latter oF of the | t© the times after the Captivity, while that in Chron- ‘was born after the restoration, since some | i¢les refers to the original establishment of the ark tines and Setanoat, them, this one — « he_ | 2t Jerusalem by David, and of the tabernacle (comp. of Bitovah As sg t Rady that honefni 19, 21, and the mention of Gibeon, where the: fe ae PDE Ad, 0 embody the hopefu tabernacle was at this time, in ver. 35). But see sof that time. [Asapras.] : NEHEMIAH. ASENU’AH (ASI, t. €. has-Sennuah} 12. Another Levite in the same list of attend- rated |; ’Agivod; [Vat. Aava;] Alex. Aga- ants on the Temple; son of Mattaniah (Neh. x. _ Asana), a Benjamite, of one of the chief 22). *s in the tribe (1 Chr. ix. 7). The name is| 13. A priest of the family of Hilkiah in the days of Joiakim son of J eshua, that is in the gen- Senuah, with the definite article prefixed. i A (Neh | P 5 pps ; . {eration after the return from the aptivity (Neh. ‘SHABIAH (77201), and with final a, |" 21; comp. 1, 10, 26). Diy ‘AgaBias, [AcaBia, ‘AgeBlas,]| HASHAB/NAH (FIDMT [see supra] : (a, [ete. ] Hasabias, [ Hasabia, Hasebias, | [’EcoaBavd; Alex. EcaBava, and so Vat. FA., — po ae ieee SE Cae i aie ll ae tis is one of the instances in which the word | remove the anomaly, our translators have rendered ®. ‘yond) is used for the west side of Jordan. To | on this side.” | eS 1008 HASHABNIAH HATACH exc. the wrong division of words:] Hasebna), oney 1. A son of Pahath-Moab who assisted in of the chief (‘‘heads’’) of the “people” (é. ¢. the} repair of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 23), laymen) who sealed the covenant at the same time| 2. Another man who assisted in the same wor with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 25). but at another part of the wall (Neh. iii. 11). | : 5 _ 3. [Vat. FA. Agové.] The name is mention, A eae VAH (7) 72un Re dues ce again among the heads of the “people ”’ (that vah regards]: AcaBavias ‘[Vat. AcaBaveau] | the laymen) who sealed the covenant with Neh Alex. AgBavia; [FA. AoBeveap?] Hasebonic). | miah (Neh. x. 23). It may belong to either od t| 1. Father of Hattush, who repaired part of the foregoing. wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 10). 4. [Rom. omits; Vat. Alex. FA. Acov8.] 2. [Hasebnia.| A Levite who was among those} Merarite Levite (Neh. xi. 15). In 1 Chr. ix. 1 who officiated at the great fast under Ezra and he appears again as HASSHUB. ! ehemiah when the covenant was sealed (Neh. ix. . => 5). This and several other names are omitted in HASHU’BAH (13 U a [esteemed, or as: both MSS. of the LXX. ciated]: ’AgouvBé3 Alex. ‘AceBa! Hasaba), t first of a group of five men, apparently the lati HASHBAD’ANA (m2Iar TT [intelligence] half of the family of Zerubbabel (1 Chr. iii. 2) in judging, Gesen.] : ‘AcaBabud: [Vat. FA.1| For a suggestion concerning these persons, ‘ omit; Alex. AcaBaaua:] Hasbadana), one of the HASADIAH. men (probably Levites) who stood on Ezra’s left ‘ hand while he read the law to the people in Jeru- mommies oi (oe ioc" disting a | salem (Neh. viii. 4). ’"Acovp, ’Acdu [etc.: ‘Hasum, Hasom, Hasem) : : misty oe 1. Bene-Chashum, two hundred and twenty thi } HA’SHEM (own [perh. fat, rich, Ges.]:|in number, came back from Babylon with Zen) "Aodu; [Vat. FA. corrupt: Assem]). The sons babel (Ezr. ii. 19; Neh. vii. 22). Seven men of Hashem the Gizonite are named amongst the} them had married foreign wives from whom tt members of David’s guard in the catalogue of 1 had to separate (Ezr. x. es The chief man | Chr. (xi. 34.) In the parallel list of 2 Sam. xxiii. | the family was among those who sealed the co. we find ‘of the sons of Jashen, Jonathan.’”’ After nant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 18). [In 1 Es a lengthened examination, Kennicott decides that | ix. 33 the name is ASom. ] the text of both passages originally stood ‘of the 2. (Aodu; [Vat. FA.) omit:] Asum.) 1 sons of Hashem, Guni” (Dissertation, pp. 198-| name occurs amongst the priests or Levites yj 203). stood on Ezra’s left hand while he read the law] HASHMAN’NIM (D°320°T7: mpécBeis: the congregation (Neh. viii. 4). In 1 Esdr. ix. Yegati). This word occurs only in the Hebrew of the nattie ts4giiae eorrupely a5, LOTH ARTE | Ps. Ixviii. 31: ‘“*Hashmannim (A. V. *“ princes’) HASHU’PHA (NEL [uncovered]: shall come out of Egypt, Cush shall make her hands | gd; [Alex. FA. Ageia: ‘Hasupha}), one Py to hasten to God.”” In order to render this word | families of Nethinim who returned from captiv) ‘¢ princes,” or the like, modern Hebraists have had in the first caravan (Neh. vii. 46). The name) recourse to extremely improbable derivations from | accurately HASUPHA, as in Ezr. ii. 43. [ASIPH) the Arabic. The old derivation from the civil name of Hermopolis Magna in the Heptanomiis, preserved | 1 One a Hai maar gen or Epssgesl, if Ns Phe 2 Chr. xxxiv. 22 (comp. 2 K. xxii. 14). HASSENA’AH (ANION [the thorn-het, First]: ’Acava; [Vat. "Aga FA. Acaval Asnaa). The Bene-has-senaah [sons of Hassena| rebuilt the fish-gate in the repair of the wall) Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 8). The name is doubti that of the place mentioned in Ezr. ii. 35, and ) vii. 88 — SENAAH, with the addition of the C nite article. Perhaps it has some connection ¥} the rock or cliff SenEH (1 Sam. xiv. 4). | HAS’SHUB (SAWIT [intelligent, know] Ges.]: ’AcéB: Hassub), a Merarite Levitel Chr. ix. 14). He appears to be mentioned aj! in Neh. xi. 15, in what may be a repetition of 8 same genealogy ; but here the A. VY. have oe 8 name as HASHUB. HASU’PHA (SEAWTT [uncovered, nal ’Acovod ;_ [Vat. Acoupe :] Hasupha). Chastipha [sons of C.] were among the Nethi! who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (} ii. 43). In Nehemiah the name is inaceurd given in the A. V. [as in the Genevan vers] HasnupnHa; in Esdras it is ASIPHA. Al HAT. [Hrap-press, at the end of the a HA’TAOH (JET [Pers. eunuch, Gese ’"Axpabaios; Alex. iver. 5,] Axpabens; [vet Ashmoons,”’ seems to us more reasonable. The ancient Egyptian name is Ha-shmen or Ha-shmoon, the abode of eight; the sound of the signs for eight, however, we take alone from the Coptic, and Brugsch reads them Sesennu (Geog. Jnschr. i. pp. 219, 220), but not, as we think, on conclusive grounds. The Coptic form is MYROvit 6, “the two Shmoons,’’ like the Arabic. If we suppose that Hashmannim is a proper name and signifies Her- mopolites, the mention might be explained by the circumstance that Hermopolis Magna was the great city of the Egyptian Hermes, Thoth, the god of wisdom; and the meaning might therefore be that even the wisest Egyptians should come to the tem- ple, as well as the distant Cushites. Res.’ P. HASHMONAH Caplets TT [ fruitfulness]: Serduwva; Alex. AceApwva: Hesmona), a station of the Israelites, mentioned Num. xxxiii. 29, as next before Moseroth, which, from xx. 28 and Deut. xX. 6, was near Mount Hor; this tends to indicate the locality of Hashmonah. tis Uke § 1 HA’/SHUB (AVL, 7. e. Chasshub [associate, friend, or intelligent]: "AcotB: Asub). The re- duplication of the Sh has been overlooked in the A. V., and the name is identical with that else- where correctly given as HASSHUB. HATHATH HAVILAH 1009 th FA.!, Ax@padasos; Comp. ’AOdx:] Athach), e of the eunuchs (A. V. “chamberlains’’) in the urt of Ahasuerus, in immediate attendance on ther (Esth. iv. 5,6, 9, 10). The LXX. alter r. 5 to rby ebvovxXoy a’rijs. HA’THATH (ad [ fearful]: ’Aede: Ha- ut), 2 man in the genealogy of Judah; one of 2 sons of Othniel the Kenazite, the well-known dge of Israel (1 Chr. iv. 13). HATI’PHA (NDOT [seized, captive] : toupd, *Aripd; [in Ezr., Alex. Atipa; in h., Vat. Alex. FA. Are:pa:] Hatipha). Bene- atipha [sons of C.] were among the Nethinim 0 returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. 54; Neh. vii. 56). [ATrpHA.] HATI’TA (NEDO [digging, exploring]: rivd; [in Ezr., Vat. Arnra; in Neh., Vat. FA. ); a province of Palestine € mentioned by Ezekiel in defining the north- em border of the Promised Land (xlvii. 16, 18). . We no other data for determining its situation hould conclude from his words that it lay north ‘amascus. ‘There can be little doubt, however, it is identical with the well-known Greek prov- 4 ‘ and tab. ii.). ‘ 1010 HAVILAH adopted. There is also another town in the Yemen 707 called Hiwlan Cy S ¢>)- The district of Khiwlan lies between the city of San’a and the Hijaz, 7. e. in the northwestern portion of the Yemen. It took its name, according to the Arabs, from Khiwlan, a descendant of Kahtan [JoxTaAn] (Marasid, s. v.), or, as some say, of Kahlan, brother of Himy er (Caussin, /’ssaz, i. 113, This genealogy says little more than that the name was Joktanite; and the difference between Kahtén and Kahlan may be neglected, both being descendants of the first Joktanite settler, and the whole of these early traditions pointing to a Joktanite settlement, without perhaps a distinct preservation of Joktan’s name, and certainly none of a correct’ genealogy from him downwards. Khawlan is a fertile territory, embracing a large part of myrrhiferous Arabia; mountainous; ih plenty of water; and supporting a large population. It is a tract of Arabia better known to both ancients and moderns than the rest of the Yemen, and the eastern and central provinces. It adjoins Nejran (the district and town of that name), mentioned in ‘the account of the expedition of Alius Gallus, and the scene of great persecutions of the Christians by Dhu-Nuwas, the last of the Tubbaas before the Abyssinian conquest of Arabia, in the year 523 of our era (cf. Caussin, /ssaz, i. 121 ff). For the Chaulanite, see the Dictionary of Geograpiy. An argument against the identity of Khawlan and Havilah has been found in the mentions of a Havilah on the border of the Ishmaelites, “‘ as thou goest to Assyria’’ (Gen. xxv. 18), and also on that of the Amalekites (1 Sam. xv. 7). It is not how- ever necessary that these passages should refer to 1 or 2: the place named may be a town or country called after them; or it may have some reference to the Havilah named in the description of the rivers of the garden of Eden; and the LXX. render ‘it, following apparently the last supposition, EviAdr in both instances, according to their spelling of the Havilah of Gen. ii. 11. Those who separate the Cushite and Joktanite Havilah either place them in Niebuhr’s two Khaw- lans (as already stated), or they place 2 on the north of the peninsula, following the supposed argument derived from Gen. xxv. 18, and 1 Sam. xy. 7, and finding the name in that of the Xavao- rato. (Eratosth. ap. Strabo, xvi. 767), between the Nabateei and the Agreei, and in that of the town of KAS > on the Persian Gulf (Niebuhr, Descr. 342). A Joktanite settlement so far north is how- ever very improbable. They discover 1 in the Avalitee on the African coast (Ptol. iv. 7; Arrian, Peripl. 263, ed. Miiller), the modern name of the shore of the Sinus Avalatis being, says Gesenius, Zeylah = Zuweylah = Havilah, and Saadiah having three times in Gen. written Zeylah for Havilah. But Gesenius seems to have overlooked the true orthog- raphy of the name of the modern country, which “07 “07 is not iA, but ay with a final letter very rarely added to the Hebrew. 1 RS PF HAVIVLAH ((EvAdr3 Alex. Eve:Aar: Hev- ath) Gen. ii. 11). [EpEn, p. 657.] HA/VOTH-JATR (WS) AM, é. e. Chav- vath Jair [villages of Jair, i. e. of the enlight- HAWK ener]: graves and K@pyat “latp, Oavdd [Ta etc.:] vicus, Havoth Jaw, viculus Jair, [ certain villages on the east of Jordan, in Be | - Bashan. The word Chavvah, which occurs in th Bible in this connection only, i is perhaps. best e plained by the similar term in modern Arabi: which denotes a small collection of huts or hove in a country place (see the citations in | Thes. 451; and Stanley, S. ¢ P. App. § 84). (1.) The earliest notice of the Havoth-jair is} Num. xxxii. 41, in the account of the settlemer of the Trangjordanie country, where Jair, son ¢ Manasseh, is stated to have taken some villag) (A. V. “the small towns;’’ but there is no artic in the Hebrew) of Gilead—iwihieks was allotted { his tribe — and to have named them after himse) Havvoth-jair. (2.) In Deut. iii. 14 it is said th: Jair ‘took all the tract of Argob, unto the houn: ary of the Geshurite and the Maacathite, and call them after his own name, Bashan-havoth- iat! Here the villages are referred to, but there must a hiatus after the word “ Maacathite,” in whi they were mentioned, or else there is nothing | justify the plural “them.” (8.) In the recor| of Manasseh in Josh. xiii. 30 and 1 Chr. ii. { (A. V., in both “towns of Jair’’), the Hayvot jair are reckoned with other districts as making } sixty “cities” (OSD). Ini K. iv. 18 they a named as part of the commissariat district of Be geber, next in order to the “sixty great cities” Argob. There is apparently some confuse these different statements as to what the sixty cit really consisted of, and if the interpretation. Chavvah given above be correct, the application | the word ‘city’? to such transient erections remarkable and puzzling. Perhaps the remoten and inaccessibility of the Transjordanic district which they lay may explain the one, and our igr rance of the real force of the Hebrew word Ir, re dered ‘city,’ the other. Or perhaps, thou retaining their ancient name, they had chang their original condition, and had become more ij portant, as has been the case in our own coun! with more than one place still designated as ‘‘hamlet,’’ though long since a populous tov (4.) No less doubtful is the number of the Havoi jair. In 1 Chr. ii. 22 they are specified as twen' three, but in Judg. x. 4, as thirty. In the lat passage, however, the allusion’ is to a second Jz by whose thirty sons they were governed, and whom the original number may have been increas’ I The word DY, “cities,” is perhaps employ wes perhap here for the sake of the play which it affords w a ila “ ass-colts.”? [JAIR; BASHAN-HAYO1 JAIR. | (3, HAWK (V9, néts: igpaé: accipiter), the tra lation of the above-named Heb. term, which oc¢ in Ley. xi. 16 and Deut. xiv. 15 as one of the clean birds, and in Job xxxix. 26, where it is ask ‘Doth the néts fly by thy wisdom and stretch wings towards the south?” The word is doubt! generic, as appears from the expression in De and Ley. “after his kind,’ and includes vari species of the Falconide, with more especial allus perhaps to the small diurnal birds, such as kestrel (Falco tinnuncuius), the holby (Hy triorchis subbuteo), the gregarious lesser kes (Tinnunculus cenchris), common about the rm in the plain districts of Palestine, all of which ¥ i, HAWK obably known to the ancient Hebrews. With spect to the passage in Job (/. c.), which appears allude to the migratory habits of hawks, it is rious to observe that of the ten or twelve lesser ptors of Palestine, nearly all are summer migrants. he kestrel remains all the year, but 7. cenchris, ieronisus gabar, Hyp. eleonore, and F’. melunop- rus, are all migrants from the south. Besides e above-named smaller hawks, the two magnificent ecies, /. Saker and F. lanarius, are summer om Cit 4)! We aM Falco Saker. tors to Palestine. “On one occasion,” says - Tristram, to whom we are indebted for much mation on the subject of the birds of Palestine, hile riding with an Arab guide I observed a on of large size rise close to us. The guide, n I pointed it out to him, exclaimed, ‘ Tair rr. @ Tair, the Arabic for ‘bird,’ is universally oughout N. Africa and the East applied to those ons which are capable of being trained for hunt- 1. € ‘the bird,’ par excellence.” These two ies of falcons, and perhaps the hobby and aawk (Astur palumbarius) ave employed by the bs in Syria and Palestine for the purpose of ng partridges, sand-grouse, quails, herons, alles, hares, etc. Dr. Russell (Nat. Hist. of ypo, li. p. 196, 2d ed.) has given the Arabic tes of several falcgns,, but it is probable that e at least of these names apply rather to the Tent sexes than to distinct species. See a very hie description of the sport of falconry, as pur- | by the Arabs of N. Africa, in the /bis, i. p. ;and comp. Thomson, The Land and the Book, 08 (i. 309-311, Am. ed.). Vhether falconry was pursued by the ancient ntals or not, is a question we have been unable etermuine decisively. No representation of such ort occurs on the monuments of ancient Egypt Wilkinson, Ane. Kg. i. p- 221), neither is there definite allusion to falconry in the Bible. With td, however, to the negative evidence supplied Ce * The word Sag’r, .§ , is the name of all the | | res, of the falcons, hawks, and kites. G. | HA\ 1011 by the monuments of Egypt, we must be carefu ere we draw a conclusion; for the camel is not re: resented, though we have Biblical evidence to show that this animal was used by the Egyptians as early as the time of Abraham; still, as instances of various modes of capturing fish, game, and wild animals, are not unfrequent on the monuments, it seems probable the art was not known to the Egyp- tians. Nothing definite can ‘be learnt from the passage in 1 Sam. xxvi. 20, which speaks of “a partridge hunted on the mountains,” as this may allude to the method of taking these birds by “throw-sticks,” ete. [PARTRIDGE.] “The hind or hart “panting after the water-brooks ” (Ps. xlii. 1) may appear at first sight to refer to the mode at present adopted in the East of taking gazelles, deer, and bustards, with the united aid of falcon and greyhound: but, as Hengstenberg (Comment. on Ps. 1. ¢.) has argued, it seems pretty clear that the exhaustion spoken of is to be understood as arising not from pursuit, but from some prevailing drought, as in Ps. lxiii. 1, “ My soul thirsteth for thee in a dry land.” (See also Joel i. 20.) The poetical version of Brady and Tate — ‘*t As pants the hart for cooling streams When heated in the chase,” has therefore somewhat prejudged the matter. For the question as to whether falconry was known t/ the ancient Greeks, see Beckmann, History of Lit ventions (i. 198-205, Bohn’s ed.). Ni feee s HAY (WM, chdteir: ev 1G wedlp yAGpos, Xdpros: pratt, herba), the rendering of the A. V. in Proy. xxvii. 25, and Is. xv. 6, of the above-name’ Heb. term, which occurs frequently in the O. gia and denotes “ grass”? of any kind, from an unused root, “to be green.” [GRass.] In Num. xi. 5 this word is properly translated « leeks.” [LEEK.] Harmer (Observat. i. 425, ed. 1797), quoting from a MS. paper of Sir J. Chardin, states that hay is not made anywhere in the East, and that the Jenum of the Vulg. (aliis locis) and the « hay ”’ of the A. V. are therefore errors of translation. It is quite probable that the modern Orientals do not make hay in our sense of the term; but it is certain that the ancients did mow their grass, and probably made use of the dry material. See Ps. xxxvii. 2, ‘‘ They shall soon be cut down (D199), and wither as the green herb;”’ Ps. Ixxii. 6, ‘ Like rain upon the mown grass ”’ (73), See also Am. vii. 1, “‘ The king’s mowings ”” (yn S73): and Ps. exxix. 7, where of the “grass upon the housetops ”? (Poa annua ?) it is said that “the mower Ey) filleth not his hand” with it, “nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom.” We do not see, therefore, with the author of Fragments in Continuation of Calmet (No. elxxviii.), any gross impropriety in our version of Prov. xxvii. 25, or in that of Is. xv. 6. “Certainly,” says this writer, “if the tender grass ® is but just beginning to show itself, the hay, which is grass cut and dried after it has arrived at ma- turity, ought by no means to be associated with it, still less ought it to be placed before it.” But where is the impropriety ? The tender grass (St2)"T) may refer to the springing after-grass, b * The hay appeareth, and the tender grass sheweth its-If, and herbs of the m-untains are gathered.” 1012 HAZAEL and the “hay” to the hay-grass. However, in the two passages in question, where alone the A. V. renders chdtzir by “ hay,’’ the word would certainly be better translated by “ grass.” We may remark that there is an express Hebrew term for “ dry grass’? or “hay,’”? namely, chashash,¢ which, ap- parently from an unused root signifying “to be dry,”® is rendered in the only two places where the word occurs (Is. v. 24, xxxiii. 11) “chaff” in the Authorized Version. We do not, however, mean to assert that the chashash of the Orientals represents our modern English hay. Doubtless the “ dry grass” was not stacked, but only cut in small quantities, and then consumed. ‘The grass of “the latter growth’? (Am. vii. 1) (295), perhaps like our after-grass, denotes the mown grass as it grows afresh after the harvest; like the Chordum foenum of: Pliny (H. NV. viii. 28). W: HLAZ/AEL (OSI [EI (God) és seeing, First, Ges.]: "ACana: Hazaél) was a king of Damascus, who reigned from about B. Cc. 886 to B. c. 840. He appears to have been previously a person in a high position at the court of Ben-hadad, and was sent by his master to Elisha, when that prophet visited Damascus, to inquire if he would recover from the malady under which he was suffering. Elisha’s answer that Ben-hadad might recover, but would die, and his announcement to Hazael that he would one day be king of Syria, which seems to have been the fulfillment of the commission given to Elijah (1 K. xix. 15) to appoint Hazael king — led to the murder of Ben-hadad by his ambitious servant, who forthwith mounted the throne (2 K. viii. 7-15). He was soon engaged in hostilities with Ahaziah king of Judah, and Jehoram king of Israel, for the possession of the city of Ramoth- Gilead (dbid. viii. 28). The Assyrian inscriptions show that about this time a bloody and destructive war was being waged between the Assyrians on the one side, and the Syrians, Hittites, Hamathites, aid Phoenicians on the other. [See DAmaAscuvs. ] Ben-hadad had recently suffered several severe defeats at the hands of the Assyrian king; and upon the accession of Hazael the war was speedily renewed. Hazael took up a position in the fastnesses of the Anti-Libanus, but was there attacked by the As- syrians, who defeated him with great loss, killing 16,000 of his warriors, and capturing more than 1100 chariots. Three years later the Assyrians once more entered Syria in force; but on this occasion Hazael submitted and helped to furnish the invaders with supplies. After this, internal troubles appear to have occupied the attention of the Assyrians, who made no more expeditions into these parts for about a century. The Syrians rapidly recovered their losses; and towards the close of the reign of Jehu, Hazael led them against the Israelites (about B. C. 860), whom he “smote in all their coasts’”’ (2 K. x. 32), thus accomplishing the prophecy of Elisha (iid. viii. 12). . His main attack fell upon the eastern provinces, where he ravaged “all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and gS 2 2 wwe, allied to the Arabic oe eS. A iyich (cheshish), which Freytag thus explains, ‘ Herba, pecul. siccior: scil. Pabulum siccum, foenum (ut cigds ») viride et recens.’’ 6 “The Arabs of the desert always call the dry HAZARMAVETH the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aj which is by the river Arnon, even Gilead Bashan” (ibid. x. 83). After this he seem have held the kingdom of Israel in a species of jection (bid. xiii. 8-7, and 22); and towards close of his life he even threatened the kingdor Judah. Having taken Gath (ibid. xii. 17; ec Am. vi. 2), he proceeded to attack Jerusalem, feated the Jews in an engagement (2 Chr. xxiv. and was about to assault the city, when J induced him to retire by presenting him with the gold that was found in the treasures of house of the Lord, and in the king’s house ”’ ( xii. 18). Hazael appears to have died about year B. C. 840 (bid. xiii. 24), having reigne years. He left his crown to his son Ben-h (ibid. ). G. 7 * The true import of Hazael’s answer to prophet on being informed of his future de: (2 K. viii. 18), does not appear in the A. “ But what, is thy servant a dog, that he sh do this great thing?’’ This is the language proud and self-approving spirit, spurning an u served imputation: ‘Thy servant is not a that he should do this great thing.’ It is vious, moreover, that in this form the terms of question are incongruous. If he had said, I servant a dog, that he should do so base a tl the question would have been consistent wit self. But the incongruity disappears, and the tinency of the illustration is obvious, wher render according to the Hebrew: ‘“ What is servant, the dog, that he should do this | thing?’ The use of the definite article in Hebrew, as well as the congruity of the expres requires this rendering.© [Doe.] T. de * HAZ AEL, HOUSE. OF (Am. i probably some well-known edifice or palace, y this king had built at Damascus, and whiel cording to the prophet, the fire (God’s instrume punishment) was destined to burn up. Some m stood by “+ the house” Damascus itself, and ¢ Hazael’s family or personal descendants. Bu clause which follows — “the palaces of Ben-ha as Baur (Der Prophet Amos, p. 217) points favors the other explanation. " HAZA‘TAH [8 syl.] (IMTS [Jehovai cides or views]: ’OCla; [Vat. FA. O¢era:] H a man of Judah of the family of the Shik A. V. “Shiloni’’), or descendants of SH (Neh. xi. 5). HA’/ZAR-AD’DAR, ete. [HAzeEr.] HAZARMA’‘VETH (OI 7 : [in Sapuso; [Alex.? Acapysd; in 1 Chr., Rom. omit, Alex. Apauw6:] Asarmoth; the com death, Ges.), the third, in order, of the soi Joktan (Gen. x. 26). The name is pres almost. literally, in the Arabic Hadra ( yeh ) and Hadrumdwt (wget - juiceless herbage of the Sahara, which is ready hay while it is growing, cheshish, in contradisti from the fresh grass of better soils.”’ — [H. B. TRIS c * Gesenius (Thes. p. 685): “ Quis enim sum | tuus canis, ut tantam rem perficiam?” Keil (J der Kénige): “ Was ist dein Knecht. der Hund ein so veriichtlicher Kerl .. . .) dass er 80 Dinge thun sollte?” Thenius (Biicher der Ko * Dein Knecht, der Hund! ” T. J. HAZAZON-TAMAR d the appellation of a province and an ancient ople of Southern Arabia. This identification of e settlement of Hazarmaveth is accepted by Bib- ial scholars as not admitting of dispute. It sts not only on the occurrence of the name, but ‘supported by the proved fact that Joktan settled the Yemen, along the south coast of Arabia, by e physical characteristics of the inhabitants of is region, and by the identification of the names several others of the sons of Joktan. ‘The ‘ovince of Hadramiiwt is situate east of the oderm Yemen (anciently, as shown in ARABIA, € limits of the latter province embraced almost e whole of the south of the peninsula), extend- g to the districts of Shihr and Mahreh. Its cap- il is Shibam, a very ancient city, of which the itive writers give curious accounts, and its chief ts are Mirbat, Zafari [SePpHAR], and Kisheem, om whence a great trade was carried on in an- ent times with India and Africa. Hadramiiwt self is generally cultivated, in contrast to the con- yuous sandy deserts (called El-Ahkaf, where lived e gigantic race of ’A’d), is partly mountainous, th watered valleys, and is still celebrated for its mkincense (El-Idreesee, ed. Jomard, i. p. 54; iebubr, Descr. p. 245), exporting also gum-arabic, yrrh, dragon’s blood, and aloes, the latter, how- er, being chiefly from Socotra, which is under erule of the sheykh of Kesheem (Niebuhr, /. c. _ seqg.). The early kings of Hadramawt were ‘ktanites, distinct from the descendants of Yaa- b, the progenitor of the Joktanite Arabs gener- y; and it is hence to be inferred that they were varately descended from Hazarmaveth. They aintained their independence against the power- { kings of Himyer, until the latter were subdued | the Abyssinian invasion (Ibn-Khaldoon, ap. wssin, Hssai, i. 135 ff.) The Greeks and mmans call the people of Hadramiiwt. variously, iatramotite, Chatrammite, etc.; and there is tle doubt that they were the same as the Adra- ite, ete. (the latter not applying to the descend- ‘ts of HADORAM, as some have suggested); while e native appellation of an inhabitant, Hadramee, mes very near Adramit# in sound. The mod- a people, although mixed with other races, are ‘ongly characterized by fierce, fanatical, and rest- 's dispositions. They are enterprising merchants, Ml known for their trading and travelling pro- nsities. h Pts Ei ae HAZ’AZON-TA’/MAR, 2 Chr. xx. 2. [Ha- ‘ZON-TAMAR. | HAZEL (37). The Hebrew term liz occurs ly in Gen. xxx. 37, where it is coupled with the ooplar”’ and “ chestnut,”’ as one of the trees from tich Jacob cut the rods, which he afterwards eled. Authorities are divided between the hazel d the almond-tree, as representing the liz; in for of the former we have Kimchi, Rashi, Lu- ®r, and others; while the Vulgate, Saadias, and senius adopt the latter view. The rendering in 2 LXX., kdpirov, is equally applicable to either. ‘e think the latter most probably correct, both eause the Arabic word liz is undoubtedly the imond-tree,”’ and because there is another word 'the Hebrew language, egéz (772), which is 2 In2 K. xx. 4, the Masorets (Keri) have substi- ed TET (A. V. “court ”) for the SYP of the HAZER 1013 applicable to the hazel. The strongest argument on the other side arises from the circumstance of another word, shdkéd ()1?), having reference to the almond; it is supposed, however, that the lat- ter applies to the fruit exclusively, and the word under discussion to the tree: Rosenmiiller identi- fies the shakéd with the cultivated, and liz with the wild almond-tree. For a description of the almond-tree, see the article on that subject. The Hebrew term appears as a proper name in Luz, the old appellation of Bethel. Werle. Bs HAZELELPONI (20395277 : "Eonacp- Bav; Alex. EanArAcAgawv: Asalelphuni), the sister of the sons of Etam in the genealogies of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 3). The name has the definite article prefixed, and is accurately “‘ the Tzelelponite,” ag of a family rather than an individual. * That the name is genealogical rather than in- dividual appears also from the appended *~ (see Ges. Lehrgeb. der Hebr. Sprache, p. 514). It is variously explained : protection of the presence (First); or, shade coming upon me (Ges.). Ewald makes the name still more expressive: Give shade thou who seest me, i. e. God (Lehrbuch, p. 502). This gives a different force to the ending. HH. HA/ZER (OT, i. e. Chatzer, from T™T7, to surround or inclose), a word which is of not un- frequent occurrence in the Bible in the sense of a “court”? or quadrangle to a palace or other build- ing, but which topographically seems generally em- ployed for the “villages ’’ of people in a roving and unsettled life, the semi-permanent collections of dwellings which are described by travellers among the modern Arabs to consist of rough stone walls covered with the tent cloths, and thus holding a middle position between the tent of the wanderer — so transitory as to furnish an image of the sud- den termination of life (Is. xxxviii. 12) — and the settled, permanent, town. As a proper name it appears in the A. V. — - 1. In the plural, HAzErrim, and HazERotuH, for which see below. 2. In the slightly different form of HAzor. 3. In composition with other words, giving a special designation to the particular “ yillage’’ in- tended. When thus in union with another word the name is Hazar (Chatzar). The following are the places so named, and it should not be over- looked that they are all in the wilderness itself, or else quite on the confines of civilized country: — 1. HA’ZAR-AD’/DAR (TTS TEE: ZravaAcs "Apdo, Sdpada; Alex. Addapa: Villa nomine Adar, Addar), a place named as one of the landmarks on the southern boundary of the land promised to Israel between Kadesh-barnea and Azmon (Num. xxxiv. 4). In the specification of the south boun- dary of the country actually possessed (Josh. xv. 3), the name appears in the shorter form of Addar (A. V. ADAR), and an additional place is named on each side of it. The site of Hazar-addar does not appear to have been encountered in modern times. The LXX. reading might lead to the belief that Hazar-addar was identical with ARAD, a Canaan- original text. The same change should probably be made in Jer. xli. 7. [See IsHMmaxgL, 6.] 1014 HAZER ite city which lay in this direction, but the pres- ence of the Azn in the latter name forbids such an inference. 2. Ha‘zar-“/nan (JY VET) [in Ezek. xlvii. 17, DIY WT] =village of springs: Apoevaty, [aviAn Tov Aivdy, ab. 7. AiAdu; Vat. in Num., Apoer'aciu;] Alex. Agepvaiy, avAn Tou Away: Villa Enun, Atrium Enon, [.A. Enan}), the place at which the northern boundary of the land promised to the children of Israel was to ter- minate (Num. xxxiv. 9), and the eastern boundary commence (10). It is again mentioned in Eze- kiel’s prophecy (xlvii. 17, xlviii. 1) of what the ul- timate extent of the land will be. These bounda- ries are traced by Mr. Porter, who would identify Hazar-enan with Kuryetein = the two cities,” a village more than sixty miles E. N. E. of Damas- cus, the chief ground for the identification appa- rently being the presence at Kuryetein of “ large fountains,’’ the only ones in that “vast region,” a circumstance with which the name of Hazar-enan well agrees (Porter, Damascus, i. 252, ii. 858). ‘the great distance from Damascus and the body of Palestine is the main impediment to the recep- tion of this identification. 3. Ha’zar-Gap’pau (7172 TET [village of fraddah or fortune: Rom. Sepl, Vat. Seperu;] Alex. Agepyadia: Aser-Gadda), one of the towns in the southern district of Judah (Josh. xv. 27), named between Moladah and Heshmon. No trace of the situation of this place appears in the Ono- masticon, or in any of the modern travellers. In Van de Velde’s map a site named Jurrah is marked as close to Molada (e/-Milh), but it is perhaps too much to assume that Gaddah has taken this form by the change so frequent in the East of D to R. 4, Ha/zar-wat-rr'con (VID TEM [the middle village]: AvAh tod Savvdy; [Alex. cor- rupt:| Domus Tichon), a place named in Ezekiel’s prophecy of the ultimate boundaries of the land (Ez. xlvii. 16), and specified as being on the boundary (Dara ON) of Hauran. It is not yet known. 5. HA’ZAR-SHU’AL (paw TEN = fox-vil- lage: Xodacewrd, "Apowad, ’EcepooudaA; Alex. Agapoovaa, [Sepoovaa, ete.:] Hasersual, Hasar- suhal), a town in the southern district of Judah, lying between Hazar-gaddah and Beer-sheba (Josh. xy. 28, xix. 3; 1 Chr. iv. 28). It is mentioned in the same connection after the return from the Cap- tivity (Neh. xi. 27). The site has not yet been conclusively recovered; but in Van de Velde’s map (1858) a site, Saweh, is marked at about the right spot, which may be a corruption of the original name. ‘This district has been only very slightly explored; when it is so we may look for most in- teresting information. 6. Ha‘zar-su’san (TTDAD VET) = horse-vil- lage: Sapaovoty [Vat. -cev]; Alex. Agepoovoim: [ Hasersusa]), one of the ‘cities’? allotted to Simeon in the extreme south of the territory of Judah (Josh. xix. 5). Neither it nor its com- panion BETH-MARCABOTH, the “house of char- iots,”’ are namegl in the list of the towns of Judah in chap. xv., but they are included in those of a The translators of the A. V. have curiously re- versed the tvo variations of the name. In Genesis, HAZEZON-TAMAR Simeon in 1 Chr. iv. 31, with the express sta ment that they existed before and up to the ti of David. This appears to invalidate Profess Stanley’s suggestion (S. g P. p. 160) that th were the depots for the trade with Egypt in ch iots and horses, which commenced in the reign Solomon. Still, it is difficult to know to wh else to ascribe the names of places situated, these were, in the Bedouin country, where a char must have been unknown, and where even hor seem carefully excluded from the possessions of t inhabitants — “camels, sheep, oxen, and_asse: (1 Sam. xxvii. 9). In truth the difficulty ari only on the assumption that the names are } brew, and that they are to be interpreted accor ingly. It would cease if we could believe them be in the former language of the country, adopt by the Hebrews, and so altered as to bear a mea ing in Hebrew. This is exactly the process whi the Hebrew names have in their turn undergo from the Arabs, and is in fact one which is w known to have occurred in all languages, thou not yet recognized in the particular case of t early local names of Palestine. 7. Ha’zar-sv’sim (DYDAD TNT, village horses: ‘Huiooveewaty, as if ed oi [ Vat. H; aus ews Opay; Alex. Huicv Ewotu:] Hasar: sim), the form under which the preceding nai appears in the list of the towns of Simeon in Chr. iv. $i G. HAZE’RIM. The Avis, or more acc rately the Avvim, a tribe commemorated in a fra ment of very ancient history, as the early inhal tants of the southwestern portion of Palestine, < therein said to have lived “in the villages (A. “ Hazerim,” DYIETID ['Aondd0; Alex. Ao pw0: Haserim]), as ‘far as Gaza” (Deut. ii. 2: before their expulsion by the Caphtorim. T word is the plural of HAzER, noticed above, ai as far as we can now appreciate the significance | the term, it implies that the Avvim were a wa dering tribe who had retained in their new locali the transitory form of encampment of their origir desert-life. G. HAZE’ROTH (MWPT [stations, campi grounds]: "Aonpéé; [in Deut., Abady: Has roth ;| Num. xi. 35, xii. 16, xxxiii. 17, Deut. i. J a station of the Israelites in the desert, mention next to Kibroth-Hattaavah, and perhaps recogri able in the Arabic Ia , Hudhera (Robinso i. 151; Stanley, S. gf P. pp. 81, 82), which lies abo eighteen hours’ distance from Sinai on the road the Akabah. The word appears to mean the so of uninclosed villages in which the Bedouins a found to congregate. [HAZER.] H. HAZEZON-TA™MAR, and HAZ/AZON TAMAR (OM SEN," but in Chr poe FLYISLTI [prob. wet place of palms, pali marsh, Dietr.; rows of palms, palm-forest, First. "Acacovéaudp, Or "Acacdy @oudp; [Alex. Ag cav @., Avacay ©.; Vat. in 2 Chr., Acap O papa:] Asasonthamar), the name under which, ‘ a very early period of the history of Palestine, an where the Hebrew is Hazazon, they have Hazezon, an the opposite in Chronicles i ees oes eS HAZIEL HAZOR 1014 _ a document believed by many to be the oldest - all these early records, we first hear of the place aich afterwards became EN-GEDI. The Amor- ’s were dwelling at Hazazon-Tamar when the four ings made their incursion, and fought their suc- ssful battle with the five (Gen. xiv. 7). The me occurs only once again —in the records of e reign of Hezekialt (2 Chr. xx. 2) — when he is wned of the approach of the horde of Ammon- 18, Moabites, Mehunim, and men of Mount Seir, 10m he afterwards so completely destroyed, and io were no doubt pursuing thus far exactly the me route as the Assyrians had done a thousand ars before them. Here the explanation, “ which En-gedi,”” is added. The existence of the ear- v appellation, after En-gedi had been so long in 8, is a remarkable instance of the tenacity of ase old oriental names, of which more modern stances are frequent. See Accuo, BETHSAIDA, xewviridos Aiuyns, Joseph. Ant. y.5,§1). There is no reason for supposing it a different place from that of which Jabin was king (Josh. xi. 1), both when Joshua gained his signal victory over the northern confederation, and when Deborah and Barak routed his general Sisera (Judg. iy. 2, 17; 1 Sam. xii. 9). It was the principal city of the whole of the North Palestine, “the head of all those kingdoms ”’ (Josh. xi. 10, and see Onomasti- con, Asor). Like the other strong places of that part, it stood on an eminence (Dm, Josh. xi. 13, A. V. “strength ”), but the district around must have been on the whole flat, and suitable for the manceuvres of the “very many” chariots and horses which formed part of the forces of the king of Hazor and his confederates (Josh. xi. 4, 6, 9: Judg. iv. 3). Hazor was the only one of those northern cities which was burnt by Joshua; doubt- less it was too strong and important to leave stand- ing in his rear. Whether it was rebuilt by the men of Naphtali, or by the second Jabin (Judg. iv.), we are not told, but Solomon did not overlook so important a post, and the fortification of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the points of defense for the entrance from Syria and Assyria, the plain of Esdraelon, and the great maritime lowland respec- tively, was one of the chief pretexts for his levy of taxes (1 K. ix. 15). Later still it is mentioned in the list of the towns and districts whose inhabi- tants were carried off to Assyria by Tiglath-Pileser (2 K. xv. 29; Joseph. Ant. ix. 11,§ 1). We en- counter it once more in 1 Mace. xi. 67, where Jon- athan, after encamping for the night at the “ water of Genesar,”’ advances to the “plain of Asor” (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5, § 7; the Greek text of the Maccabees has prefixed an n from the preceding word meSiov; A. V. Nasor) to meet Demetrius, who was in possession of Kadesh (xi. 63; Joseph. as above). [NAsor.] Hazazon-tamar is interpreted in Hebrew to mean 2 “pruning or felling of the palm” (Gesen. 1s. p. 512). Jerome ( Quest. in Gen.) renders urbs palmarum. This interpretation of the name borne out by the ancient reputation of the palms En-gedi (Ecclus. xxiv. 14, and the citations from ny, given under that name). The Samaritan rsion has YTD 2995 = the Valley of Cadi, ssibly a corruption of En-gedi. The Targums ve En-gedi. Perhaps this was the ‘city of palm-trees” (Jr -temarim) out of which the Kenites, the tribe ‘Moses’ father-in-law, went up into the wilder- 8 of Judah, after the conquest of the country idg. i. 16). If this were -so, the allusion of aam to the Kenite (Num. xxiv. 21) is at once lained. Standing as he was on one of the lofty nts of the highlands opposite Jericho, the west- shore of the Dead Sea as far as En-gedi would before him, and the cliff, in the clefts of which Kenites had fixed their secure ‘“nest,’’ would 4 prominent object in the view. This has been ady alluded to by Professor Stanley (S. ¢ P., 225, n. 4). G. TAZIEL (ASNT [Els (God's) beholding] : HA; [Vat. Eveena;] Alex. Aina: Hosiel), a ite in the time of king David, of the family of mei or Shimi, the younger branch of the Ger- nites (1 Chr. xxiii. 9). | . IA’ZO (WO [look, visibility, Fiirst]: "A Cad: u), a son of Nahor, by Milcah his wife (Gen. - 22): perhaps, says Gesenius, for VVC, «a m.” The name is unknown, and the settle- its of the descendants of Hazo cannot be ascer- ed. The only clew is to be found in the iden- ation of Chesed, and the other sons of N ahor ; hence he must, in all likelihood, be placed in of the Chaldees,-or the adjacent countries. sen (Bibelwerk, i. pt. 2, p. 49) suggests Cha~- * by the Euphrates, in Mesopotamia, or the zene in Assyria (Strabo, xvi. p. 736). | E. 8. P. {[A’ZOR Sosn [incloswre, castle]: ’Acdép: m In 1 K. ix. 15, Acep:] Asor, [/asor]). \ fortified city, which on the occupation of the itry was allotted to Naphtali (Josh. xix. 36). position was apparently between Ramah and esh (id. xii. 19). on the high ground over- ing the Lake of Merom (drépkerra: THs Seue- Several places bearing names probably derived from ancient Hazors have been discovered in this district. A list will be found in Rob. iii. 366, note (and compare also Van de Velde, Syr. and Pal. ii. 178; Porter. Damascus, i. 304). But none of these answer to the requirements of this Hazor. The nearest is the site suggested by Dr. Robinson, namely, Tell Khuraibeh, “the ruins,’ which, though without any direct evidence of name or tradition in its favor, is so suitable, in its situa- tion on a rocky eminence, and in its proximity both to Kedesh and the Lake /ileh, that we may accept it until a better is discovered (Rob. iii. 364, 365). * The ruins of a large city of very ancient date have recently been found about two miles southeast of Kedes (KEDESH, 3), on an isolated hill called Tell Harah. The walls of the citadel and a por- tion of the city walls are distinctly traceable. Captain Wilson, of the Palestine Exploring Expe- dition, inclines to regard this place as the site of. the Bible Hazor (Josh. xix. 36), instead of Zell Khuraibeh. (See Journ. of Sacr. Literature, April, 1866, p. 245.) It is not said that the ancient name, or any similar one, still adheres to the locality. Thomson proposes Hazere or Hazéry as the site of this Hazor, northwest of the Hiileh (Merom), and in the centre of the mountainous region which over- hangs that lake: the ruins are very extensive as well as ancient, and a living tradition among the Arabs supperts this claim (see Land and Bovk, i. 439), RL binson objects to this identification that it 1016 HEAD-BANDS ig too remote from the Hiileh, and is within the limits of Asher, and not in those of Naphtali (Josh. xix. 32, 386). For Ritter’s view that this Hazor is a Ha- ziry on the rocky slopes above Banias (Ceesarea Philippi), first heard of by Burckhardt in that quarter, see his Geogr. of Palestine, Gage’s trans., li. 221-225. Robinson states that the few remains on a knoll there which bears this name are wholly unimportant, and indicate nothing more than a Mezra’ah, or goat village (Later Res. iii. 402). It is not surprising that a name which signifies “ stronghold,’”’ or “ fortification,’ should belong to various places, both ancient and modern. H. 2. (Acopiwpvaty, including the following name: Alex. omits: Asor.) One of the “ cities’ of Judah in the extreme south, named next in order to Ke- desh (Josh xv. 23). It is mentioned nowhere else, nor has it yet been identified (see Rob. ii. 34, note). The Vatican LXX. unites Hazor with the name following it, Ithnan; which causes Reland to main- tain that they form but one (Pal. pp. 144, 708); but the LXX. text of this list is so corrupt, that it seenis impossible to argue trom it. In the Alex. MS. Hazor is entirely omitted, while Ithnan again is joined to Ziph. 3. (LXX. omits; [Cod. Sarrav. Acwp tyv Ka- ynv; Comp. Aiacap thy Kawhv:] Asor nova.) Hazor-Hadattah, = ‘ new Hazor,”’ possibly contra- distinguished from that just mentioned; another of the southern towns of Judah (Josh. xy. 25). The words are improperly separated in the A. V. 4. (-Acepdv, aiitn ’Acép; Alex. [Acepwu, avtTn] Acwpauau: Hesron, hec est Asor.) “ Hez- ron which is Hazor’”’ (Josh. xv. 25); but whether it be intended that it is the same Hazor as either of those named before, or that the name was orig- inally Hazor, and had been changed to Hezron, we cannot now decide. 5. ([Vat. Alex. FA.1 omit; Comp. FA.3] ‘Acwép: Asor.) A place in which the Benjamites resided after their return from the Captivity (Neh. xi. 33). From the places mentioned with it, as Anathoth, Nob, Ramah, etc., it would seem to have lain north of Jerusalem, and at no great distance therefrom. But it has not yet been discovered. The above conditions are not against its being the same place with BAAL-HAzor, though there is no positive evidence beyond the name in favor of such an identification. The word appears in combination — with Baal in BAAL-HAZzor, with Ain in EN-Hazor. G. * 6. (7 avan: Asor.) In Jer. xlix. 28-33, Ha- zor appears to denote a region of Arabia under the government of several sheiks (see ver. 38, ‘“ king- voms of Hazor’’), whose desolation is predicted by the prophet in connection with that of Krepar. The inhabitants are described (ver. 31) as a nation dwelling “‘ without gates or bars,’’ 2. e. not in cities, but in unwalled villages, D°TET) (comp. Ezek. xxxviii. 11, and see Hazer, HAzerim), from which circumstance some would derive the name (see Hitzig on Jer. xlix. 28; Winer, Realw., art. Hazor, 4; and the Rev. J. L. Porter, art. Hazor, 4, in Kitto’s Cycl. of Bibl. Lit., 3d ed.). A. * HEAD-BANDS (ls. iii. 20), probably an incorrect translation; see GIRDLE. HEAD-DRESS. The Hebrews do not ap- pear to have regarded a covering for the head as an essential article of dress. The earliest notice we have of such a thing is in connection with the HEAD-DRESS sacerdotal vestments, and in this case it is describe as an ornamental appendage “for glory and {i beauty ’’ (Ex. xxviii. 40). The absence of ap allusion to a head-dress in passages where we shoul expect to meet with it, as in the trial of jealous (Num. v. 18), and the regulations regarding th! leper (Lev. xiii. 45), in both of which the “ uneo| ering of the head’’ refers undoubtedly to the hai) leads to the inference that it was not ordinari) worn in the Mosaic age; and this is confirmed |! the practice, frequently alluded to, of covering th head with the mantle. Even in after times it seen’ to have been reserved especially for purposes ¢ ornament: thus the tedniph (FP2E) is notice as being worn by nobles (Job xxix. 14), ladies (I) iii, 23), and kings (Is. Ixii. 8), while the pe (TD) was an article of holiday dress (Is. lxi. | A. V. “ beauty;’’ Ez. xxiv. 17, 23), and was wo! at_ weddings (Is. Ixi. 10): the use of the uirpa wi restricted to similar occasions (Jud. xvi. 8; Bar. I 2). The former of these terms undoubtedly d scribes a kind of turban: its primary sense (FD} “to roll around’’) expresses the folds of line wound round the head, and its form probably r sembled that of the high-priest’s mitznepheth || word derived from the same root, and identical } meaning, for in Zech. iii. 5, tzdniph = mitznepheth: as described by Josephus (Ant. iii. 7, § 3). Tl) renderings of the term in the A. V., “hood ” (I iii. 23), “diadem” (Job xxix. 14; Is. lxii. 3 ‘mitre’? (Zech. iii. 5), do not convey the right idi of its meaning. The other term, peér, primari| means an ornament, and is so rendered in the A. ) (Is. Ixi. 10; see also ver. 3, “beauty ’’), and | specifically applied to the head-dress from its orn| mental character. It is uncertain what the ter| properly describes: the modern turban consists ( two parts, the kaook, a stiff, round cap occasional) rising to a considerable height, and the shash, | long piece of muslin wound about it (Russell, Ale’ po, i. 104): Josephus’ account of the high-priest 5 ¢ o R) AAW fe Modern Syrian and Egyptian Head-dresses. 4 head-dress implies a similar construction; for | says that it was made of thick bands of linen do bled round many times, and sewn together: tl whole covered by a piece of fine linen to conee the seams. Saalschiitz (Archeol. i. 27, note) su HEAD-DRESS HEARTH 1017 sts that the ‘zdniph and the peér represent the ash and the kaook, the latter rising high above 2 other, and so the most prominent and striking ture. In favor of this explanation it may be marked that the peér is more particularly con- sted with the migbaah, the high cap of the or- jary priests, in Ezr. xxxix. 28, while the tzdniph, we have seen, resembled the high-priest’s mitre, \which the cap was concealed by the linen folds. .e objection, however, to this. explanation is that » etymological force of peér is not brought out: vy not that term have applied to the jewels and jer ornaments with which the turban is frequently sorated (Russell, i. 106), some of which are rep- ented in the accompanying illustration bor- ved from Lane’s Mod. Hyypt. Append. A. The ‘m used for putting on either the tzdniph or the plained by Suidas (7d rs keparts pdpnuc), wae applicable to the purposes of a head-dress. [HANp- KERCHIEF.] Neither of these cases, however, sup- plies positive evidence on the point, and the general absence of allusions leads to the inference that the head was ustially uncovered, as is still the case in many parts of Arabia (Wellsted, Travels, i. 78). The introduction of the Greek hat (méracos) by Jason, as an article of dress adapted to the gymna- sium, was regarded as a national dishonor (2 Mace. iv. 12): in shape and material the petasus very much resembled the common felt hats of this coun- try (Dict. of Ant. art. Pileus). S57) = 9) —- = Pts AOS KA & US maa SIL Oy 2 Ets I ray Bedouin Ilead-dress: the Keffiyeh. The Assyrian head-dress is described in Ez. xxiii. 15 under the terns mba YTD, “ exceed- ing in dyed attire;’’ it is doubtful, however, whether ¢ebiilim describes the colored material of the head-dress (tiare a coloribus quibus tincte sint); another sense has been assigned to it more appropriate to the description of a turban (fasciis obvolvit, Ges. Thes. p. 542). The term s’riché [‘TTIND] expresses the flowing character of the Eastern head-dress, as it falls down over the back (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 308). The word rendered “hats”? in Dan. iii. 21 (29D) properly applies to a cloak. d W. L. B. HEARTH. 1. TTS: éoxdpa: arula (Ges. 69), a pot or brazier for containing fire. 2. TW o9 00% y, Youn Oo a Pon & 0399090000 Boe OAS gs Poohoon Modern Egyptian Head-dresses. (Lane.) \" is warn, ‘to bind round”? (Ex. xxix. 9; / Vii. 13): hence the words in Ez. xvi. 10, “I jad thee about with fine linen,” are to be un- He | of the turban; and by the use of the same i Jonah (ii. 5) represents the weeds wrapped as rban round his head. The turban as now worn be East varies very much in shape; the most alent forms are shown in Russell's Aleppo, i. m. and amipal) Iie kavor pa, Kavols? incendium (Ges. p. 620). 3. 5, or 7D (Zech. xii. 6). dards: caminus ; in dual, ODD (Lev. xi. 35): xuTpdémodes: chytropodes; A. V. ranges for pots’? (Ges. p. 672). One way of baking, much practiced in the East, is to place the dough on an iron plate, either laid on, or supported on legs above the vessel sunk in the ground, which forms the oven. This plate on “hearth” is in Arabic upelb, tajen ; a word ) the tzdniph and the peér were reserved for (lay attire, it remains for us to inquire whether ! and what covering was ordinarily worn over head. It appears that frequently the robes re the place of a head-dress, being so ample they might be thrown over the head at pleas- ' the rddid and the tsdiph at all events were ed [Dress], and the veil served a similar pur- 9 [Vetu.] The ordinary head-dress of the «uin consists of the keffiyeh, a square handker- 1, generally of red and yellow cotton, or cotton 1 3ilk, folded so that three of the corners hang ‘ over the back and shoulders, leaving the face ‘ied, and bound round the head by a cord ckhardt, Notes, i. 48). It is not improbable @ similar covering was used by the Hebrews Thai. occasions: the “kerchief” in Ez. xiii. as been so understood by some writers (Har- Observations, ii. 393), though the word more bly refers to a species of veil: and the olmt- Acts xix. 12, A V. « apron’), as ex- which has probably passed into Greek in r/-yavov. The cakes baked “on the hearth” (Gen. xviii. 6, eykpuplas, subcinericios panes) were probably baked in the existing Bedouin manner, on hot stones covered with ashes. The “ hearth” of king Jehoiakim’s winter palace, Jer. xxxvi. 23, was pos- sibly a pan or brazier of charcoal. (Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. i. 58; P. della Valle, Viaggi, i. 437; Harmer, Ods. i. p. 477, and note; Rauwolff, Trvels, ap. Ray, ii. 163; Shaw, Travels, p. 231; Niebuhr, = 1018 HEATH Descr. de UV Arabie, p. 45; Schleusner, Lex Vet. Test. rhyavov; Ges. s. v.12", p. 997.) [FiRE.] Us Bae Gan ae HEATH (YY, 'ars'ér, and TY, ‘ar dr:% f drypiouuplen, Bvos aypios: myricd). The prophet Jeremiah compares the man ‘“ who maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord,” to the ’ar’dr in the desert (xvii. 6). Again, in the judgment of Moab (xlviii. 6), to her inhabitants it is said, “ Flee, save your lives, and be like the ’drdé7 in the wilderness,’’ where the margin has “a naked tree.’”” There seems no reason to doubt Celsius’ conclusion (Hierod. ii. 195), Lee) that the ’ar’ ar is identical with the ’ar’ar (ye ye) of Arabic writers, which is some species of juniper. Robinson (Bib. Res. ii. 125, 6) states that when he was in the pass of Nemela he observed juniper trees (Arab. ’ar’ar) on the porphyry rocks above. The berries, he adds, have the appearance and taste of the common juniper, except that there is more of the aroma of the pine. ‘ These trees were ten or fifteen feet in height, and hung upon the rocks even to the summits of the cliffs and needles.” This appears to be the Juniperus Sabina, or savin, with small scale-like leaves, which are pressed close to the stem, and which is described as being a gloomy-looking bush inhabiting the most sterile soil (see English Cycl. N. Hist. iii. 311); a charac- ter which is obviously well suited to the naked or destitute tree spoken of by the prophet. Rosen- miiller’s explanation of the Hebrew word, which is also adopted by Maurer, “ qui destitutus versatur”’ (Schol. ad Jer. xvii. 6), is very unsatisfactory. Not to mention the tameness of the comparison, it is evidently contradicted by the antithesis in ver. 8: Cursed is he that trusteth in man .. . he shall be like the juniper that grows on the bare rocks of the desert: Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord . . . he shall be as a tree planted by the waters. The contrast between the shrub of the arid desert and the tree growing by the waters is edificia eversa’’ (ruins); but it is more in accord- ance with the Scriptural passages to suppose that some tree is intended, which explanation, moreover, has the sanction of the LXX. and Vulgate, and of the modern use of a kindred Arabic word. Wa: He HEATHEN. The Hebrew words 112, OA, gi, goyim, together with their Greek equivalents Zovos, Z6vn, have been somewhat arbitrarily ren- dered “nations,” “gentiles,’ and “heathen”? in the A. V. It will be interesting to trace the man- ner in which a term, primarily and essentially gen- eral in its signification, acquired that more restricted sense which was afterwards attached to it. Its development is parallel with that of the Hebrew people, and its meaning at any period may be taken as significant of their relative position with regard to the surrounding nations. a From the root WY, to be naked,” in allusion to the bare nature of the rocks on which the Juniperus | a) HEATHEN 1. While as yet the Jewish nation had no polit cal existence, géyim denoted generally the nage of the world, especially including the ime descendants of Abraham (Gen. xviii. 18; com) Gal. iii. 16). The latter, as they grew in numbe, and importance, were distinguished in a mo. marked manner from the nations by whom thi were surrounded, and were provided with a code (| laws and a religious ritual, which made the di tinction still more peculiar. They were essential] a separate people (Lev. xx. 23); separate in habit| morals, and religion, and bound to maintain the separate character by denunciations of the mo) terrible judgments (Lev. xxvi. 14-38; Deut. xxviii, On their march through the desert they encounter) the most obstinate resistance from Amialek, * chi) of the géyim” (Num. xxiv. 20), in whose sight t deliverance from Egypt was achieved (Lev. xx 45). During the conquest of Canaan and the su sequent wars of extermination, which the Israelit for several generations carried on against thi enemies, the seven nations of the Canaaniti Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, Perizzit) and Girgashites (Ex. xxxiv. 24), together with t remnants of them who were left to prove ist (Josh. xxiii. 13; Judg. iii. 1; Ps. Ixxvili. 55), a} teach them war (Judg. iii. 2), received the espec, appellation of géyim. With these the Israeli) were forbidden to associate (Josh. xxiii. 7); int) marriages were prohibited (Josh. xxiii. 12; 1 xi. 2); and as a warning against disobedience {| fate of the nations of Canaan was kept constan| before their eyes (Lev. xviii. 24, 25; Deut. xy) 12). They are ever associated with the worsl| of false gods, and the foul practices of idolat (Ley. xviii. xx.), and these constituted their ch) distinctions, as géyim, from the worshippers of ‘| one God, the people of Jehovah (Num. xy. ‘/ Deut. xxviii. 10). This distinction was maintail in its full force during the early times of the m archy (2 Sam. vii. 23; 1 K. xi. 4-8, xiv. 245 | evi. 35). It was from among the géyim, the | graded tribes who submitted to their arms, t) the Israelites were permitted to purchase tl bond servants (Lev. xxv. 44, 45), and this spe enactment seems to have had the effect of giv; toa national tradition the force and sanction 0} In later times 4 «of the children! Ham, | And not only were the Israelites intermarry with these géyim, but the latter virtually excluded from the possibility of becom} naturalized. An Ammonite or Moabite was s? out from the congregation of Jehovah even to: tenth generation (Deut. xxiii. 3), while an Edor! or Egyptian was admitted in the third (vers. 1, The necessity of maintaining a separation so brot} marked is ever more and more manifest as’ follow the Israelites through their history, and serve their constantly recurring tendency to idola’ Offense and punishment followed each other V all the regularity of cause and effect (Judg. il! iii. 6-8, &c.). | 2. But, even in early Jewish times, the t! goyim received by anticipation a significance? Comp. Ps. cii. 17, FIZ} “yy “ the prayer of the destitute ” (or ill c) Sabina often grows. HEATHEN der range than the national experience (Lev. xxvi. , 88; Deut. xxx. 1), and as the latter was grad- lly developed during the prosperous times of the marehy, the goyim were the surrounding nations nerally, with whom the Israelites were brought ‘o contact by the extension of their commerce, d whose idolatrous practices they readily adopted 'z. xxiii. 30; Am. v. 26). Later still, it is ap- ed to the Babylonians who took Jerusalem (Neh. '8; Ps. Ixxix. 1, 6, 10), to the destroyers of Moab . xvi. 8), and to the several nations among ‘om the Jews were scattered during the Captivity 3. evi. 47; Jer. xlvi. 28; Lam. i. 3, &c.), the ietice of idolatry still being their characteristic ‘tinction (Is. xxxvi. 18; Jer. x. 2, 3, xiv. 22). ‘is signification it retained after the return from Dylon, though it was used in a more limited ‘se as denoting the mixed race of colonists who tled in Palestine during the Captivity (Neh. v. ), and who are described as fearing Jehovah, ‘ile serving their own gods (2 K. xvii. 20-33; t. v1. 21). ‘Tracing the synonymous term @@yy through the ‘ocryphal writings, we find that it is applied to f nations around Valestine (1 Mace. i. 11), in- ‘ding the Syrians and Philistines of the army of rgias (1 Mace. iii. 41, iv. 7, 11, 14), as well as people of Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon (1 Mace. 9, 10, 15). They were image-worshippers (1 fee. iii. 48; Wisd. xv. 15), whose customs and ‘ons the Jews seem still to have had an uncon- ‘rable propensity to imitate, but on whom they e bound by national tradition to take vengeance (Mace. ii. 68; 1 Esdr. viii. 85). Following the toms of the géyim at this period denoted the jlect or concealment of circumcision (1 Mace. i. , disregard of sacrifices, profanation of the Sab- ‘h, eating of swine’s flesh and meat offered to fs (2 Mace. vi. 6-9, 18, xv. 1, 2), and adoption the Greek national games (2 Mace. iv. 12, 14). ul points Judaism and heathenism are strongly ‘trasted. The “barbarous multitude’ in 2 kc. ii. 21 are opposed to those who played the 11 for Judaism, and the distinction now becomes en one (comp. Matt. xviii. 17). In Isdr. iii. 33, 34, the “gentes” are defined as se “qui habitant in seculo” (comp. Matt. vi. } Luke xii. 30). is the Greek influence became more extensively 1 Asia Minor, and the Greek language was serally used, Hellenism and heathenism became (ertible terms, and a Greek was synonymous i1 a foreigner of any nation. This is singularly jent in the Syriac of 2 Mace. v. 9, 10, 13; ef. jn vii. 85; 1 Cor. x. 82; 2 Mace. xi. 2. athe N. T. again we find various shades of pend attached to yn. In its narrowest sense opposed to “ those of the circumcision ” (Acts 5; ef. Esth. xiv. 15, where &AASTpLOs = arept- Tos), and is contrasted with Israel, the people 1 ehovah (Luke ii. 32), thus representing the drew DY at one stage of its history. But, like 'm, it also denotes the people of the earth gen- y (Acts xvii. 26; Gal. iii. 14). In Matt. vi. 7 kés is applied to an idolater. ut, in addition to its significance as an ethno- shical term, géyim had a moral sense which t not be overlooked. In Ps. ix. 5, 15, 17 (comp. vii. 21) the word stands in parallelism with 7) Pasha, the wicked, as distinguished by his | HEAVEN 1019 moral obliquity (see Hupfeld on Ps. i. 1); and in ver. 17 the people thus designated are described as * forgetters of God,” that know not Jehovah (Jer. x. 25). Again in-Ps. lix. 5 it is to some extent commensurate in meaning with 7S ‘TID, biy'dé dven, “iniquitous transgressors; ’’ and in these pas- sages, as well as in Ps. x. 16, it has a deeper sig- nificance than that of a merely national distinction, although the latter idea is never entirely lost sight of. In later Jewish literature a technical definition of the word is laid down which is certainly not of universal application. Elias Levita (quoted by Kisennienger, Lntdecktes Judenthum, i. 665) ex- plains the sing. got as denoting one who is not of Israelitish birth. This can only have reference to its after signification; in the O. T. the singular is neyer used of an individual, but is a collective term, applied equally to the Israelites (Josh. iii. 17) as to the nations of Canaan (Lev. xx. 23), and denotes simply a body politic. Another distinction, equally unsupported, is made between EY A, géyim, and DYNAN, wmmim, the former being defined as the nations who had served Israel, while the latter were those who had not (Jalkut Chadash, fol. 20, no. 20; Kisenmenger, i. 667). Abarbanel on Joel iii. 2 applies the former to both Christians and Turks, or Ishmaelites, while in Sepher Juchasin (fol. 148, col. 2) the Christians alone are distinguished by this appellation. Eisenmenger gives some curious examples of the disabilities under which a géi labored. One who kept sabbaths was judged de- serving of death. (ii. 206), and the study of the law was prohibited to him under the same penalty; but on the latter point the doctors are at issue (ii. 209). WiscAaiiW. HEAVEN. There are four Hebrew words thus rendered in the O. T., which we may briefly notice. 1. ya (crepewua: firmamentum ; Luth. Veste), a solid expanse, from Yj?, “to beat out; ” a word used primarily of the hammering out of metal (Ex. xxxix, 3, Num. xvi. 38). The fuller expression is pyawin D2 (Gen. i. 14 f.). That Moses understood it to mean a solid expanse is clear from his representing it as the barrier be- tween the upper and lower waters (Gen. i. 6 f.), i. €. as separating the reservoir of the celestial ocean (Ps. civ. 3, xxix. 3) from the waters of the earth, or those on which the earth was supposed to float (Ps. exxxvi. 6). Through its open lattices (Mars Gen. vii. 11; 2 K. vii. 2, 19; comp. kédokivor, Aristoph. Nub. 373) or doors (OMI'77, Ps. Lxxviii 23) the dew and snow and hail are poured upon the earth (Job xxxviii. 22, 37, where we have the curious expression ‘ bottles of heaven,” “utres eceli’’). This firm vault, which Job describes as being ‘strong as a molten looking-glass ”’ (xxxvii. 18), is transparent, like pellucid sapphire, and splendid as crystal (Dan. xii. 3; Ex. xxiv. 10; Ez. i. 22; Rev. iv. 6), over which rests the throne of God (Is. Ixvi. 1; Ez. i. 26), and which is opened for the descent of angels, or for prophetic visions (Gen. xxviii. 17; Ez. i. 1; Acts vii. 56, x. 11). In it, like gems or golden lamps, the stars are fixed ta give light to the earth, and regulate the seasonas (Gen. i. 14-19); and the whole magnificent, im- 1020 HEAVEN HEBER. : Sow ory or pyp7)i 2. PIT By (or DOW) 4-and 8 FRYE Ole “heaven of heavens,” DOYOW WOW). This riously explicit statement is entirely unsuppor by Rabbinic authority, but it is hardly fair Meyer to call it a jiction, for it may be suppo to rest on some vague Biblical evidence (cf. D iv. 12, ‘‘ the fowls of the heaven; ”’ Gen. xxii. “the stars of the heaven;’’ Ps. ii. 4, ‘he ¢ sitteth in the heavens,’ etc.). The Rabbis sp of two heavens (cf. Deut. x. 14, “the heaven ¢ the heaven of heavens’”’), or seven (érrd ovpay obs tives dpiOuodor. Kat’ éemavdBaow, Ch Alex. Strom. iv. 7, p. 636). “¢ Resch Lakisch d septem esse ccelos, quorum nomina sunt, 1. velt 2. expansum; 8. nubes; 4. habitaculum; 5. h itatio; 6. sedes fixa; 7. Araboth,’’ or sometil “the treasury.’ At the sin of Adam, God cended into the first; at, the sin of Cain into second; during the generation of Enoch into third, etc.; afterwards God descended downwe into the sixth at the time of Abraham, into fifth during the life of Isaac, and so on down the time of Moses, when He redescended into first (see many passages quoted by Wetstein, « Cor. xii. 2). Of all these definitions and dec tions we may remark simply with Origen, émr ovpavovs }) GAws mepiwpiopevoy apiOudy adTa@ pepduevar ev tais éxxAnglats Tov Ocod amaryyeAAovat ypapal (e. Cels. Wires 21, Pp: 2 [i. e. ‘of seven heavens, or any definite nun of heavens, the Scriptures received in the chur of God do not inform us’’]. If nothing has here been said on the secon senses attached to the word ‘heaven,’ the 0! sion is intentional. The object of this Dictio is not practical, but exegetical; not theological, critical and explanatory. A treatise on the na and conditions of future beatitude would her wholly out of place. We may, however, ren that as heaven was used metaphorically to sig the abode of Jehovah, it is constantly employe the N. T. to signify the abode of the spirits of just. (See for example Matt. v. 12, vi. 20; I x. 20, xii. 33; 2 Cor. v. 1; Col. i. 5.) measurable structure (Jer. xxxi. 37) is supported by the mountains as its pillars, or strong founda- tions (Ps. xviii. 7; 2 Sam. xxii. 8; Job xxvi. 11). Similarly the Greeks believed in an ovpavds roAvxaAKos (Hom. Il. v. 504), or c1dhpeos (Hom. Od. xv. 328), or Add UATTOS (Orph. Hymhm. ad Ceelum), which the philosophers called orepéuvioy, or KpuoTaddoeidés (Emped. ap. Plut. de Phil. Plac. ii. 11; Artemid. ap. Sen Nat. Quest. vii. 18; quoted by Gesenius, s. v.) It is clear that very many of the above notions were mere meta- phors resulting from the simple primitive concep- tion, and that later writers among the Hebrews had arrived at more scientific views, although of course they retained much of the old phraseology, and are fluctuating and undecided in their terms. Elsewhere, for instance, the heavens are likened to a curtain (Ps. civ..2; Is. xl. 22). In A. V. ‘heaven’? and “heayens’’ are used to render not only Yj), but also Daw, Di, and DEYTIW, for which reason we have thrown to- gether under the former word the chief features ascribed by the Jewish writers to this portion of the universe. [FrRMAMENT, Amer. ed.] 2. DOW is derived from sTDY’, “to be high.” This is the word used in the expression ‘‘the heaven and the earth,” or “the upper and lower regions’? (Gen. i. 1), which was a periphra- sis to supply the want of a single word for the Cosmos (Deut. xxxii. 1; Is. i. 2; Ps. exlviii. 18). ‘Heaven of heavens’? is their expression of in- finity (Neh. ix. 6; Ecclus. xvi. 18). 38. MAYS, used for heaven in Ps. xviii. 16; Jer. xxv. 30; Is. xxiv. 18. Properly speaking it means a mountain, as in Ps. cii. 19, Ez. xvii. 23. It must not, however, be supposed for a moment that the Hebrews had any notion of a “ Mountain of Meeting,”’ like Albordsh, the northern hill of Baby- lonish mythology (Is. xiv. 13), or the Greek Olym- pus, or the Hindoo Meru, the Chinese Kuenlun, or the Arabian Caf (see Kalisch, Gen. p. 24, and the authorities there quoted), since such a fancy is incompatible with the pure monotheism of the Old Testament. W. | * HEAVE-OFFERING. [SaAcRIFICE HEBER. The Heb. TAY and T2f} more forcibly distinguished than the English | and Heber. In its use, however, of this m aspirate distinction the A. V. of the O. T. is sistent: Eber always= 2Y, and Heber ‘4 In Luke iii. 35, Heber = Eber, ’EBép; the dis tion so carefully observed in the O. 'T. having neglected by the translators of the N. T. The LXX. has a similar distinction, though 4. PMD, ‘‘expanses,”’ with reference to the extent of heaven, as the last two words were de- rived from its height; hence this word is often used together with mya, as in Deut. xxxiii. 26; Job xxxv. 5. In the A. V. it is sometimes ren- dered clouds, for which the fuller term is ‘RY yw (Ps. xviii. 12). The word prt) means first ‘to pound,” and then “ to wear out.” So that, according to some, “clouds’’ (from the notion of dust) is the original meaning of the word. Gesenius, however, rejects this opinion ( Thes. s. v.). fie the NOT: we f ss Baa ve : consistently carried out. It expresses 23 n the N. T. we frequently have the word odpa- |« “a , se sol, which some consider to be a Hebraism, or a Efep (Gen. x. 21),”EBep (1 Chr. i. 25), EI plural of excellence (Schleusner, Lex. Nov. Test.,|ovs (Num. xxiv. 24); while MATT is vari gs. y.). St. Paul’s expression €ws tplrov ovpavov given as XoBép, XaBép, "ABdp, or A Bep. (2 Cor. xii. 2) has led to much conjecture. Gro-| these words, however, we can clearly perceive tius said that the Jews divided the heaven into| distinct groups of equivalents, suggested bj three parts, namely, (1.) Nubiferum, the air or at-| effort to express two radically different forms. mosphere, where clouds gather. (2.) Astriferum, the | transition from XoBép through XaPép to "Af firmament, in which the sun, moon, and stars are | sufficiently obvious. a fixed. (3.) Empyreum, or Angeliferum, the upper! The Vulg. expresses both indifferently by Z heaven, the abode of God and his angels, i. ¢. 1.1 except in Judg. iv. 11 ff, where Haber is pro HEBREW LANGUAGE wested by the LXX. XaBép; and Num. xxiv. Hebreos, evidently after the LXX. ‘EBpaious. xcluding Luke iii. 835, where Heber = Eber, we yin the O. T. six of the name. ' Grandson of the Patriarch Asher (Gen. xlvi. (1 Chr. vii. 31; Num. xxvi. 45). |, Of the tribe of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 18). . [aphd; Alex. IwBnd; Comp. 'EBép: He- |] A Gadite (1 Chr. v. 13). ., A Benjamite (1 Chr. viii. 17). » [NBHS; Vat. ABSn; Ald. ’ABép: Heber.) ‘ther Benjamite (1 Chr. viii. 22). . Heber, the Kenite, the husband of Jael ilg. iv. 11-17, v. 24). It is a question how he d be a Kenite, and yet trace his descent from ab, or Jethro, who was priest of Midian. The tion is probably to be sought in the nomadic ts of the tribe, as shown in the case of Heber self, of the family to which he belonged (Judg. }), and of the Kenites generally (in 1 Sam. xv. ney appear among the Amalekites). It should ‘bserved that Jethro is never called a Midian- but expressly a Kenite (Judg. i. 16); that the ‘ession “priest of Midian,” may merely serve mdicate the country in which Jethro resided; y, that there would seem to have been two essive migrations of the Kenites into Palestine, ‘under the sanction of the tribe of Judah at ‘time of the original occupation, and attributed Jethro’s descendants generally (Judg. i. 16); other a special, nomadic expedition of Heber’s ly, which led them to Kedesh in Naphtali, at / time the debatable ground between the north- tribes, and Jabin, King of Canaan. We are to infer that this was the final settlement of ‘er: a tent seems to have been his sole habita- when his wife smote Sisera (Judg. iv. 21). ' CEBep: Heber.) The form in which the of the patriarch EBER is given in the ge- ogy. Luke iii. 35. Eo B. (EBERITES, THE (72M: 5 XoBept . -pet]: Heberite). Descendants of Heber, anch of the tribe of Asher (Num. xxvi. 45). Lee Ae HEBREW LANGUAGE. See SHemitic /GUAGES, §§ 6-13. ‘E’BREW, HE/BREWS. This word first sts as applied to Abraham (Gen. xiv. 13): it ieererde given as a name to his descendants. ur derivations have been proposed : — ) Patronymic from Abram. » Appellative from T2Y. I. Appellative from 2D. 7. Patronymic from Eber. i a Abram, Abrei, and by euphony He- / (August., Ambrose). Displaying, as it does, atmost ignorance of the language, this deriva- | Was never extensively adopted, and was even jected by Augustine (Retract. 16). The eu- 'y alleged by Ambrose is quite imperceptible, ithere is no parallel in the Lat. meridie = me- — : a2), from 2DY =“ crossed over,” ap- by the Canaanites to Abraham upon his ing the Euphrates (Gen. xiv. 13, where LXX. €ns =transitor’. This derivation is open to trong objection that Hebrew nouns ending in seither patronymics, or gentilic nouns (Bux- HEBREW 1021 torf, Leusden). This is a technical objectior, which, though fatal to the repdrns, or appellative derivation as traced back to the verb, does not apply to the same as referred to the noun “2Y. The analogy of Galli, Angli, Hispani derived from Gallia, Anglia, Hispania (Leusd.), is a complete blunder in ethnography; and at any rate it would confirm rather than destroy the derivation from the noun. ~ III. This latter comes next in review, and is es- sentially the same with II.; since both rest upon the hypothesis that Abraham and his posterity were called Hebrews in order to express a distinc- tion between the races E. and W. of the Euphrates. The question of fact is not essential whether Abra- ham was the first person to whom the word was applied, his posterity as such inheriting the name; or whether his posterity equally with himself were by the Canaanites regarded as men from “ the other side’ of the river. The real question at issue is whether the Hebrews were so ealled from a pro- genitor Eber (which is the fourth and last deriva- tion), or from a country which had been the cradle of their race, and from which they had emigrated westward into Palestine ; in short, whether the word Hebrew is a patronymic, or a gentile noun. IV. The latter opinion in one or other of its phases indicated above is that suggested by the LXX., and maintained by Jerome, Theodor., Ori- gen, Chrysost., Arias Montanus, R. Bechai, Paul Burg., Miinster, Grotius, Scaliger, Selden, Rosenm., Gesen., Eichhorn; the former is supported by Jo- seph., Suidas, Bochart, Vatablus, Drusius, Vossius, Buxtorf, Hottinger, Leusden, Whiston, Bauer. As regards the derivation from “2Y, the noun (or according to others the prep.), Leusden himself, the great supporter of the Buxtorfian theory, indi- eates the obvious analogy of Transmarini, ‘Tran- sylvani, Transalpini, words which from the de- scription of a fixed and local relation attained in process of time to the independence and mobility of a gentile name. So natural indeed is it to suppose that Eber (trans, on the other side) was the term used by a Canaanite to denote the coun- try EK. of the Euphrates, and Hebrew the name which he applied to the inhabitants of that coun- try, that Leusden is driven to stake the entire issue as between derivations III. and IV. upon a challenge to produce any passage of the O. T. in which TAY = WIT TAY. If we accept Ro- senm. Schol. on Num. xxiv. 24, according to which Eber by parallelism with Asshur = Trans-Euphra- tian, this challenge is met. But if not, the fa- cility of the abbreviation is sufficient to create a presumption in its favor; while the derivation with which it is associated harmonizes more perfectly than any other with the later usage of the word Hebrew, and is confirmed by negative arguments of the strongest kind. In fact it seems almost impossible for the defenders of the patronymic ber theory to get over the difficulty arising from the circumstance that no special prominence is in the genealogy assigned to Eber, such as might en- title him to the position of head or founder of the race. From the genealogical scheme in Gen. xi. 10-26, it does not appear that the Jews thought of Eber as a source primary, or even secondary, of the national descent. The genealogy neither starts from him, nor in its uniform sequence does it rest 7 1022 HEBREW upon him with any emphasis. There is nothing to distinguish Eber above Arphaxad, Peleg, or Serng. Like them he is but a link in the chain by which Shem is connected with Abraham. Indeed the tendency of the Israelitish retrospect is to stop at Jacob. It is with Jacob that their history as a nation begins: beyond Jacob they held their an- cestry in common with the Edomites; beyond Isaac they were in danger of being confounded with the Ishmaelites. The predominant figure of the em- phatically Hebrew Abraham might tempt them beyond those points of affinity with other races, so distasteful, so anti-national; but it is almost incon- ceivable that, they would voluntarily originate, and perpetuate an appellation of themselves which landed them on a platform of ancestry where they met the whole population of Arabia (Gen. x. 25, 30)). As might have been expected, an attempt has been made to show that the position which Eber occupies in the genealogy is one of no ordinary kind, and that the Hebrews stood in a relation to him which was held by none other of his descend- ants, and might therefore be called par excellence “ the children of Eber.” There is, however, only one passage in which it is possible to imagine any peculiar resting-point as connected with the name of Eber. In Gen. x. 21 Shem is called “the father of all the children of Eber.” But the passage is apparently not so much genealogical as ethnographical; and in this view it seems evident that the words are intended to con- trast Shem with Ham and Japheth, and especially with the former. Now Babel is plainly fixed as the extreme E. limit of the posterity of Ham (ver. 10), from whose land Nimrod went out into As- syria (ver. 11, margin of A. V.): in the next place, Egypt (ver. 13) is mentioned as the W. limit of the same great race; and these two extremes having been ascertained, the historian proceeds (ver. 15-19) to fill up his ethnographic sketch with the intermediate tribes of the Canaanites. In short, in ver. 6-20, we have indications of three geographical points which distinguish the posterity of Ham, namely, Egypt, Palestine, and Babylon. At the last-mentioned city, at the river Euphrates, their proper occupancy, unaffected by the excep- tional movement of Asshur, terminated, and at the same point that of the descendants of Shem began. Accordingly, the sharpest contrast that could be devised is obtained by generally classing these lat- ter nations as’ those beyond the river Euphrates; and the words “ father of all the children of Eber,’’ i. ¢. father of the nations to the east of the KEu- phrates, find an intelligible place in the context. But a more tangible ground for the specialty implied in the derivation of Hebrew from Eber is sought in the supposititious fact that Eber was the only descendant of Noah who preserved the one primeval language; and it is maintained that this janguage transmitted by Eber to the Hebrews, and to them alone of all his dessendants, constitutes a pe- culiar and special relation (Theodor., Voss., Leusd.). It is obvious to remark that this theory rests upon three entirely gratuitous assumptions: first, that the primeval language has been preserved ; next, that Eber alone preserved it; lastly, that having so preserved it, he communicated it to his son Peleg, but not to his son Joktan. . The first assumption is utterly at variance with the most certain results of ethnology: the two others are grossly improbable. ‘The Hebrew of the HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE O. T. was not the language of Abraham when first entered Palestine: whether he inherited language from Eber or not, decidedly the langu which he did speak must have been Chaldee (cor Gen. xxxi. 47), and not Hebrew (Kichhorn). 17 supposed primeval language was in fact the | guage of the Canaanites, assumed by Abraham more or less akin to that in which he had } brought up, and could not possibly have b transmitted to him by Eber. The appellative (wepdrys) derivation is stron confirmed by the historical use of the word Hebr A patronymic would naturally be in use only anx the people themselves, while the appellative wh had been originally applied to them as strangers a strange land would probably continue to de nate them in their relations to neighboring tril and would be their current name among fore nations. This is precisely the case with the ter Israelite and Hebrew respectively. The fon was used by the Jews of themselves among the selves, the latter was the name by which they known to foreigners. It is used either when : eigners are introduced as speaking (Gen. xxxix. 17, xli. 12; Ex. i. 16, ii. 620 Sam. iv. Ga 19, xiv. 11, xxix. 3), or where they are opposed foreign nations (Gen. xliii. 82; Ex. i. 16, i. Deut. xv. 12; 1 Sam. xiii. 3, 7). So in’@ and Roman writers we find the name //ebrets, in later times, Jews (Pausan. v. 5, § 2, vi. 24,§ Plut. Sympos. iv. 6,1; Tac. Hist. v. 1; Jose passim). In N. T. we find the same contrast tween Hebrews and foreigners (Acts vi. 1; F iii. 5); the Hebrew language is distinguished f all others (Luke xxiii. 38; John v. 2, xix. “Acts xxi. 40, xxvi. 14; Rev. ix. 11); while i Cor. xi. 22, the word is used as only second to raelite in the expression of national peculiarity. Gesenius has successfully controverted the oj ion that the term /s7aelite was a sacred name, Hebrew the common appellation. Briefly, we suppose that /Zebrew was original Cis-E uphratian word applied to Trans-[uphra immigrants; it was accepted by these immigr in their external relations; and after the gen substitution of the word Jew, it still found a p in that marked and special feature of national | tradistinction, the language (Joseph. Ant. i. 6, Suidas, s. v. ‘“EBpato:; Euseb. de Prep. Ew ii. 4; Ambrose, Co mment. in Phil. iii. 5; Aug Quest. mm Gen. 24; Consens. Eyang. 14: co Retract. 16; Grot. ‘Annot. ad Gen. xiv. 13; V Etym. s. v. supra; Bochart, Phaleg, ii. 14; B Diss. de Ling. Heb. Conserv. 31; Hottinger, 7 i. 1, 2; Leusden, Phil. Heb. ice 21, 13a) Fntwun “ff ete., § xi.; Rosenm. Schol. ‘ad Gen 21, xiv. 13, and Num. xxiv. 24; Eichhorn, Zin i. p. 60; Gesen. Lex., and Gesch. d. Ileb. Spr. 12), T. Et HE’BREWESS (TBIRY : ‘EApala: brea). A Hebrew woman (Jer. xxxiv. 9). | Ww. A.W HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE. principal questions which have been raised, and opinions which are current respecting this ep may be considered under the following heads: I. Its canonical authority. If: Its author. III. ‘To whom was it addressed ? IV. Where and when was it written? V. In what language was it written? Ms ‘Condition of the Hebrews, and scope of the ‘stle. \VIL. Literature connected with it. {. The most important question that can be en- tained in connection with this epistle touches ) canonical “ authority. )The universal Church, by allowing it a “place ong the Holy Seriptures, acknowledges that there aothing in its contents inconsistent with the rest the Bible. But the peculiar position which is /igned to it among the epistles shows a trace of (ibts as to its authorship or canonical authority, » points which were blended together in primi- > times. Has it then a just claim to be received ‘us as a portion of that Bible which contains the 2 of our faith and the rule of our practice, laid im by Christ and his Apostles? Was it re- ‘ded as such by the Primitive Church, to whose ily-expressed judgment in this matter all later verations of Christians agree to defer ? '0f course, if we possessed a declaration by an joired apostle that this epistle is canonical, all cussion would be superfluous. But the inter- tation (by F. Spanheim and later writers) of ,’et. iii. 15 as a distinct reference to St. Paul’s ‘stle to the Hebrews seems scarcely tenable. if the *“ you’? whom St. Peter addresses be Christians (see 2 Pet. i. 2), the reference must + be limited to the Epistle to the Hebrews; or if include only (see 2 Pet. ili. 1) the Jews named 'L Pet. i. 1, there may be special reference to the (atians (vi. 7-9) and Ephesians (ii. 3-5), but : to the Hebrews. Vas it then received and transmitted as canon- i by the immediate successors of the Apostles ? P most important witness among these, Clement ( D. 70 or 95), refers to this epistle in the same i as, and more frequently than, to any other onical book. It seems to have been “ wholly basfused,”? says Mr. Westcott (On the Canon, p. 3, into ( ‘lement’s mind. Little stress can be laid wn the few possible allusions to it in Barnabas, ry Polycarp, and Ignatius. But among the mt authorities of orthodox Christianity during ‘first century after the epistle was written, there ot one dissentient voice, whilst it is received as 1 | The Rey. J. Jones, in his Method of settling the asec! Authority of ‘the N. T., indicates the way in the an inquiry into this subject should be con- ted; and Dr. N. Lardner’s Credibility of the Gos- History is a storehouse of ancient authorities. both these great works are nearly superseded for nary purposes by the invaluable compendium of t’ Rev. B. F. Westcott, On the Canon of the New -ament, to which the first part of this article is uly indebted. [There is a 2d edition of this work, d. 1865.) ' Lardner’s remark, that it was not the method of ‘tin to use allusions so often as other authors have ie may supply us with something like a middle it between the conflicting declarations of two liv- apes, both entitled to be heard with attention. index of Otto’s edition of Justin contains more ta 60 references by Justin to the epistles of St. 14 while Prof. Jowett (On the Thessalonians, etc., ted. i. 845) puts forth in England the statement y t. Justin was unacquainted with St. Paul and his ‘ings. This statement is modified in the 2d edition of If. Jowett’s work (Lond. 1859). He there says (i. ‘that “Justin refers to the Twelve in several pas- Ss, but nowhere in his genuine writings mentions “Paul. And when speaking of the books read in HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE 1028 canonical by Clement writing from Rome; by Jus- tin Martyr,® familiar with the traditions of Italy and Asia; by his contemporaries, Pinytus (?) the Cretan bishop, and the predecessors of Clement and Origen at Alexandria; and by the compilers of the Peshito version of the New Testament. Among the writers of this period who make no reference to it, there is not one whose subject necessarily leads us to expect him to refer to it. Two heretical teachers, Basilides at Alexandria and Marcion at Rome, are recorded as distinctly rejecting the epistle. But at the close of that period, in the North African church, where first the Gospel found utter- ance in the Latin tongue, orthodox Christianity first doubted the canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Gospel, spreading from Je- rusalem along the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean, does not appear to have borne fruit in North Africa until after the destruction of Jerusalem had curtailed intercourse with Palestine And it.came thither not on the lips of an inspired apostle, but shorn of much of that oral tradition in which, with many other facts, was embodied the ground of the eastern belief in the canonical au- thority and authorship of this anonymous epistle. To the old Latin version of the Scriptures, which was completed probably about A. D. 170, this epis- tle seems to have been added as a composition of Barnabas, and as destitute of canonical authority. The opinion or tradition thus embodied in that age and country cannot be traced further back. About that time the Roman Church also began to speak Latin; and even its latest Greek writers gave up, we know not why, the full faith of the Eastern Church in the canonical authority of this epistle. During the next two centuries the extant fathers of the Roman and North African churches regard the epistle as a book of no canonical authority. Tertullian, if he quotes it, disclaims its authority and speaks of it as a good kind of apocryphal book written by Barnabas. Cyprian leaves it out of the number of St. Paul’s episties, and, even in his books of Scripture Testimonies against the Jews, never makes the slightest reference to it. Irenseus, who came in his youth to Gaul, defending in his the Christian assemblies, he names only the Gospels and the Prophets. (Apol. i. 67.) On the other hand, it is true that in numerous quotations from the Old Testament, Justin appears to follow St. Paul.” The statement that ‘ the index of Otto’s edi- tion of Justin contains more than 60 references by Justin to the epistles of St. Panl” is not correct, if his index to Justin’s wndisputed works is intended, the number being only 89 (exclusive of 6 to the Epistle to the Hebrews), and 16 of these being to quotations from or allusions to the Old Testament common to Justin and St. Paul. In most of the remainder, the correspondence in language between Justin and the epistles of St. Paul is not close. Still the evidence that Justin was acquainted with the writings of the great Apostle to the Gentiles appears to be satisfac- tory. See particularly on this point the articles of Otto in Illgen’s Zettschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1842, Heft 2, pp. 41-54, and 1848, Heft 1, pp. 34-48. In such works as the two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho, quotations from St. Paul were not to be ex- pected. That Justin was acquainted with the Epistle to the Hebrews is also probable, but that he regarded it as canonical ” can hardly be proved or disproved. See the careful and judicious remarks of Mr. West cott, Canon of the New Test., 2d ed., p. 146 ff. A. 1024 HEBREWS, great work the Divinity of Christ, never quotes, scarcely refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Muratorian Fragment on the Canon leaves it out of the list of St. Paul's epistles. So did Caius und Hippolytus, who wrote at Rome in Greek; and so did Victorinus of Pannonia. But in the fourth century its authority began to revive; it was re- ceived by Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer and Faustinus of Cagliari, Fabius and Victorinus of Rome, Am- brose of Milan, and Philaster (?) and Gaudentius of Brescia. At the end of the fourth century, Jerome, the most learned and critical of the Latin Fathers, reviewed the conflicting opinions as to the authority of this epistle. He considered that the prevailing, though not universal view of the Latin churches, was of less weight than the view, not only of ancient writers, but also of all the Greek and all the Eastern churches, where the epistle was received as canonical and read daily; and he pronounced a decided opinion in favor of its au- thority. The great contemporary light of North Africa, St. Augustine, held a similar opinion. And after the declaration of these two eminent men, the Latin churches united with the East in receiving the epistle. The 3d Council of Carthage, A. D. 397, and a decretal of Pope Innocent, A. D. 416, gave a final confirmation to their decision. Such was the course and the end of the only considerable opposition which has been made to the canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Its origin has not been ascertained. Some critics have conjectured that the Montanist or the Nova- tian controversy instigated, and that the Arian controversy dissipated, so much opposition as pro- ceeded from orthodox Christians. The references to St. Paul in the Clementine Homilies have led other critics to the startling theory that orthodox Christians at Rome, in the middle of the second century, commonly regarded and described St. Paul as an enemy of the Faith; —a theory which, if it were established, would be a much stranger fact than the rejection of the least accredited of the epistles which bear the Apostle’s name. But perhaps it is more probable that that jealous care, with which the Church everywhere, in the second century, had learned to scrutinize all books claim- ing canonical authority, misled, in this instance, the churches of North Africa and Rome. For to them this epistle was an anonymous writing, un- like an epistle in its opening, unlike a treatise in its end, differing in its style from every apostolic epistle, ‘abounding in arguments and appealing to sentiments which were always foreign to the Gen- tile, and growing less familiar to the Jewish mind. So they went a step beyond the church of Alexan- dria, which, while doubting the authorship of this epistle, always acknowledged its authority. The church of Jerusalem, as the original receiver of the epistle, was the depository of that oral testi- mony on which both its-authorship and canonical authority rested, and was the fountain-head of in- formation which satisfied the Eastern and Greek churches. But the church of Jerusalem was early hidden in exile and obscurity. And Palestine, after the destruction of Jerusalem, became unknown zround to that class of “ dwellers in Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,’’ who once main- tained close religious intercourse with it. All these @ The Vatican Codex (B), a. p. 350, bears traces of an earlier assignment of the fifth place to the Ep. to the Hebrews. (See Bisxe, p. 805 6, Amer. ed.] EPISTLE TO THER | + considerations may help to account for the fat thy the Latin churches hesitated to receive an epist li the credentials of which, from peculiar cireun: stances, were originally imperfect, and had becom inaccessible to them when their version of Serr ture was in process of formation, until religior intercourse betweeen East and West again gre: frequent and intimate in the fourth century. | But such doubts were confined to the Lati churches from the middle of the second to th close of the fourth century. All the rest of orth dox Christendom from the beginning was | upon the canonical authority of this “epistle. | Greek or Syriac writer ever expressed a doubt. ] was acknowledged in various public documents received by the framers of the Apostolical Consti tutions (about A. D. 250, Beveridge); quoted i the epistle of the Synod of Antioch, a. D. 269 appealed to by the debaters in the first Couneil. | Nice; included in that catalogue of canonical book) which was added (perhaps afterwards) to the eanor of the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 365; and san tioned by the Quinisextine Council at Consult nople, A. D. 692. Cardinal Cajetan, the opponent of Luther, we the first to disturb the tradition of a thousan years, and to deny the authority of this epistl Erasmus, Calvin, and Beza questioned only its at thorship. The bolder spirit of Luther, unable perceive its agreement with St. Paul’s doetrin, pronounced it to be the work of some disciple o the Apostle, who had built not only gold, silver, an precious stones, but also wood, hay, and stubb upon his master’s foundation. And whereas tl Greek Church in the fourth century gave it som times the tenth @ place, or at other times, as it no does, and as the Syrian, Roman, and Englis churches do, the fourteenth place among the epi ties of St. Paul, Luther, when he printed his vel sion of the Bible, separated this book from § Paul's epistles, and placed it with the epistles 0 St. James and St. Jude, next before the Revel tion; indicating by this change of order his opi ion that the four relegated books are of less in portance and less authority> than the rest of t New Testament. His opinion found some promi ters; but it has not been adopted in any confessio of the Lutheran Church. The canonical authority of the Epistle to th Hebrews is then secure, so far as it ean be estal lished by the tradition of Christian churches. Tl doubts which affected it were admitted in remo! places, or in the failure of knowledge, or under tl pressure of times of intellectual excitement; an they have disappeared before full information an calm judgment. . Il. Who was the author of the Epistle? —Th question is of less practical importance than tl last; for many books are received as canonica whilst little or nothing is known of their writer In this epistle the superseription, the ordinal source of information, is wanting. Its omissic has been accounted for, since the days of Clemet of Alexandria (apud Euseb. H. E. vi. 14) au Chrysostom, by supposing that St. Paul withhe! his name, lest the sight of it should repel any Jey ish Christians who might still regard him raul as an enemy of the law (Acts xxi. 21) than as. benefactor to their nation (Acts xxiv. 17). b See Bleek, i. pp. 247 and 447. : | HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE 1025 anteenus, or some other predecessor of Clement, { writers who follow him, down to the middle of the lds that St. Paul would not write to the Jews as| fourth century, only touch on the point to deny \ Apostle because he regarded the Lord himself their Apostle (see the remarkable expression, ‘eb. iii. 1, twice quoted by Justin Martyr, Apol. 12, 63). It was the custom of the earliest fathers to quote sssages of Scripture without naming the writer ‘the book which supplied them. But there is no ason to doubt that at first, everywhere, except in orth Africa, St. Paul was regarded as the author. Among the Greek fathers,’’ says Olshausen ( Opus- la, p. 95), no one is named either in Egypt, or Syria, Palestine, Asia, or Greece, who is opposed ‘the opinion that this epistle proceeds from St. jul.” The Alexandrian fathers, whether guided tradition or by critical discernment, are the ear- st to note the discrepancy of style between this istle and the other thirteen. And they received ‘in the same sense that the speech in Acts xxii. 21 is received as St. Paul's. Clement. ascribed St. Luke the translation of the epistle into ‘eek from a Hebrew original of St. Paul. Ori- 1, embracing the opinion of those who, he says, eded him, believed that the thoughts were St. ful’s, the language and composition St. Luke’s ‘Clement’s of Rome. ‘Tertullian, knowing noth- . of any connection of St. Paul with the epis- ( names Barnabas as the reputed author accord- / to the North African tradition, which in the le of Augustine had taken the less definite shape (x denial by some that the epistle was St. Paul's, lin the time of Isidore of Seville appears as a in opinion (founded on the dissonance of style) ‘t it was written by Barnabas or Clement. At ne Clement was silént as to the author of this of the other epistles which he quotes; and the a that the epistle is St. Paul's. The view of the Alexandrian fathers, a middle point between the Eastern and Western traditions, won its way in the Church. It was adopted as the most probable opinion by Eusebius; @ and its grad- ual reception may have led to the silent transfer, which was made about his time, of this epistle from the tenth place in the Greek Canon to the fourteenth, at the end of St. Paul’s epistles, and before those of other Apostles. This place it held everywhere till the time of Luther; as if to indi- cate the deliberate and final acquiescence of the universal church in the opinion that it is one of the works of St. Paul, but not in the same full sense? as the other ten [nine] epistles, addressed to particular churches, are his. In the last three centuries every word and phrase in the epistle has been scrutinized with the most exact care for historical and grammatical evidence as to the authorship. The conclusions of individ- ual inquirers are very diverse; but the result has not been any considerable disturbance of the an cient tradition.c No new kind of difficulty has been discovered: no hypothesis open to fewer ob- jections than the tradition has been devised. The laborious work of the Rey. C. Forster (The Apos- tulical Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews), which is a storehouse of grammatical evidence, ad- vocates the opinion that St. Paul was the author of the language, as well as the thoughts of the epistle. Professor Stuart, in the Introduction to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. discusses the internal evidence at great length, and agrees in opinion with Mr. Forster.¢ Dr. (. Wordsworth, On the Canon of’ the Scriptures, " Professor Blunt, On the Right Use of the Early hers, pp. 439-444. gives a complete view of the evi- bs of Clement, Origen, and Eusebius as to the Jorship of the epistle. In this sense may be fairly understood the indi- | declaration that this epistle is St. Paul’s, which Church of England puts into the mouth of her isters in the Offices for the Visitation of the Sick 1 the Solemnization of Matrimony. Bishop Pearson (De successione priorum Rome poporum, ch. viii. § 8) says that the way in which othy is mentioned (xiii. 23) seems to him a suffi- 1t proof that St. Paul was the author of this epistle. ‘another view of this passage see Bleek, i. 273. | *It has been asserted by some German critics, as ‘uz and Seyffarth, that an unusually large propor- i of drag Asyéeva, or peculiar words, is found in I Epistle to the Hebrews as compared with other } les of Paul. This is denied by Prof. Stuart, who ututes an elaborate comparison between this epistle the First Epistle to the Corinthians in reference to : (See his Comm. on Hebrews, 2a ed., p. 1. 223 ff.) As the result of this examination, he in 1 Cor. 230° words which occur nowhere else te writings of Paul; while in the Epistle to the ‘ews, according to the reckoning of Seyffarth, » are only 118 words of this class. Taking into 4nt the comparative length of the two epistles, ‘umber of peculiar words in the Epistle to the He- $ a8 compared with that in 1 Cor.-is, according to Stuart, in the proportion of 1 to 14. ence he 28, that “if the number of araé Aeyoueva in our \€ proves that it was not from the hand of Paul, ist be more abundantly evident that Paul cannot \be am the author ef the First Epistle to the Cor- ans,” @ facts in the case, however, are very different 5) ee ee a ee AS wee Le from what Prof. Stuart supposes. In the first place, 20 of his dag Aeydueva in Ist Corinthians are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, to make the comparison tolerably fair, should be assumed as Pau- line; 5 others are found only in quotations; and 13 more do not properly belong in the list, while 25 should be added to it. Correcting these errors, we find the number of peculiar words in 1 Cor. to be about 217 On the other hand, the number of drat Aeypeva in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not reckoning, of course, those in quotations from the Old Testament, instead of being only 118, as Prof. Stuart assumes, is about 800. (The precise numbers vary a little according to the text of the Greek Testament adopted as the basis of comparison.) Leaving out of account quotations from the Old Testament, the number of lines in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, in Knapp’s edition ot the Greek Testament, is 922; in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 640. We have then the proportion — 640 922: : 300: 482; showing that if the number of pecu liar words was as great in 1 Corinthians in proportion to its length as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we should find there 482 instead of about 217. In other words, the number of daf Acyéueva in Hebrews exceeds that in 1 Corinthians in nearly the propor- tion of 2to 1. No judicious critic would rest an ar- gument in such a case on the mere number of pecu- liar words ; but if this matter is to be discussed at all, it is desirable that the facts should be correctly pre- sented. There is much that is erroneous or fallacious in Professor Stuart’s other remarks on the internal evi- dence. The work of Mr. Forster in relation to this subject (mentioned above), displays the same intellect- ual characteristics as his treatise on the Himyaritic Inscriptions, his One Primeval Language, and his New Prea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heav enly Witnesses (1 John y. 7), recently published A. 1026 Lect. ix., leans to the same conclusion. Dr. S. Davidson, in his /ntroduction to the New Testa- ment, gives a very careful and minute summary of the arguments of all the principal modern critics who reason upon the internal evidence, and con- cludes, in substantial agreement with the Alexan- drian tradition, that St. Paul was the author of the epistle, and that, as regards its phraseology and style, St. Luke codperated with him in making it what it now appears. ‘The tendency of opinion in Ger- many has been to ascribe the epistle to some other author than St. Paul. Luther's conjecture, that Apollos was the author, has been widely adopted by Le Clerc, Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Bunsen, and others.¢ [ApoLLos, Amer. ed.] Barnabas has been named by Wieseler, Thiersch, and others,? Luke by Grotius, Silas by others. Neander attri- butes it to some apostolic man of the Pauline school, whose training and method of stating doc- trinal truth differed from St. Paul’s. The distin- guished name of H. Ewald has been given recently to the hypothesis (partly anticipated by Wetstein), that it was written neither by St. Paul, nor to the Hebrews, but by some Jewish teacher residing at Jerusalem to a church in some important Italian town, which is supposed to haye sent a deputation to Palestine. Most of these guesses are quite des- titute of historical evidence, and require the sup- port of imaginary facts to place them on a seeming equality with the traditionary account. They can- not be said to rise out of the region of possibility into that of probability; but they are such as any man of leisure and learning might multiply till they include every name in the limited list that we possess of St. Paul's contemporaries. The tradition of the Alexandrian fathers is not without some difficulties. It is truly said that the style of reasoning is different from that which St. Paul uses in his acknowledged epistles. But it may be replied, —Is the adoption of a different style of reasoning inconsistent with the versatility of that mind which could express itself in writings so diverse as the Pastoral Epistles and the preced- ing nine? or in speeches so diverse as those which are severally addressed to pagans at Athens and, [-ycaonia, to Jews at Pisidian Antioch, to Christian elders at Miletus? Is not such diversity just what might be expected from the man who in Syrian Antioch resisted circumcision and St. Peter, but in Jerusalem kept the Nazarite vow, and made con- cessions to Hebrew Christians; who professed to become ‘all things to all men”’ (1 Cor. ix. 22); whose education qualified him to express his thoughts in the idiom of either Syria or Greece, and to vindicate to Christianity whatever of eter- pal truth was known in the world, whether it had become current in Alexandrian philosophy, or in Rabbinical tradition ? If it be asked to what extent, and by whom was St. Paul assisted in the composition of this epistle, a Among these must now be placed Dean Alford, who in the fourth volume of his Greek Testament (pub- lished since the above article was in type), discusses the question with great care and candor, and concludes that the epistle was written by Apollos to the Romans, wbout A.D. 69, from Ephesus. h Among these are some, who, unlike Origen, deny that Barnabas is the author of the epistle which bears his name. If it be granted that we have no specimen of his, style, the hypothesis which connects him with the Epistle to the Hebrews becomes less improbable. Many circumstances show that he possessed some qual- HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE the reply must be in the words of Origen, “ Wh wrote [z. e. as in Rom. xvi. 22, wrote from the ar thor’s dictation¢] this epistle, only God knows, The style is not. quite like that of Clement o Rome. Both style and sentiment are quite unlik those of the author of the Epistle of Barnaba Of the three apostolic men named by Africa fathers, St. Luke is the most likely to have shared i the composition of this epistle. The similarity i phraseology which exists between the acknowledge writings of St. Luke-and this epistle; his constar companionship with St. Paul, and his habit of li tening to and recording the Apostle’s argument form a strong presumption in his favor. But if St. Luke were joint-author with St. Pay what share in the composition is to be assigned | him? This question has been asked by those wl regard joint-authorship as an impossibility, a ascribe the epistle to some other writer than § Paul. Perhaps it is not easy, certainly it is n necessary, to find an answer which would satisfy, silence persons who pursue an_ historical inqui into the region of conjecture. Who shall defi the exact responsibility of ‘Timothy or Silvanus, | Sosthenes in those seven epistles which St. Pa inscribes with some of their names conjointly wi his own? To what extent does St. Mark’s la guage clothe the inspired recollections of St. Pet which, according to ancient tradition, are record in the second Gospel? Or, to take the acknoy edged writings of St. Luke himself, — what ist share of the ‘“ eye-witnesses and ministers of t word’? (Luke i. 2), or what is the share of St. Pa himself in that Gospel, which some persons, 1 without countenance from tradition, conjecture tl’ St. Luke wrote under his master’s eye, in the pris at Czesarea; or who shall assign to the follower a the master their portions respectively in those sey characteristic speeches at Antioch, Lystra, Athe Miletus, Jerusalem, and Cesarea? If St. Lu wrote down St. Paul’s Gospel, and condensed missionary speeches, may he not have taken aft wards a more important share in the compositi of this epistle ? Ill. Zo whom was the Epistle sent ? — This qu tion was agitated as early as the time of Chrys tom, who replies —to the Jews in Jerusalem ¢ Palestine. The ancient tradition preserved. Clement of Alexandria, that it was originally w) ten in Hebrew by St. Paul, points to the sa quarter. The unfaltering tenacity with which Eastern Church from the beginning maintained authority of this epistle leads to the inference t it was sent thither with sufficient credentials in first instance. Like the First Epistle of St. J( it has no inscription embodied in its text, and it differs from a treatise by containing several dit personal appeals, and from a homily, by clos with messages and salutations. Its present ti which, though ancient, cannot be proved to h ifications for writing such an epistle ; such as his vitical descent, his priestly education, his reputa at Jerusalem, his acquaintance with Gentile chure his company with St. Paul, the tradition of Tertull etc. pia e Liinemann, followed by Dean Alford, argues Origen must have meant here, as he confessedly | a few lines further on, to indicate an author, scribe, by 6 ypdwas ; but he acknowledges that Ols! sen, Stenglein, and Delitzsch, do not allow the Bé sity oe # HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE 1027 ‘een inscribed by the writer of the epistle, might ‘ave been given to it, in accordance with the use 'f the term Hebrews in the N. T., if it had been ddressed either to Jews who lived at Jerusalem, nd spoke Aramaic (Acts vi. 1), or to the descend- ats of Abraham generally (2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. i. 5). | But the argument of the epistle is such as could '2 used with most effect to a church consisting xclusively of Jews by birth, personally familiar ith,* and attached to, the Temple-service. And ich a community (as Bleek, Hebrder, i. 31, argues) yuld be found only in Jerusalem and its neighbor- vod. And if the church at Jerusalem retained its mmer distinction of including a great company of ‘iests (Acts vi. 7) —a class professionally familiar es: the songs of the Temple, accustomed to dis- iss the interpretation of Scripture, and acquainted th the prevailing Alexandrian philosophy — such church would be peculiarly fit to appreciate this istle. For it takes from the Book of Psalms the markable proportion of sixteen out of thirty-two ‘otations from the O. T., which it contains. It ‘ies so much on deductions from Scripture that is circumstance has been pointed out as incon- tent with the tone of independent apostolic au- arity, which characterizes the undoubted epistles ‘St. Paul. And so frequent is the use of Alex- drian philesophy and exegesis that it has sug- jited to some critics Apollos as the writer, to tiers the Alexandrian church as the primary re- tient of the epistle.> If certain members of the fs at Jerusalem possessed goods (Heb. x. 34), influence in the time of his last recorded sojourn in Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 22). Some critics have maintained that this epistle was addressed directly to Jewish believers every- where; others have restricted it to those who dwelt in Asia and Greece. Almost every city in which St. Paul labored has been selected by some critic as the place to which it was originally sent. Not only Rome and Ceesarea, where St. Paul was long imprisoned, but, amid the profound silence of its early Fathers, Alexandria also, which he never saw, have each found their advocates. And one con. jecture connects this epistle specially with the Gentile Christians of Ephesus. These guesses agree in being entirely unsupported by historical evidence; and each of them has some special plausibility com - bined with difficulties peculiar to itself. IV. Where and when was it written ?— Eastern traditions of the fourth century, in connection with the opinion that St. Paul is the writer, name Italy and Rome, or Athens, as the place from whence the epistle was written. Either place would agree with, perhaps was suggested by, the mention of Timothy in the last chapter. An inference in favor of Rome may be drawn from the Apostle’s long captivity there in company with Timothy and Luke. Ceesarea is open to a similar inference; and it has been conjecturally named as the place of the com- position of the Epp. to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians: but it is not supported by any tradition. From the expression « they of (ad) Italy,”’ xiii. 24, it has been inferred that the writer could not have been in Italy; but Winer (Gram- matik, § 66, 6), denies that the preposition neces- sarily has that force. The epistle was evidently written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A. p. 70. The whole argument, and specially the passages viii. 4 and fi. ix. 6 and ff. (where the present tenses of the Greek ity | are unaccountably changed into past in the English version), and xiii. 10 and ff. imply that the Temple was standing, and that its usual course of Divine service was carried on without interruption. A Christian reader, keenly watching in the doomed ¢ city for the fulfillment of his Lord’s prediction, would at once understand the ominous references to “that which beareth thorns and briers, and is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned;” “that which decayeth and waxeth old, and is ready to vanish away;’’ and the coming of the expected “ Day,” and the removing of those things that are shaken. vi. 8, viii. 13, x. 25, 37, xii. 27. But these forebodings seem less distinct and circumstantial than they might have been if uttered immediately before the catastrophe. ‘The references to former teachers xiii. 7, and earlier instruction v. 12, and x. 32, might suit any time after the first years of the church; but it would be interesting to connect the first reference with the martyrdom 4 of St. James at the Passover a. D. 62. Modern criticism has not destroyed, though it has weakened, ae it where it differs from the Hebrew, this 2es with his practice in other epistles, and with fact that, as elsewhere so in Jerusalem, Hebrew adead language, acquired only with much pains ‘the learned. The Scriptures were popularly ‘wn in Aramaic or Greek: quotations were made 1 memory, and verified by memory. Probably *, Jowett is correct in his inference (1st edit. i. 0, that St. Paul did not Samiliarly know the Tew original, while he possessed a minute knowl- of the LXX. brard limits the primary circle of readers even section of the church at Jerusalem. Consid- iE such passages as v. 12, vi. 10, x. 32, as prob- ‘inapplicable to the whole of that church, he setures that St. Paul wrote to some neophytes i@ conversion, though not mentioned in the may have been partly due to the Apostle’s eee yy For an explanation of the alleged ignorance of the or of Heb. ix. as to the furniture of the Temple, ‘brard’s Commentary on the passage, or Professor \t’s Excursus, xvi. and xvii. the influence of the Alexandrian school did not ¢ with Philo, and was not confined to Alexandria. ANDRIA-] The means and the evidence of its °8S Inay be traced in the writings of the son of 1 (Maurice’s Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy, , p. 284), the author of the Book of Wisdom 1, Geschichte, iy. 548), Aristobulus, Ezekiel, Philo, and Theodotus (Ewald, iv. 297); in the phraseology of St. John (Prof. Jowett, On the Thessalonians, ete. Ist edit. i. 408), and the arguments of St. Paul (ibid p. 861); in the establishment of an Alexandrian syn agogue at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 9), and the existence of schools of scriptural interpretation there (Ewald, Ge schichte, v. 63, and vi. 231). ¢ See Josephus, B. J. vi. 5, § 3. @ See Josephus, Ant. xx. 9, § 1; Euseb. H. E. if 23; and Recogn. Clement. i. 70, ap. Coteler. i. 509. 9 fel 1028 the connection of this epistle with St. Paul's Roman captivity (A. D. 61-63) by substituting the reading rots decpulos, “ the prisoners,”’ for rots Secuors wou (A. V. “me in my bonds),”? x. 34; by proposing to interpret droAcAupevor, xiii, 23, as “sent away,” rather than ‘set at liberty; ” and by urging that the condition of the writer, as por- trayed in xiii. 18, 19, 23, is not necessarily that of a prisoner, and that there may possibly be no allusion to it in xiii. 3. On the whole, the date which best agrees with the traditionary account of the authorship and destination of the epistle is A. D. 63, about the end of St. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, or a year after Albinus succeeded lestus as procurator. V. In what language was it written ? — Like St. Matthew’s Gospel, the Epistle to the Hebrews has afforded ground for much unimportant contro- versy respecting the language in which it was originally written. The earliest statement is that of Clement of Alexandria (preserved in Euseb. H. E. vi. 14), to the effect that it was written by St. Paul in Hebrew, and translated by St. Luke into Greek; and hence, as Clement observes, arises the identity of the style of the epistle and that of the Acts. This statement is repeated, after a long interval, by Eusebius, Theodoret, Jerome, and sey- eral later fathers: but it is not noticed by the majority. Nothing is said to lead us to regard it as a tradition, rather than a conjecture suggested by the style of the epistle. No person is said to have used or seen a Hebrew original. The Aramaic copy, included in the Peshito, has never been re- garded otherwise than as a translation. Among the few modern supporters of an Aramaic original the most distinguished are Joseph Hallet, an Eng- lish writer in 1727 (whose able essay is most easily accessible in a Latin translation in Wolf's Cure Philologice, iv. 806-837), and J. D. Michaelis, Erklér. des Briefes an die Hebréer. Bleek (i. 6-23), argues in support of a Greek original, on the grounds of (1) the purity and easy flow of the Greek; (2) the use of Greek words which could not be adequately expressed in Hebrew without long periphrase ; (3) the use of paronomasia — under which head he disallows the inference against an Aramaic original which has been drawn from the double sense given to d:a0hnn, ix. 15; and (4) the use of the Septuagint in quotations and references which do not correspond with the He- brew text. VI. Condition of’ the Hebrews, and scope of the Epistle. — The numerous Christian churches scat- tered throughout Judea (Acts ix. 31; Gal. i. 22) were continually exposed to persecution from the Jews (1 Thess. ii. 14), which would become more searching and extensive as churches multiplied, and as the growing turbulence of the nation ripened into the insurrection of A. D. 66. Personal violence, spoliation of property, exclusion from the synagogue, and domestic strife were the universal forms of per- secution. But in Jerusalem there was one addi- tional weapon in the hands of the predominant oppressors of the Christians. Their magnificent national Temple, hallowed to every Jew by ancient historical and by gentler personal recollections, with its irresistible attractions, its soothing strains, and mysterious ceremonies, might be shut against the neni iw he >, ae a See the ingenious, but perhaps overstrained, in- terpretation of Heb. xi. in Thiersch’s Commentatio Historica de Epistola ad Hebreos. HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE Hebrew Christian. And even if, amid the fiere factions and frequent oscillations of authority ix Jerusalem, this affliction were not often laid upor him, yet there was a secret burden which ever) Hebrew Christian bore within him — the knowledy that the end of all the beauty and awfulness of Zion was rapidly approaching. Paralyzed, perhaps by this consciousness, and enfeebled by their attach ment to a lower form of Christianity, they becam stationary in knowledge, weak in faith, void oj energy, and even in danger of apostasy from Christ For, as afflictions multiplied round them, and mad them feel more keenly their dependence on God and their need of near and frequent and associate approach to Him, they seemed, in consequence 0 their Christianity, to be receding from the God o their fathers, and losing that means of communia) with Him which they used to enjoy. Angels, Mose: and the High-priest — their intercessors in heavyer in the grave, and on earth — became of less im portance in the creed of the Jewish Christian; the! glory waned as he grew in Christian experienc Already he felt that the Lord’s day was supersedin the Sabbath, the New Covenant the Old. Wh: could take the place of the Temple, and that whic was behind the veil, and the Levitical sacrifice and the Holy City, when they should cease to exist What compensation could Christianity offer hi for the loss which was pressing* the Hebre Christian more and more. | James, the bishop of Jerusalem, had just left h place vacant by a martyr’s death. Neither | Cephas at Babylon, nor to John at Ephesus, tl third pillar of the Apostolic Church, was it giv to understand all the greatness of his want, and’ speak to him the word in season. But there can to him from Rome the voice of one who had bet the foremost in sounding the depth and breadth: that love of Christ which was all but incompr hensible to the Jew, one who feeling more than ai other Apostle the weight of the care of all t churches, yet clung to his own people with a lo ever ready to break out in impassioned words, al unsought and ill-requited deeds of kindness. | whom Jerusalem had sent away in chains to Ror again lifted up his voice in the hallowed city amo! his countrymen; but with words and argumet suited to their capacity, with a strange, borrow accent, and atone in which reigned no aposto authority, and a face veiled in very love from Wi ward children who might refuse to hear divine a saving truth, when it fell from the lips of Paul. He meets the Hebrew Christians on their 0 ground. His answer is — “ Your new faith gi you Christ, and, in Christ, all you seek, all yé fathers sought. In Christ the Son of God } have an all-sufficient Mediator, nearer than ang to the Father, eminent above Moses as a benefact more sympathizing and more prevailing than | high-priest as an intercessor: His sabbath awé you in heaven; to His covenant the old was. tended to be subservient; His atonement is | eternal reality® of which sacrifices are bu passing shadow; His city heavenly, not made W hands. Having Him, believe in Him with all y\ heart, with a faith in the unseen future, strong that of the saints of old, patient under present,‘ prepared for coming woe, full of energy, and he and holiness, and love.” Such was the teaching of the Fpistle to the | b See Bishop Butler’s Analogy, ii. 5, § & HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE orews. We do not possess the means of tracing out step by step its effect upon them; but we know that the result at which it aimed was achieved. ‘The church at Jerusalem did not apostatize. It ‘migrated to Pella (Eusebius, H. /. iii. 5); and there, no longer dwindled under the cold shadow of overhanging Judaism, it followed the Hebrew Christians of the Dispersion in gradually entering om the possession of the full liberty which the law of Christ allows to all. And this great epistle remains to after times, a seystone binding together that succession of inspired nen which spans over the ages between Moses and 3t. John. It teaches the Christian student the sub- stantial identity of the revelation of God, whether tiven through the Prophets, or through the Son; or it shows that God’s purposes are unchangeable, iowever diversely in different ages they have been ‘reflected in broken and fitful rays, glancing back rom the troubled waters of the human soul.” It 3a source of inexhaustible comfort to every Chris- ian sufferer in inward perplexity, or amid “ re- hitiuehies and afflictions.” It is a pattern to every Jhristian teacher of the method in which larger jews should be imparted, gently, reverently, and easonably, to feeble spirits prone to cling to ancient orms, and to rest in accustomed feelings. | VIL. Literature connected with the Epistle. — 2 addition to the books already referred to, four ommentaries may be selected as the best repre- wntatives of distinct lines of thought; — those of hrysostom, Calvin, Estius, and Bleek. Liinemann 1855 [3d ed. 1867]), and Delitzsch (1858) have veently added valuable commentaries to those ‘ready in existence. The commentaries accessible to the English vader are those of Professor Stuart (of Andover, ".S. [2d ed., 1833, abridged by Prof. R. D. C. obbins, Andover, 1860]), and of Ebrard, trans- ted by the Rev. J. Fulton [in vol. vi. of Olshausen’s 101. Comm., Amer. ed.]. Dr. Owen's Exercita- ms on the Hebrews are not chiefly valuable as an tempt at exegesis. The Paraphrase and Notes Peirce [2d ed. Lond. 1734] are praised by Dr. oddridge. Among the well-known collections of aglish notes on the Greek text or English version the N. T., those of Hammond, Fell, Whitby, acknight, Wordsworth, and Alford may be par- sularly mentioned. d Essays on the oughtful and eloquent sermon on this epistle; d it is the subject of three Warburtonian Lec- “es, by the Rev. F. D. Maurice [Lond. 1846]. A tolerably complete list of commentaries on is epistle may be found in Bleek, i Ebrard’s Commentary. WTB: * The opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews 8 not written by Paul has found favor with many sides those whose names have been mentioned. cher (inl. ins N. 7’. p- 439), Lechler (Das Apost. Malt. p. 159 f.), Wieseler (Chron. d. Apost. Halt. p. 504 f.), and in a separate treatise (Un- suchung iiber den Hebréerbrief, Kiel, 1861), esten (Dogmatik, 4te Aufl, i. 95, and in Piper's angel. Kalender for 1856, p. 43 f.), Késtlin (in ‘ar and Zeller’s Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 425 f.), ‘dner (Gesch. des Neutest. Kanon, edited by (kmar, p. 161), Schmid (Bibl. Theol. des N. T. 2), Renss (Gesch. des N. T. 4te Ausg.), Weiss ee | vol. ii. pp. 10—| to God. and a comprehensive but shorter list at the end (a.) The 1029 (Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 142), Schneckenburger (Bettrdye, and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p- 283 f.), Hase (Kirchengesch. Tte Aufl. § 39, p. 686 of the Amer. trans.), Lange (Das _ ax.|Rehob, and is apparently in the neighborhood ef 2. (722, and ] rt * 'EABay, Alex. Ax Zidon. By Eusebius and Jerome it is merely men- ay: Achran, later editions Abran). One of the | tioned (Onomast. Achran), and no one in moderr ywns in the territory of Asher (Josh. xix. 28), on | times has discovered its site. It will be observed e boundary of the tribe. It is named next to] that the name in the original is quite different from The City of Hebron (1). 1; of Hebron, the well-known city of Judah (No. (Davidson, Hebr. Text; Ges. Thes. p. 980), and ike a in the A. V. they are the same, our | since an Abdon is named amongst the Levitical 1 slators having represented the ain by H, instead | cities of Asher in other lists, which otherwise would vy G, or by the vowel only, as is their usual |be unmentioned here. On the other hand, the old om. But, in addition, it is not certain whether | versions (excepting only the Vat. LXX., which is tame should not rather be Ebdon or Abdon obviously corrupt) unanimously retain the R ! faa. since th J : [ABDon.] G. | fa Mineo tuat form is found in many MSS. | *'» Kirjath Arba does not appear to have been the a 1034 HEBRONITES, THE griginal name of Hebron; but simply the name immediately prior to the Israelitish occupancy. For we are told that it was so called from Arba, the father of Anak (Josh. xv. 18, 14); and the children of Anak were the occupants when Caleb took it, as we learn from the same passage. But in Abraham’s time there was a different occupant, Mamre the ally of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 13, 24); and the place was then called by his name (Gen. xxiii. 19, xxxv. 27). ‘This appellation, then, preceded that of Kir- jath Arba. But as the place was a very ancient one (Num. xiii. 22', and as Mamre was Abrahams contemporary, it had some name older than either of these two. What was that previous name? The first mention of the place (Gen. xiii. 18) would obviously indicate Hebron as the previous and original name — subsequently displaced (in part at least) by Mamre, afterwards by Arba, but restored to its ancient and time-honored rights when Arba’s descendants, the Anakim, were driven out by the descendants of Abraham. S. C. B. HE’BRONITES, THE (2M: 6 Xe- Bpdv, 6 XeBpwvt [Vat. -ve.]: Hebroni, Febronite). A family of Kohathite Levites, descendants of He- bron the son of Kohath (Num. iii. 27, xxvi. 58; 1 Chr. xxvi. 23). In the reign of David the chief of the family west of the Jordan was Hashabiah ; while on the east in the land of Gilead were Jerijah and his brethren, ‘men of valor,’’ over the Reuben- ites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (1 Chr. xxvi. 30, 31, 32). Waa VN HEDGE ae ee TTDAW : paryuds). The first three words thus rendered in the A. V., as well as their Greek equiv- alent, denote simply that which surrounds or in- closes, whether it be a stone wall Crs geder, Prov. xxiv. 81; Ez. xlii. 10), or a fence of other materials. 13, gddér, and TTA, g’dérah, are used of the hedge of a vineyard (Num. xxii. 24; Ps. lxxxix. 40; 1 Chr. iv. 23), and the latter is employed to deseribe the wide walls of stone, or fences of thorn, which served as a shelter for sheep in winter and summer (Num. xxxii. 16). The stone walls which surround the sheepfolds of modern Palestine are frequently crowned with sharp thorns (Thomson, Land and Book, i. 299), a custom at least as ancient as the time of Homer (Od. xiv. 10), when a kind of prickly pear (ayépdos) was used for that purpose, as well as for the fences of corn- fields at a later period (Arist. Hecl. 355). In order to protect the vineyards from the ravages of wild beasts (Ps. xxx. 12) it was customary to surround them with a wall of loose stones or mud (Matt. xxi. 33; Mark xii. 1), which was a favorite haunt of serpents (Eccl. x. 8), and a retreat for locusts from the cold (Nah. iii. 17). Such walls are described by Maundrell as surrounding the gardens of Damas- cus. “ They are built of great pieces of earth, made in the fashion of brick and hardened in the sun. In their dimensions they are each two yards long and somewhat more than one broad, and half a yard thick. Two rows of these, placed one upon another, make a cheap, expeditious, and, in this dry country, a durable wall” (Karly Trav, in Pal. p. 487). A wall or fence of this kind is clearly distinguished in Is. v. 5 from the tangled hedge, FID, m’sticah (TIDIO'D, Mie. vii. 4), which was planted as an additional safeguard to the vine- ‘ * A | HEIL vard (vf. Ecclus. xxviii. 24), and was composed the thorny shrubs with which Palestine aboun The prickly pear, a species of cactus, so frequer employed for this purpose in the East at present believed to be of comparatively modern introdueti The aptness of the comparison of a tangled he of thorn to the difficulties which a slothful n conjures up as an excuse for his inactivity, will at once recognized (Proy. xv. 19; cf. Hos. ii. The narrow paths between the hedges of the vi yards and gardens, ‘“ with a fence on this side : a fence on that side’? (Num. xxil. 24), are dist guished from the “ highways,’’ or more frequen tracks, in Luke xiy. 23. W. A. W HE/GAI [2 syl.] (0277 [Persian name, Ge: Tat: Egeus), one of the eunuchs (A. V. “ che berlains’’ of the court of Ahasuerus, who had gs cial charge of the women of the harem (Esth, 8, 15). According to the Hebrew text he wa distinct person from the “ keeper of the concubine — Shaashgaz (14), but the LXX. have the sa name in 14 as in 8, while in 15 they omit it a gether. In verse 3 the name is given under different form of — HE’GE (S277: Fyeus), probably a Pers name. Aja signifies eunuch in Sanskrit, in aceo ance with which the LXX. have 76 edyvots Hegias, ‘H-yias, is mentioned by Ctesias as one the people about Xerxes, Gesenius, Tes. Adden p- 83 6. HEIFER (729, TTB: dduaris: vac The Hebrew language has no expression that actly corresponds to our heifer; for both eglah : parah are applied to cows that have calved (1 S vi. 7-12; Job xxi. 10; Is. vii. 21): indeed eg means a young animal of any species, the full pression being eglah bakar, “heifer of kin (Deut. xxi. 3; 1 Sam. xvi. 2; Is. vii. 21). 7% heifer or young cow was not commonly used ploughing, but only for treading out the corn (E x. 11; but see Judg. xiv. 18),¢ when it ran ab without any headstall (Deut. xxv. 4); hence expression an ‘unbroken heifer’? (Hos. iy. » A. V. “ backsliding ’’), to which Israel is compa A similar sense has been attached to the express ‘‘ealf of three years old,” i.e., wnsubdued, in xv. 5, Jer. xlviii. 834; but it is much more proba to be taken as a proper name, /glath Shelishty such names being not uncommon. The sense “dissolute” is conveyed undoubtedly in Am. iv The comparison of Egypt to a “ fair heifer” (« xlvi. 20) may be an allusion to the well-known f under which Apis was worshipped (to which: may also refer the words in ver. 15, as underst in the LXX., “ Why is the bullock, uéoxes | Aexrdés, swept away ?’’), the “ destruction ’’ thri ened being the bite of the gad-fly, to which word keretz would fitly apply. “To plough ¥ another man’s heifer’’ (Judg. xiv. 18) implies t an advantage has heen gained by unfair me: The proper names Eglah, En-eglaim, and Par are derived from the Hebrew terms at the head: this article. W.L. 2B HEIR. The Hebrew institutions relative inheritance were of a very simple character. Un the patriarchal system the property was divi a * Ploughing with heifers, as implied in that - sage, is sometimes practiced in Palestine at pres (See LIllustr. of Scripture, p. 163.) id HEIR ong the sons of the legitimate wives (Gen. xxi. xxiv. 36, xxv. 5), a larger portion being assigned one, generally the eldest, on whom devolved the ty of maintaining the females of the family. mraricHt.| The sons of concubines were rtioned off with presents (Gen. xxv. 6): occa-! nally they were placed on a par with the legiti- te sons (Gen. xlix. 1 ff.), but this may have been tricted to cases where the children had been opted by the legitimate wife (Gen. xxx. 3). At ater period the exclusion of the sons of concu- es was rigidly enforced (Judg. xi. 1 ff). Daugh- s had no share in the patrimony (Gen. xxxi. 14), t received a marriave portion, consisting of a id-servant, (Gen. xxix. 24, 29), or some other yperty. As a matter of special favor they some- aes took part with the sons (Job xlii. 15). The saic law regulated the succession to real prop- y thus: it was to be divided among the sons, » eldest receiving a double portion (Deut. xxi. ), the others equal shares: if there were no sons, went to the daughters (Num. xxvii. 8), on the idition that they did not marry out of their own be (Num. xxxvi. 6 ff.; Tob. vi. 12, vii. 13), lerwise the patrimony was forfeited (Joseph. Ant. 7,§ 5). If there were no daughters, it went to » brother of the deceased; if no brother, to the ernal uncle; and, failing these, to the next of 1 (Num. xxvii. 9-11). In the case of a widow ng left without children, the nearest of kin on *husband’s side had the right of marrying her, 1 in the event of his refusal the next of kin uth iii. 12, 13): with him rested the obligation redxeming the property of the widow (Ruth iv. f.), if it had been either sold or mortgaged: this igation was termed TSR BHwrd (“the ht of inheritance’), and was exercised in other es besides that of marriage (Jer. xxxii. 7 ff.). none stepped forward to marry the widow, the eritance remained with her until her death, and n reverted to the next of kin. ‘The object of se regulations evidently was to prevent the alien- m of the land, and to retain it in the same lily: the Mosaic law enforced, in short. a strict ail. Even the assignment of the double por- a, Which under the patriarchal regime had been the disposal of the father (Gen. xlviii. 22), was the Mosaic law limited to the eldest son (Deut. . 15-17). The case of Achsah, to whom Caleb sented a field (Josh. xv. 18, 19; Judg. i. 15), is exception: but perhaps even in that instance land reverted to Caleb's descendants either at ‘death of Achsah or in the year of Jubilee. The d being thus so strictly tied up, the notion of rship, as we understand it, was hardly known to » Jews: succession was a matter of right, and i of favor —a state of things which is embodied the Hebrew language itself, for the word wo . V. “to inherit’) implies possession, and very a hl ' *Tt has been suggested that in Gal. iv. 2 Paul y have referred to a peculiar testamentary law ong the Galatians (see Gaius, Institutiones, i. § 55) ferring on the father a right to determine the time the son’s majority, instead of its being fixed by tute. In that case we should have an instance of facility with which Paul could avail himself of his »wledge of minute local regulations in the lands ieht he visited. (See Baumg.-Crusius, Comm. iiber : Brief an die Galater, p. 91.) But that passage in us, when mot? closely examined, proves not to be HELAM 1035 often forcible possession (Deut. ii. 12; Jndg. i. 29. xi. 24), and a similar idea lies at the root of the words STITT and mort, generally translatec «inheritance.’? Testamentary dispositions were of course superfluous: the nearest approach to the idea is the blessing, which ‘in early times conveyed temporal as well as spiritual benefits (Gen. xxvii. 19, 37; Josh. xv. 19). The references to wills in St. Paul's writings are borrowed from the usages of Greece and Rome (Heb. ix. 17), whence the custom was introduced into Judea: several wills are noticed by Josephus in connection with the Herods (Ant. xiii. 16, § 1, xvii. 38, § 2; B. J. ii. 2 § 3). With regard to personal property, it may be pre- sumed that the owner had some authority over it, at all events during his lifetime. The admission of a slave to a portion of the inheritance with the sons (roy. xvii. 2) probably applies only to the personalty. A presentation of half the personalty formed the marriage portion of Tobit’s wife (Tob. viii. 21). A distribution of goods during the father’s life-time is implied in Luke xv, 11-15: a distine~- tion may be noted between ovofa, a general term applicable to personalty, and kAnpovouta, the landed property, which could only be divided after the father’s death (Luke xii. 13). There is a striking resemblance between the He- brew and Athenian customs of heirship, particularly as regards heiresses (érixAnpot), Who were, in both nations, bound to marry their nearest relation: the property did not vest in the husband even for his lifetime, but devolved upon the son of the heiress as soon as he was of age, who also bore the name, not of his father, but of his maternal grandfather. The object in both countries was the same, namely, to preserve the name and property of every family (Dict. of Ant. art. "EmikAnpos): We Te. B: HELAH (F850 [rust]: "Awad; Alex. Adaa: Halaa), one of the two wives of Ashur, father of Tekoa (1 Chr. iv. 5). Her three children are enumerated in ver. 7. In the LXX. the pas- sage is very much confused, the sons being ascribed to different wives from what they are in the Hebrew text. HE’LAM (= on [perh. power of the people, Ges.]: AiAdu: Helam), a place east of the Jor- dan, but west of the Euphrates (‘the river ’’), at which the Syrians were collected by Hadarezer, and at which David met and defeated them (2 Sam. x. 16, 17). In the latter verse the name appears as Chelamah (MONIT), but the final syllable is probably only the particle of motion. This longer form, XaAaud«, the present text® of the LXX. inserts in ver. 16 as if the name of the river [but Alex. and Comp. omit it]; while in the two other places it has AiAdu, corresponding to the Hebrew text. By Josephus (Ant. vii. 6, § 3) the name is decisive as to the existence of such a right among the Galatians (see Lightfoot’s St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ga- latians, p. 164, 2d ed.). The Apostle, in arguing his point (Gal. iv. 2), may have framed a case of this na ture for the sake of illustration, or have had in mind a certain discretionary power which the Roman laws granted to the father. Il. b This is probably a late addition, since in the LXX text as it stool in Origon’s Hvrapla, Xadayax Was omitted after roramor (Se Bahrdt, a / tcc.) 1036 HELBAH giveli aS XaAapa, and as being that of the king of the Syrians beyond Euphrates —mpds Xarapay Tov Tay Tépay Evpparov Stpwv Baciréa. In the Vulgate no name is inserted after fluviwm ; but in ver. 16, for ‘came to Helam,’’ we find ad- duxit exercitum eorum, reading =P an “ their army.’’ ‘This too is the rendering of the old trans- lator Aquila — éy Suvduer avt@v— of whose ver- sion ver. 16 has survived. In 17 the Vulgate agrees with the A. V. Many conjectures have been made as to the lo- ealitv of Helam; but to none of them does any certainty attach. The most feasible perhaps is that it is identical with Alamatha, a town named by Ptolemy, and located by him on the west of the Euphrates near Nicephorium. G. HEL/BAH (T3290 [fat]: xe6dd; [Alex. Sxediay (acc.); Comp. "EABd:] Helba), a town of Asher, probably on the plain of Pheenicia, not far from Sidon (Judg. i. 31). J. L. P. HEL’BON (W2on [ fat, i. e. fruitful]: XeApadrv} [ Alex. XeBpwr]), a place only mentioned once in Scripture. Ezekiel, in describing the wealth and commerce of Tyre, says, “‘ Damascus was thy merchant in the wine of Helbon [xxvii. 18].’’ The Vulgate translates these words in vino pingui; and some other ancient versions also make the word descriptive of the quality of the wine. There can be no doubt, however, that Helbon is a proper name. Strabo speaks of the wine of Chalybon (olvoy éx Supias Tov XaAvBdvov) from Syria as among the luxuries in which the kings of Persia indulged (xv. p. 735); and Atheneus assigns it to Damas- cus (i. 22). Geographers have hitherto represented Helbon as identical with the city of Aleppo, called Haleb ( Niele) by the Arabs; but there are strong reasons against this. The whole force and beauty of the description i in Ezekiel consists in this, that in the great market of Tyre every kingdom and city found ample demand for its own staple products. Why, therefore, should the Damascenes supply wine of Aleppo, conveying it a long and difficult journey overland? If strange merchants had engaged in this trade, we should naturally ex- pect them to be some maritime people who could carry it cheaply along the coast from the port of Aleppo. A few years ago the writer directed atiention to a village and district within a few miles of Damas- cus, still bearing the ancient name Helbon (the 2o- Arabic wr corresponds exactly to the He- brew 7270), and still celebrated as producing the finest grapes in the country. (See Journal of Sac. Lit. July 1853, p. 260; Five Years in Da- mascus, ii. 330 ff.). There cannot be a doubt that this village, and not Aleppo, is the Helbon of Eze- kiel and Strabo. The village is situated in a wild glen, high up in Antilebanon. The remains of some large and beautiful structures are .strewn around it. The bottom and sides of the glen are covered with terraced vineyards; and the whole surrounding country is rich in vines and fig-trees (Handb. for Syr. and Pal., pp. 495-6). A ey Pm os * The discovery of this Helbon is one of the re- suite of missionary labor in that part of the East. ——$——————— a eR EES HELEM Mr. Porter, who writes the article above, was) merly connected with the mission at Dama; Dr. Robinson accepts the proposed identific as unquestionably correct. The name a not decisive, for Haleb (Aleppo) may answe Helbon; but Aleppo “ produces no wine 4 reputation; nor is Damascus the natural ( nel of commerce between Aleppo and Tyre” (i/ Res. iii. 472). Fairbairn (Ezekiel and the | of his Prophecy, p. 301, 2d ed.) follows i opinion. Riietschi (Herzog’s Real.-Encyk. y.) makes Ezekiel’s Helbon and this one near Dz cus the same, but thinks Ptolemy’s Chal yon} above) too far north to be identical with them, HELCHI’AH (Xeakias; [Vat. -Ker-.] | cias), 1 Esdr. viii. 1. © [HiiK1an.] HELCHYVAS (Helcias) the same persi, the preceding, 2 Esdr.i. 1. [HrLkrAu.] HEL/DAL [2 sy] (U2 [workily, } sient]: XoAdla; [Vat. XoAdeias] Alex. Xo} Holdai). 1. The twelfth captain of the mo courses for the temple service (1 Chr. xxviij He is specified as “the Netophathite,’’ and descendant of Othniel. 2. An Israelite who seems to have returned the Captivity; for whom, with others, Zechi was commanded to make certain crowns as nh rials (Zech. vi. 10). In ver. 14 the name ay, to be changed to HELEM. The LXX. di Tapa TOY apxovTaV. | HEYLEB (25M [milk]: Vat. omits; Adad; [Comp. ‘EAdB:] Heled), son of Baa the Netophathite, one of the heroes of king) vid’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 29). In the paral the name is given as — 3 | HE’/LED (117: x6ad8; [FA. Xoaod le EAad: Heled), 1 Chr. xi. 30 [where he is menti as one of *‘the valiant men’’ of David's arm} ¥ | HE/LEK (O30 [part, portion]: xé Alex. XeAex; [in Josh., Keaé¢, Alex. Ge, Helec), one of the descendants of Manaseal second son of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 30), and foil of the family of the Hetexires. ‘The Chelek [sons of C.] are mentioned in Josh. a as of much importance in their tribe. The has not however survived, at least it has ncjt been met with. HE/LEKITES, THE (972007, i id Chelkite: 6 Keaeyl [ Vat. ~yet], Alex. Xe Samilia Helecitarum), the family descended 0 the foregoing (Num. xxvi. 30). HE/LEM (D1 [hammer or blow]: Bayneddu; Vat. Badaa; Alex.] EAau: A man named among the descendants of Ast a passage evidently much disordered (1 Ch¥ 35). If it be intended that he was the brotl ¢ Shamer, then he may be identical with Hothi,i ver. 32, ‘the name having been altered in copie but this is mere conjecture. Burrington (iP quotes two Hebrew MSS., in which the na? | written Dor, Cheles. ; 2. [LXX. Tots brouevoucr. | A man @ tioned only in Zech. vi. 14. Apparently the # who is given as, HeLpat in ver. 10 (Ewald, 7?! eten, ii. 536, note). HELEPH HELL 1037 f’/LEPH (FOr [eachange, instead of']:| HEL/KATI [2 syl.] on >r [whose portion %3 vd; Alex. MeAed — both include the prep- n prefixed : Heleph), the place from which the dary of the tribe of Naphtali started (Josh. 33), but where situated, or on which quarter, st be ascertained from the text. Van de Velde wir, p. 320) proposes to identify it with Bect- in ancient site, nearly due east of the tas d, and west of Kades, on the edge of a very ed ravine, which probably formed part of the dary between Naphtali and Asher (Van de e, Syria, i. 233; and seo his map, 1858). G. WLEZ (VON [perh. loins, thigh, Gesen.]: hs — the initial = is probably from the end e preceding word, [XeAAfs; 1 Chr. xxvii. 10 Xeodns;| Alex. EAAns, XeAAns: Heles, Hel- 1. One of “the thirty”? of David’s guard ym. xxiii. 26; 1 Chr. xi. 27: in the latter, 7), an Ephraimite, and captain of the seventh hly course (1 Chr. xxvii. 10). In both these ges of Chronicles he is called “ the Pelonite,” hich Kennicott decides that “the Valtite’’ of 1el is a corruption (Dissertation, etc., pp. 183- [PALTITE. | [XeaAfjs: Helles.] A man of Judah, son zariah (1 Chr. ii. 39); a descendant of Jerah- of the great family of Hezron. ELI (‘HAt, ‘HAcl: Heli), the father of Jo- the husband of the Virgin Mary (Luke iii. maintained by Lord A. Hervey, the latest in- rator of the genealogy of Christ, to have been eal brother of Jacob the father of the Virgin lf. (Hervey, Genealogies, pp. 130, 138.) The , AS We possess it, is the same as that employed ie LXX. in the O. T. to render the Hebrew , Ett the high-priest. The third of three names inserted between Irop and AMARIAS in the genealogy of Ezra, Esdr. i. 2 (compare Ezr. vii. 2, 3). ELIAS, 2 Esdr. vii. 89. [ELian.] ELIODO’RUS (‘Haiddxpos [gift of the ), the treasurer (6 em) trav mpayudrwy) of icus Philopator, who was commissioned by the at the instigation of Apollonius [APoL- Us] to carry away the private treasures depos- in the Temple at Jerusalem. According to darrative in 2 Mace. iii. 9 ff., he was stayed the execution of his design by a “great ap- ion” (émipdvera), in consequence of which he lown “compassed with great darkness,’ and hless. He was afterwards restored at the in- ssion of the high-priest Onias, and bore wit- to the king of the inviolable majesty of the dle (2 Mace. iii.). The full details of the nar- 2 are not supported by any other evidence. hus, who was unacquainted with 2 Mace., ho notice of it; and the author of the so- liv. Mace. attributes the attempt to plunder emple to Apollonius, and differs in his account 2miraculous interposition, though he distinetly nizes it (de Macc. 4 ovpaydbev Epimmot mpov- av &yyehou. . . KaTamecdv Bt jubavhs TOAA@Vios . . .). Heliodorus afterwards ered Seleucus, and made an unsuccessful tpt to seize the Syrian crown B. C. 175 (App. p- 45). Cf. Wernsdorf, De Jide Lib. Mace. Raphael's grand picture of “ Heliodorus ” ¥¢ known to most by copies and engravings, if y the original. Berw, the ancient Hebrews. Jehovah]: ’EAnat; [Vat. Alex. FAI omit:] Helc?), a priest of the family of Meraioth (or Meremoth, see ver. 3), who was living in the days of Joiakim the high-priest, 7. e. in the generation following the return from Babylon under Jeshua and Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 15; comp. 10, 12). HEL/KATH (F290) [yield]: “Ezencnés, [XeAndr;] Alex. XeAnad, [@cAnad:] Halcath, and //eleath), the town named as the starting-point for the boundary of the tribe of Asher (Josh. xix. 25), and allotted with its “suburbs” to the Ger- shonite Levites (xxi. 31). The enumeration of the boundary seems to proceed from south to north; but nothing absolutely certain can be said thereon, nor has any traveller recovered the site of Helkath. Eusebius and Jerome report the name much cor- rupted (Onom. Ethee), but evidently knew nothing of the place. Schwarz (p. 191) suggests the village Yerka, which lies about 8 miles east of Akka (see Van de Velde’s map); but this requires further examination. In the list of Levitical cities in 1 Chr. vi. Hu- KOK is substituted for Helkath. G HEL/KATH HAZZURIM (Op9n DST [field of the sharp edges, Keil; but see infra]: wepts r&v émBovAwy — perhaps reading oa T2 ; Aquila, KAjpos trav orepeay: Ager robustorum), a smooth piece of ground, apparently close to the pool of Gibeon, where the combat took place between the two parties of Joab’s men and Abner’s men, which ended in the death of the whole of the combatants, and brought on a general battle (2 Sam. ii. 16). [GiBpEoN; JoAB.] Va- rious interpretations are given of the name. In addition to those given above, Gesenius (Zhes. p. 485 a) renders it “the field of swords.” The margin of the A. V. has “the field of strong men,” agreeing with Aquila and the Vulgate; Ewald (Gesch. iii. 147), “das Feld der Tiickischen.’’ G. * The field received its name from the bloody duel fought there, as expressly said (2 Sam. ii. 16). The Scripture words put before us the horrible scene: “ And they caught every one his fellow by the head and thrust his sword in his fellow’s side; so they fell down together: wherefore that place was called Helkath-hazzurim.’”” The name may be=‘* field of the rocks,”’ ¢. e. of the strong men, firm as rocks (see Wordsworth, in loc.). H. HELKI’AS: (XeAcias; [Vat. XedAkeras :] Vulg. omits). A fourth variation of the name of Hilkiah the high-priest, 1 Esdr. i. 8. [HILK1AH.] HELL. This is the word generally and unfor- tunately used by our translators to render the He- brew Sheol (anv, or Dew :“A1dns, and once Odvaros, 2 Sam. xxii. 6: Jnferi or Inferna, or sometimes Mors). We say unfortunately, because — although, as St. Augustine truly asserts, Sheol, with its equivalents /nferi and Hades, are never used in a good sense (De Gen. ad Lit. xii. 33), yet —the English word Hell is mixed up with num- berless associations entirely foreign to the minds of It would perhaps have been better to retain the Hebrew word Sheol, or else render it always by “the grave’? or “the pit.” Ewald accepts Luther's word Holle; even Unter- welt, which is suggested by De Wette, involyes con- ceptions too aman tor the purpose. 1938 HELL Passing over the derivations suggested by older writers, it is now generally agreed that the word comes from the root Sew, “to make hollow” (comp. Germ. Holle, “hell,” with Héhle, “a hol- low’), and therefore means the vast hollow subter- ranean resting-place which is the common receptacle of the dead (Ges. Thes. p. 1348; Bottcher, de Jn- feris, ¢. iv. p. 187 ff.; Ewald, ad Ps. p. 42). It is deep (Job xi. 8) and dark (Job x. 21, 22), in the centre of the earth (Num. xvi. 30; Deut. xxxii. 22), haying within it depths on depths (Prov. ix. 18), and fastened with gates (Is. xxxviii. 10) and bars (Job xvii. 16). Some haye fancied (as Jahn, Arch. Bibl. § 203, Eng. ed.) that the Jews, like the Greeks, believed in infernal rivers: thus Clemens Alex. defines Gehenna as ‘a river of fire”? (F’ragm. 38), and expressly compares it to the fiery rivers of Tartarus (Strom. v. 14, 92); and Tertullian says that it was supposed to resemble Pyriphlegethon (Apolog. cap. xlvii.). ‘The notion, however, is not found in Scripture, for Ps. xviii. 5 is a mere met- aphor. In this cavernous realm are the souls of dead men, the Rephaim and ill-spirits (Ps. Ixxxvi. 13, Iyxxix. 48; Prov. xxiii. 14; Wz. xxxi. 17, xxxil- 21). It is all-devouring (Prov. i. 12, xxx. 16), in- satiable (Is. vy. 14), and remorseless (Cant. viii. 6). The shadows, not of men only, but even of trees and kingdoms, are placed in Sheol (Is. xiv. 9-20; Ez. xxxi. 14-18, xxxii. passim). It is clear that in many passages of the O. T. Sheol can only mean ‘the grave,’’ and is so ren- dered in the A. V. (see, for example, Gen. xxxvii. 35, xlii. 38; 1 Sam. ii. 6; Job xiv. 13). In other passages, however, it seems to involve a notion of punishment, and is therefore rendered in the A. V. by the word “Hell.” But in many cases this translation misleads the reader. It is obvious, for instance, that Job xi. 8; Ps. cxxxix. 8; Am. ix. 2 (where ‘hell’? is used as the antithesis of ‘heaven ’’), merely illustrate the Jewish notions of the locality of Sheol in the bowels of the earth. Even Ps. ix. 17, Prov. xv. 24, v. 5, ix. 18, seem to refer rather to the danger of terrible and precipitate death than co a place of infernal anguish. An attentive examination of all the passages in which the word occurs will show that the Hebrew notions respecting Sheol were of a vague description. The rewards and punishments of the Mosaic law were temporal, and it was only gradually and slowly that God reyealed to his chosen people a knowledge of future rewards arid punishments. Generally speak- ing, the Hebrews regarded the grave as the final end of all sentient and intelligent existence, ‘the land where all things are forgotten”? (Ps. lxxxviii. 10-12; Is. xxxviti. 9-20; Ps. vi. 5; Eccl. ix. 10; Ecclus. xvii. 27, 28). Even the righteous Hezekiah trembled lest, ‘“‘ when his eyes closed upon the cheru- bim and the mercy seat,’’ he should no longer “see the Lord, even the Lord in the land of the living.” In the N. T. the word Hades (like Sheol) some- times means merely “the grave’? (Rev. xx. 13; Acts ii. 81; 1 Cor. xv. 55), or in general ‘the unseen world.’’ It is in this sense that the creeds say of our Lord rarjrdev év Gdn or cis dou, de- scendit ad inferos, or inferna, meaning ‘the state of the dead in general, without any restriction of happiness or misery”? (Beveridge on Ar‘. iii.), a doctrine certainly, though only virtually, expressed in Scripture (Eph. iv. 9; Acts ii. 25-31). Sim- ilarly Josephus uses Hades as the name of the place whence the soul of Samuel was evoked (Ant. vi. 14, HELL § 2). Elsewhere in the N. T. Hades is place of torment (Luke xvi. 23; 2 Pet. ii. xi. 23, &.). Consequently it has been 1 alent, almost the universal, notion that an intermediate state between death and resu: tion, divided into two parts, one the abode 4 blessed and the other of the lost. This was} belief of the Jews after the exile, who gave ti places the names of Paradise and Gehenna (Jo) Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cf. Otho, Lew. Rabb. s. yy. the Fathers generally (Tert. de Anima, ce. ly. J rome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. e. T) § 105, &e.; see Pearson on Creed, Art. v.), ari many moderns (Trench on .the Parables, p. ; Alford on Luke xvi. 23). In holding this f main reliance is placed on the parable of Dive: Lazarus; but it is impossible to ground the }, of an important theological doctrine on a pa which confessedly abounds in Jewish metayz “‘ Theologia parabolica non est demonstrativa ’ rule too valuable to be forgotten; and if we: turn rhetoric into logie, and build a dogm\ every metaphor, our belief will be of a vaguir contradictory character. ‘+ Abraham’s bo. says Dean Trench, “is not heaven, though iy issue in heaven, so neither is Hades hell, thou) issue in it, when death and Hades shall be casia the lake of fire which is the proper hell. It | place of painful restraint (pvAakh, 1 Pet. il &Bvoocos, Luke: viii. 31), where the souls ot wicked are reserved to the judgment of the day.’ But respecting the condition of the» whether before or after the resurrection we | very little indeed; nor shall we know anyi certain until the awful curtains of mortalita drawn aside. Dogmatism on this topic appe} be peculiarly misplaced. [See PARADISE.] | The word most frequently used in the N. ' the place of future punishment is Gehenna evva), or Gehenna of fire (h yy. rod mupds this word we must notice only so far as our pt0 requires; for further information see GEH)} and Hinnom. ‘The valley of Hinnom, for ‘i Gehenna is the Greek representative, once pla with the waters of Siloa (irrigua et nem) pienaque deliciis,’’ Hieron. ad Jem. vil. 1%) Matt. v. 22), and which afterwards regained i10 appearance (‘+ hodteque hortorum preebens deli's id.), was with its horrible associations of Mi worship (Jer. vii. 81, xix. 2-6; 2 K. xxiii. J abhorrent to Jewish feeling that they adoptell word as a symbol of disgust and torment. } feeling was kept up by the pollution which thy ley underwent at the hands of Josiah, after |! it was made the common sink of all the filt™ corruption in the city, ghastly fires being® burning (according to R. Kimchi) to prese’ from absolute putrefaction (see authorities ct in Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. vy. Hinnom, ete.). fire and the worm were fit emblems of an! and as such had seized hold of the Jewish # ination (Is. xvi. 24; Jud. xvi. 17; Ecclus. v1}! hence the application of the word Gehenna a\ accessories in Matt. v. 22, 29, 30; Luke Xi. | A part of the valley of Hinnom was 1” Tophet (2 K. xxiii. 10; for its history and tion see ToruxT), a word used for what is (# and abominable (Jer. vii. 31, 32, xix. 6-13) was applied by the Rabbis to a place of futun't ment (Targ. on Is. xxx. 33; Talm. Jerulin 1; Béttcher, pp. 80, 85), but does not occur |” N. T. In the vivid picture of Isaiah @a” f kd HELL ich is full of fine irony against the enemy, the ne is applied to purposes of threatening (with a bable allusion to the recent acts of Hezekiah, see senmiiller, ad loc.). Besides the authorities ted, see Bochart (Phaleg, p. 528), Ewald (Proph. 55), Selden (de Diis Syrts, p. 172 ff), Wilson ids of the Bible, i. 499), ete. [he subject of the punishment of the wicked, 1 of Hell as a place of torment, belongs to a eological rather than a Biblical Dictionary. Bey Wisk * Some of the positions in the previous article not be viewed as well established. That “ gen- lily speaking, the Hebrews regarded the grave the final end of all sentient and _ intelligent stence’’ is a statement opposed to the results the best scholarship. Against it stand such siderations as these: a four hundred years’ idence of the Israelites among a people proved have held the doctrine of a future life; the He- w doctrine of the nature of the soul; the trans- on of Enoch and Elijah; the prevalent views of romaney, or conjuring by the spirits of the dead, practice prohibited by law, and yet resorted to a monarch of Israel); the constant assertion t the dead were gathered to their fathers, though ied far away; the explicit and deliberate utter- es of many passages, e. g., the 16th, 17th, 49th, | Psalms, Eccles. xii. 13, 14, Daniel xii. 2, 3; | the known fact that the doctrine of immortality sted among the Jews (excepting the small sect Sadducees) at the time of Christ. The utterances ut the silence and inactivity of the grave must refore be understood from the present point of v, and as haying reference to the activities of 3 lite. [he statements of Gesenius and very many others ut the gates and bars of Hades simply convert toric into logic, and might with equal propriety est the Kingdom of Heaven with “ keys.’’ The ory so prevalent, that Hades was the common vince of departed spirits, divided, however, into compartments, Paradise and Gehenna, seems to e been founded more upon the classical writers _ the Rabbins — to whom it appeals so largely — n upon the Bible. It is undoubtedly true, that ler the older economy the whole subject was ch less distinct than under the new, and the des of the N. T. expresses more than the Sheol the O. T. (See Fairbairn, Hermeneut. Manual, 0 ff.) Sheol was, no doubt, the unseen world, state of the dead generally. So in modern es we- often intentionally limit our views, and uk of the other world, the invisible world, the liscovered country, the grave, the spirit land, But vagueness of designation is not to be con- nded with community of lot or identity of abode ondition. Sheol, the unknown region into which the dying ippeared, was naturally and always invested with mito a sinful race. But the vague term was able of becoming more or less definite according the writer's thought. Most commonly it was ply the grave, as we use the phrase; sometimes State of death in general; sometimes a dismal @ opposed to heaven, e. g., Job xi. 8, Ps. XIX, 8, Am. ix. 2; sometimes a place of extreme ering, Ps. Ixxxvi. 13, ix. 17, Prov. xxiii. 14. (See 1. Sacra, xiii. 155 ff.) No passage of the O. We believe, implies that the spirits of the good bad were there brought together. The often d vassage (Is. xiv. 9) implies the contrary, HELLENIST 1039 showing us only the heathen kings meeting another king in mockery. To translate this Hebrew term, the LXX adopted the nearest Greek word, Hades, which by derivation signifies the invisible world. But the Greek word could not carry Greek notions into Hebrew theology. When Christ and his Apostles came, they nat- urally laid hold of this Greek word already intro- duced into religious use. But, of course, they em- ployed it from their own stand-point. And as it was the purpose of their mission to make more distinct the doctrine of retribution, and as under their teachings death became still more terrible to the natural man, so throughout the N. T. Hades seems invariably viewed as the enemy of man, and from its alliance with sin and its doom, as hostile to Christ and his church. In many instances it is with strict propriety translated ‘hell.”’ Even in Acts ii. 27, 31, quoted from the O. T., Hades is the abode of the wicked dead. In Luke xvi. 25 it certainly is the place of torment. In Matt. xvi. 18 it is the abode and centre of those powers that were arrayed against Christ and his church. In Luke x. 15, Matt. xi. 15, it is the opposite of heaven. The word occurs, according to the Received Text, in 1 Cor. xv. 55; but the reading is not supported by the older MSS. The only remaining instances are the four that occur in Rey. i. 18, vi. 8, xx. 13, 14, where, though in three of these cases personified, it is still viewed as a terror to man and a foe to Christ and his kingdom, over which at length he has gained the victory. While therefore Gehenna is the term which most distinctly designates the place of future punishment, Hades also repeatedly is nearly its equivalent; and, notwithstanding the greater vagueness of the terms, it remains true, as Augustin asserts, that neither Hades nor Sheol are ever used in a good sense, or (we may add) in any other than a sense that carries the notion of terror. Sy Ces B, * For a full discussion of the terms and passages of the Old Testament relating to this subject, con- sult Bottcher, De Inferis Rebusque post Mortem Futuris ex Hebreorum et Grecorum Opinionibus, Dresd. 1846, and for a view of the literature per- taining to it, see the bibliographical Appendix to Alger’s Critical Hist. of the Doctrine of a Future Life (4th ed. New York, 1866), Nos. 1734-1863. See also the art. of Oehler, Unsterblichkeit, Lehre des A. Test., in Herzog’s Real-Encyk. xxi. 409- 428; and Hiivernick’s Vorlesungen iiber die The- ologie des A. T., pp. 105-111. A. HELLENIST (‘EAAnnorhs : Grecus ; cf. ‘EAAnviouds, 2 Mace. iv. 13). In one of the earliest notices of the first Christian Church at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 1), two distinct parties are recognized among its members, ‘ Hebrews’’ and ‘“‘ Hellenists ’? (Grecians), who appear to stand to- wards one another in some degree in a relation of jealous rivalry. So again, when St. Paul first visited Jerusalem after his conversion, he ‘“ spake and dis- puted with the Hellenists’? (Acts ix. 29), as if expecting to find more sympathy among them than with the rulers of the Jews. The term Hellenist occurs once again in the N. T. according to the common text, in the account of the foundation of the church at Antioch (Acts xi. 20),¢ but there the context, as well as the form of the sentence a *On that passage see the note under GREECE, Greeks (Amer. ed.) 1040 HELLENIST (ad mpds rods ‘E., though the xa} is doubtful), seems to require the other reading ‘ Greeks ”’ (“EAAnves), Which is supported by oreat external Evidence, as the true antithesis to “ Jews” VIovdatois, not ‘EBpalois, v. 19). The name, according to its derivation, whether the original verb (‘EAAnvi(w) be taken, according to the common analogy of similar forms (Mn3iCo, "Arricl(w, biArimmi(w), in the general sense of adopting the spirit and character of Greeks, or, in the more limited sense of using the Greek language (Xen. Anab. vii. 8, § 25), marks a class distin- guished by peculiar habits, and not by descent. Thus the Hellenists as a body included not only the proselytes of Greek (or foreign) parentage (of oeBouevor’ EAAnves, Acts xvii. 4 (?); ; of ceBouevor mpoonavra, Acts xiii. 43; of oeBduevor, Acts xvii. 17), but also those Jove who, by settling in foreign countries, had adopted the prevalent form of the current Greek civilization, and with it the use of the common Greek dialect, to the exclusion of the Aramaic, which was the national representa- tive of the ancient Hebrew. Hellenism was thus a type of life, and not an indication of origin. Hellenists might be Greeks, but when the latter term is used (“EAAnves, John xii. 20), the point of race and not of creed is that which is foremost in the mind of the writer. The general influence of the Greek conquests in the East, the rise and spread of the Jewish Dis- persion, and the essential antagonism of Jew and Greek, have been noticed in other articles [ALEX- ANDER THE GREAT; ALEXANDRIA; DISPERSION; ANTIOCHUS Iv. EpIPHANES], and it remains only to characterize briefly the elements which the Hel- lenists contributed to the language of the N. T., and the immediate effects which they produced upon the Apostolic teaching : — 1. The flexibility of the Greek language gained for it in ancient time a general currency similar to that which French enjoys in modern Europe; but with this important difference, that Greek was not only the language of educated men, but also the language of the masses in the great centres of com- merce. The colonies of Alexander and his succes- sors originally established what has been called the Macedonian dialect throughout the East; but even in this the prevailing power of Attic literature made _ itself distinctly felt. Peculiar words and forms adopted at Alexandria were undoubtedly of Macedonian origin, but the later Attic may be justly regarded as the real basis of Oriental Greek. This first type was, however, soon modified, at least in common use, by contact with other languages. The vocabulary was enriched by the addition of foreign words, and the syntax was modified by new constructions. In this way a variety of local dialects must have arisen, the specific characters of which were determined in the first instance by the con- ditions under which they were formed, and which afterwards passed away with the circumstances which had produced them. But one of these dialects has been preserved after the ruin of the people among whom it arose, by being consecrated to the noblest service which language has yet fulfilled. In other cases the dialects perished together with the communities who used them in the common inter- course of life, but in that of the Jews the Alexan- drine version of the O. T., acting in this respect like the great vernacular versions of England and Germany, gave a definiteness and fixity to the popular language which could not have been gained a HELLENIST without the existence of some recognized stands, The style of the LXX. itself is, indeed, different, different parts, but the same general charactél rn through the whole, and the variations whic j presents are not oreater than those which ot the different books of the N. T. The functions which this Jewish-Greek had discharge were of the widest application, and 2 language itself combined the most opposite featu), It was essentially a fusion of Eastern and West thought. For disregarding peculiarities of inflex} and novel words, the characteristic of the ao dialect is the combination of a Hebrew spirit ¥ a Greek body, of a Hebrew form with Greek oh The conception belongs to one race, and the exp’- sion to another. Nor is it too much to say tt this combination was one of the most impor preparations for the reception of Christianity, J one of the most important aids for the adequé expression of its teaching. On the one hand,y the spread of the Hellenistic Greek, the deep, { ocratic aspect of the world and life, which dis’- guishes Jewish thought, was placed before mert large; and on the other, the subtle truths, wh philosophy had gained from the analysis of md and action, and enshrined in words, were transferd to the service of revelation. In the fullness of tis when the great message came, a language was }- pared to convey it; and thus the very dialect of ¢ N. T. forms a oreat lesson in the true pee of history and becomes in itself a monument of ¢ providential government of mankind. This view of the Hellenistic dialect will at ce remove one of the commonest misconceptions re ing to it. For it will follow that its deviatis from the ordinary laws of classic Greek are th’ selves bound by some common law, and that iri- ularities of construction and altered usages of er are to be traced to their first source, and in- preted strictly according to the original concept out of which they sprang. A popular, and ev corrupt, dialect is not less precise, or, in ; words, is not less human than a polished ¢, though its interpretation may often be more d- cult from the want of materials for analysis. in the tase of the N. T., the books themse’s furnish an ample store for the critic, and the ¢ tuagint, when compared with the Hebrew ti, provides him with the history of the language | he has to study. 2. The adoption of a strange language was es‘ tially characteristic of the true nature of Hellenii. The purely outward elements of the national e were laid aside with a facility of which history ol's few examples, while the inner character of the pee remained unchanged. In every respect the thouji, so to speak, was clothed in a new dress. Hellen! was, as it were, a fresh incorporation of Judai according to altered laws of life and worship. t as the Hebrew spirit made itself distinctly vis? in the new dialect, so it remained undestroyetY the new conditions which regulated its act! While the Hellenistic Jews followed their nat 1 instinct for trade, which was originally curbed y the Mosaic Law, and gained a deeper insight foreign character, and with this a truer symp or at least a wider tolerance towards foreign 0} ions, they found means at the same time to ext the knowledge of the principles of their divine f7}) and to gain “respect and attention even from ti# who did not openly embrace their religion. /* lenism accomplished for the outer world what'é HELLENIST outa {Cyrus] accomplished for the Palestinian | NEw TESTAMENT, Amer. ed. ms: it was the necessary step between a religion form and a religion of spirit: it witnessed against idaism as final and universal, and it witnessed r it, as the foundation of a spiritual religion which Under | Helon), e influence of this wider instruction a Greek body ould be bound by no local restrictions. HEM OF GARMENT 1041 ; also NEw TEstTa- MENT, IV.] ip ac eat Vee HELMET. [Arms, p. 161.] HE’LON (om [strong, powerful]: XaAdy: father of Eliab, who was the chief man of the tribe of Zebulun, when the census was taken in ew up around the Synagogue, not admitted into |the wilderness of Sinai (Num. i. 9, ii. 7, vii. 24, e Jewish Church, and yet holding a recognized sition with regard to it, which was able to appre- nd the Apostolic teaching, and ready to receive _ The Hellenists themselves were at once’ mis- maries to the heathen, and prophets to their own untrymen. ‘Their lives were an abiding protest ainst polytheism and pantheism, and they re- ined with unshaken zeal the sum of their ancient ed, when the preacher had popularly occupied e place of the priest, and a service of prayer and ise and exhortation had succeeded in daily life the elaborate ritual of the Temple. Yet this new velopment of Judaism was obtained without the rifice of national ties. The connection of the llenists with the ‘Temple was not broken, except the ease of some of the Egyptian Jews. [THE SPERSION.] Unity coexisted with dispersion; 1 the organization of a catholic church was shadowed, not only in the widening breadth of trine, but even externally in the scattered com- nities which looked to Jerusalem as their com- n centre. in another aspect Hellenism served as the prep- tion for a catholic creed. As it furnished the guage of Christianity, it supplied also that rary instinct which counteracted the traditional rye of the Palestinian Jews. The writings of N. T., and all the writings of the Apostolic age, h the exception of the original Gospel sof St. thew, were, as far as we know, Greek; and ek seems to have remained the sole vehicle of istian literature, and the principal medium of istian worship, till the Church of North Africa into importance in the time of Tertullian. Canon of the Christian Scriptures, the early ads, and the Liturgies, are the memorials of this lenistie predominance in the Church, and the 8 of its working; and if in later times the Greek it descended to the investigation of painful subtle- it may be questioned whether the fullness hristian truth could have been developed with- the power of Greek thought tempered by He- ’ discipline. he general relations of Hellenism to Judaism well treated in the histories of Ewald and Jost; the Hellenistic language is as yet, critically king, almost unexplored. Winer’s Grammar wmmm.d. N. T. Sprachidioms, 6te Aufl. 1855 Aufl. by Liinemann, 1867]) has done great ce in establishing the idea of law in N. T. uage, which was obliterated by earlier inter- Ts, but even Winer does not investigate the n of the peculiarities of the Hellenistic dialect. Idioms of the N. 'T. cannot be discussed apart those of the LXX.; and no explanation can nsidered perfect which does not take into Sov: fimbria). mt the origin of the corresponding Hebrew Jews, 29, x. 16). * HELPS. This is the term used in the authorized English Version, and in the Rheims N. T. for aT iAnwpers, 1 Cor. xii. 28. The Vulgate translates, opitulutiones ; Wycliffe, helpyngis (help- ings); Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva Bible, helpers; Luther, Helfer. The noun occurs only once in the N. T., but the verb avTiAauBdvouat, i. e. to take in turn, to lay hold of, to help, also to take part in, occurs three times, Luke i. 54 (“ hath holpen his servant Israel”), Acts xx. 35 («to sup- port the weak ’’), 1 Tim. vi. 2 (of ris evepyeolas ayTiAauBavduevot, “partakers of the benefit ’’). With the classics dyriAn is signifies a taking in turn, seizure ; receipt ; perception, but with the later writers and in the O. T. Apocrypha (2 Mace. viii. 19; 3 Mace. v. 50; Ecclus. xi. 12; li. Uwet Esdr. viii. 27 al.) also aid, support. This must be the meaning of the word in 1 Cor. xii., and it is so understood by nearly all the commentators from Chrysostom (dyréyecOat Tav acbevey) down to De Wette, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, and Kling (in Lange’s Bibelwerk). It corresponds with the meaning of the verb in Luke i. 54 and Acts xx. 35, and suits the connection. Paul enumerates the avTiAjWers among the charismata, and puts them between the miraculous powers (Suvduers and Xaplomara iaudrwy) which were not confined to any particular office, and the gifts of government and administration (xuBepyhoes) which belonged especially to the presbyter-bishops, and in the highest degree to the Apostles as the gubernatores ecclesie. ’AvtiAtwWeis doubtless comprehends the various duties of the deacons and deaconesses of the Apostles’ church, especially the care of the poor and the sick. We may take it, however, in a more comprehensive sense for Christian charity and phi- lanthropy. The plural indicates the diversity of the gift in its practical operation and application ; comp. diaxovia:, 1 Cor. xii. 5. These helps or helpings are represented here as a gift of the Spirit. The duty is based on the possession of the gift, but the gift is not confined to the deacons or any class of church officers. It is found also among the laity, especially the female portion, in all ages and all branches of Christendom. But from time to time God raises up heroes of Christian charity and angels of mercy whom He endows, in an extraordinary measure, with the charisma of avTiAnis, diaxovla, and dydan for the benefit of suffering humanity. awh * HELPS, Acts xxvii. 17 (BonPera). See Surps, Undergirding. HEM OF GARMENT (ABW: Kpdome- The importance which the later especially the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 5), 8. For this work even the materials are as jattached to the hem or fringe of their garments eficient. ordance leaves nothing to be * LAX... however useful, is quite untrustworthy ‘itical purposes. [See LANGUAGE oF THE 66 t. The text of the LXX. is still in a | was founded upon the regulation in Num. xv. 38 unsatisfactory condition; and while Bruder’s | 39, which attached a symbolical meaning to it desired for the|We must not, however, etd of the N. T., Trommius’s Concordance owed its origin to that conclude that the fringe passage: it was in the first instance the ordinary mode of finishing the robe, the ends of the threads comporing the woof being 1042 HEMAM _ HEMAN : in 2 Chr. xxxv. 15 is applied to Jeduthun, and xxix. 20 to Asaph, being probably used in the san sense as is NZ2, “ prophesied,” of Asaph and al thun in xxv. 1-8. We there learn that Hem; had fourteen sons, and three daughters [HAN, NIAH I.], of which the sons all assisted in " music under their father, and each of whom w head of one of the twenty-four wards of Levit who “were instructed in the songs of the Lord) or rather, in sacred music. Whether or no tl Heman is the person to whom the 88th Psalm’ ascribed is doubtful. The chief reason for suppi ing him to be the same is, that as other Psalms ¢ ascribed to Asaph and Jeduthun, so it is likely th) this one should be to Heman the singer. But | the other hand he is there called * the Ezrahite f and the 89th Psalm is ascribed to “Ethan { Ezrahite.”’® But since Heman and Ethan ¢ described in 1 Chr. ii. 6, as “sons of Zerah,’’ it, in the highest degree probable that Ezrahite me “of the family of Zerah,’’ and consequently tl, Heman of the 88th Psalm is different from Hen. the singer, the Kohathite. In 1 K. iv. 81 agi (Heb. v. 11), we have mention, as of the wisest mankind, of Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, Chali, and Darda, the sons of Mahol, a list correspond ; with the names of the sons of Zerah, in 1 Chr. 6. The inference from which is that there wal Heman, different from Heman the singer, of » family of Zerah the son of Judah, and that ali distinguished from Heman the singer, the Lev, by being called the Ezrahite. As regards the » when Heman the Ezrahite lived, the only thy that can be asserted is that he lived before Solom, who was said to be “ wiser than Heman,” et Zerah the son of Judah. His being called “1 of Zerah”” in 1 Chr. ii. 6 indicates nothing a0 the precise age when he and his brother Ii : They are probably. mentioned in this abridi genealogy, only as having been illustrious perss of their family. Nor is anything known of Mel their father. It is of course uncertain whether tradition which ascribed the 88th Psalm to Hem: authorship is trustworthy. Nor is there anytl in the Psalm itself which clearly marks thet of its composition. The 89th Psalm, ascribe Ethan, seems to be subsequent to the overthroy the kingdom of Judah, unless possibly the cal: ties described in the latter part of the Psalm iy be understood of David’s flight at Absalom’s re lion, in which case ver. 41 would allude to Sha the son of Gera. nM If Heman the Kohathite, or his father, had 1 ried an heiress of the house of Zerah, as the sot)! Hakkoz did of the house of Barzillai, and wi reckoned in the genealogy of Zerah, then all x notices of Heman might point to the same pel! and the musical skill of David’s chief musifl and the wisdom of David's seer, and the genit the author of the 88th Psalm, concurring inl same individual, would make him fit to be jc with those other worthies whose wisdom was 9 exceeded by that of Solomon. Put it is impos to assert that this was the case. we Rosenm. Proleg. in Psalm. p. xvii.; J. Ok sen, on Psalms, Kinleit. p. 22 (Kuragef. £9 Handb.). A. G.: left in order to prevent the cloth from unraveling, just as in the Egyptian calasiris (Her. ii. 81; Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, ii. 90), and in the Assyrian robes as represented in the bas-reliefs of Nineveh, the blue ribbon being added to strengthen the border. The Hebrew word tzézith is expressive of this fretted edge: the Greek kpdomeda (the etymology of which is uncertain, being variously traced to xpooods, &kpos médov, and kpnmls) ap- plies to the edge of a river or mountain (Xen. Hist. Gr. iii. 2, § 16, iv. 6, § 8), and is explained by Hesychius as rd, év r@ &kpe TOD iwatlov KeKAwO- peva papuara Kat Td &Kpoy avrov. The beged or outer robe was a simple quadrangular piece of cloth, and generally so worn that two of the corners hung down in front; these corners were ornamented with a “ribbon of blue,’’ or rather dark violet, the ribbon itself being, as we may conclude from the | word used, Sn , as narrow as a thread or piece of string. The Jews attached great sanctity to this fringe (Matt. ix. 20, xiv. 36; Luke viii. 44), and the Pharisees made it more prominent than it was originally designed to be, enlarging both the fringe and the ribbon to an undue width (Matt. xxiii. 5). Directions were given as to the number of threads of which it ought to be composed, and other par- ticulars, to each of which a symbolical meaning was attached (Carpzov, Apparat. p. 198). It was appended in later times to the talith more especially, as being the robe usually worn at devotions: whence the proverbial saying quoted by Lightfoot (Zzercit. on Matt. v. 40), ““ He that takes care of his fringes deserves a good coat.’’ W. L. B. HEMAM (ODT [exterminating, or rag- ing]: Aludv: Heman). Hori (i. e. Horite) and Hemam were sons (A. V. ‘children,’ but the word is Bene) of Lotan, the eldest son of Seir (Gen. xxxvi. 22). In the list in 1 Chr. i. the name ap- pears as HomMAM, which is probably the correct form. HE/MAN (72° [true, reliable]: [Aiuoudy, Aivdy; Alex.] Acuav, [Huav: man, Heman)). 1. Son of Zerah, 1 Chr. ii. 6; 1 K. iv. 31. See following article. or [Aiuay; Vat. 1 Chr. xxv. 6, Atmavet, 2 Chr. xxix. 14, Qvamav; Alex. Ps. Ixxxviil. 1, AcOap: Hemam, Heman, Eman. Son of Joel, and grand- son of Samuel the prophet, a Kohathite. He is called “the singer”? (J YW7O77), rather, the mu- sician, 1 Chr. vi. 83, and was the first of the three chief Levites to whom was committed the vocal and instrumental music of the temple-service in the reign of David, as we read 1 Chr. xv. 16-22, Asaph and Ethan, or rather, according to xxv. 1, 3, Jedu- thun,@ being his colleagues. [JeEDUrHUN.] The genealogy of Heman is given in 1 Chr. vi. 33-38 (A. V.), but the generations between Assir, the son of Korah, and Samuel are somewhat confused, owing to two collateral lines having got mixed. A rectification of this genealogy will be found at p. 214 of the Genealogies of our Lord, where it is shown that Heman is 14th in descent from Levi. A further account of Heman is given 1 Chr. xxv., where he is called (ver. 5) “the king’s seer in the matters of God,” the word TIM, « seer,” which ite, for Ezrahite, in the titles to the 88th and Psalms. His explanation of the title of Ps. Ia is a curious specimen of spiritualizing interpret « IS and JVVVT are probably only clerical variations. See also 2 Chr. xxix. 13, 14. b St. Augustine’s copy read, with the LXX.. [srtel- = HEMATH HEPHER 1043 . REMATH (120 [ fortress, citadel]: Ai- ad; [Vat.] Alex. Euad: math). Another form aaa by the Hebrew —of the well- nown name HAMATH (Am. vi. 14). in former times a place of considerable importance, It is mentioned by Abulfeda, by William of Tyre, and others (see Asseman. Bibi, Or. vol. iii. pt. ii. p- 560, and p. 717). The conjecture by some (see Winer’s Realwérterbuch, s. v.) that this may be HE MATH (SWI i. ¢. Hammath [heat, | Hena, is probable, and deserves acceptance. A arm spring]: Aiudé; [Vat. Mean pa:] Vulg. | further conjecture identifies Ana with a town called anslates de culore), a person, or a place, named | Anat | the genealogical lists of Judah, as the origin of ie Kenites, and the “father” of the house of 7 is merely the feminine termination), which is mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions as r situated on an island in the Euphrates (Fox Tal- ECHAB (1 Chr. ii. 55). bot’s Assyrian Teats, 21; Layard’s Nineveh and HEM’DAN Chala [ pleasant one, Fiirst]: | Babylon, 355) at some distance below its junction ada: Amdam or Hamdam, some copies Ham- with - Chabour ; and which appears as Anatho m), the eldest son of Dishon, son of Anah the (Avaéd) in Isidore of Charax (Mans. Parth. p. 4). orite (Gen. xxxvi. 26). In the parallel list of | The modern Anat is on the right bank of the Chr. (i. 41) the name is changed to Hamran | stream, while the name also attaches to some ruins va tea a little lower down upon the left bank; but between Tem), which in the A. V. is given as AMRAM, them is “a string of islands” (Chesney’s Kuphrates obably following the Vulgate Hamram, in th € | Expedition, i. 53), on one or more of which the an- liest MSS. Amaran. cient city may have been situated. G. R. The name Hemdan is by Knobel (Genesis, p. els §) compared with those of Humeidy and Ham- HEN ‘ADAD (TIT [favor of Hadad, y, two of the five families of the tribe of Omran | First, Ges.] : "Hyaddd, [ete. :] Henadad, Ena- Amian, who are located to the E. and §. E. of |@ad), the head of a family of Levites who took a aba. Also with the Bene-Hamyde, who are|prominent part in the rebuilding of the Temple nd a short distance S. of Kerek (S. E. corner | Under Jeshua (Ezr. iii. 9). Bavai and Binnui the Dead Sea); and from thence to el-Busaireh, | (Neh. iii. 18, 24), who assisted in the repair of the bably the ancient Bozr AH, on the road to | Wall of the city, probably belonged to the same ra. (See Burckhardt, Syria, etc., pp. 695, | family. The latter also represented his family at 5 the signing of the covenant (Neh. x. 9). HEM’LOCK. [Gatt.] HE/NOCH (FVII: *Evdy: Henoch). 1, HEN (iT [ Savor, grace]: Hem). According The form in which the well-known name ENOCH is the rendering of the passage (Zech. vi. 14) |S!Ven in the Ay V.. = "he rahe ‘s ee ee pted in the A. V. Hen (or a ceurately Chen) is word is the same both nere and in Genesis, asi yy name of a son of Zephaniah, and apparently Chanoe. Perhaps in the present case our transla- ‘same who is called Josiah in ver. 10. But by tors followed the Vulgate. { -LXX. (xdpts), Ewald (Gunst), and other in-| 2. So they appear also to have done in 1 Chr. reters, the words are taken to mean « for the |i. 83 with a name which in Gen. xxv. 4 is more tof the son of Zephaniah.” accurately given as HANOCH. TEN. The hen is nowhere noticed in the Bible} HE’PHER an [a well]: 'Opép: Hepher). pt in the passages (Matt. xxiii. 37; Luke xiii./1. A descendant of Manasseh. The youngest of where our Saviour touchingly compares His | the sons of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 82), and head of ety to save Jerusalem to the tender care of a the family of the Hrruerrres. Hepher was “gathering her chickens under her wings.” | father of ZELOPHEHAD (xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1; [Josh. Word employed is gpys, which is used in the xvii. 2, 3]), whose daughters first raised the ques- * Specific sense in classical Greek (Aristoph. | tion of the right of a woman having no brother, 102, Vesp. 811). That a bird, so intimately | to hold the property of her father. ected with the household, and so common in 2. (Hoda: Hepher.) The second son of Naa- tine, as we know from Rabbinical Sources, |rah, one of the two wives of Ashur, the «father of ld receive such slight notice, is certainly sin- | Tekog (1 Chr. iv. 6), in the genealogy of Judah. *; it is almost equally singular that it is no- 3. [Rom. Vat. Alex. FA. corrupted by false di- € represented in the paintings of ancient Egypt | vision of the words; Comp. ’ Agdp; Ald. "Adép.] kinson, i. 234).4 v. The Mecherathite, one of the heroes of David's ENA (vIn [depression, low land, Fiirst]: | $4ard, according to the list of 1 Chr, xi. 86. In ; fin 2 K. xix.. Vat. PT a ene the catalogue of 2 Samuel this name does not nfusion with okt Word! Roni.i? Re vidun | exist (see xxiii. 34); and the conclusion of Kenni- OPA vei-yov vat] Mina) Boni + ais Wea cott, after a full investigation of the passages, is the op # ; ; . , _|that the names in Samuel are the originals, and fe ie wes Of @ monarchical state which that Hepher is a mere corruption of them. Ssyrian kings had reduced shortly before the y 2 Semnacherib (2 K. [xviii. 34,] xix. 13: Is.| HE’/PHER (TDI) [a well]: *opép; [Vat 13). Its connection with Sepharvaim, or]/in 1 K. corrupt; Comp. ’Epép'] Opher), a place ra, would lead us to place it in Babylonia, or | in ancient Canaan, which, though not mentioned in 7 vate on the Euphrates. Here, at no great | the history of the conquest, occurs in the list. of ce from Sippara (now Mosaib), is an ancient conquered kings (Josh. xii. 17). It was on the west Ana or Anah, which seems to have been of Jordan (comp. 7). So was also the «land of The common barn-door fowl are met with every- | 552). The eggs of the hen are no doubt meant in the in Syria at the present day. The peasants rely | Saviour’s illustration (Luke xi. 12), which implies alse ™,and the eggs from them, as one of their chief | that they were very abundant. H of subsistence (Thomson, Land and Book, ii, 1044. HEPHERITES, THE HERD Hepher ” (TI VON, terra Epher), which is named with Socoh as one of Solomon’s commissariat dis- tricts (1 K. iv. 10). To judge from this catalogue it lay towards the south of central Palestine, at any rate below Dor: so that there cannot be any connection between it and GATH-HEPHER, which was in Zebulun near Sepphoris. HE’PHERITES, THE (75ST [patro- nym., see above], i. e. the Hepherite: 6 ’Odept [Vat. -pe-]: familia Hepheritarum), the family of Hepher the son of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 32). HEPH’ZIBAH (FANS > OéAnua eudv: voluntas mea in ea). 1. A name signifying Jy delight in her, which is to be borne by the restored Jerusalem (Is. Ixii. 4). The succeeding sentence contains a play on the word—‘“for Jehovah de- lighteth (Y'5M, chaphetz) in thee.” -2. (AWiBa; [Vat Owve:Ba:] Alex. OdoiBa; Joseph. "AxiBd: Haphsiba). It was actually the name of the queen of King Hezekiah, and the mother of Manasseh (2 K. xxi. 1). In the par- allel account (2 Chr. xxxiii. 1) her name is omitted. No clue is given us to the character of this queen. But if she was an adherent of Jehovah —and this the wife of Hezekiah could not fail to be—it is not impossible that the words of Is. Ixii. 4 may contain a complimentary allusion to her. HERALD (S312 [from the Pers., erie, caller, Dietr.]). The only notice of this officer in the O. T. occurs in Dan. iii. 4; the term there used is connected etymologically with the Greek Knpvoow and Kpa@, and with our “‘cry.’? There is an evident allusion to the office of the herald in the expressions xypicow, knpvt, and Knpuyya., which are frequent in the N. T., and which are but inadequately rendered by “ preach,” etc. The term “herald” might be substituted in 1 Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11; 2 Pet. ii. 5. W. L. B. HER/CULES (‘Hpaxajs [Hera’s glory]), the name commonly applied by the western nations to the tutelary deity of Tyre, whose national title was Melkarte (7p 919, i. e. FTP TN, the king of the city = mod10vx0s, MeAtkapos, Phil. Bybl. ap. Euseb. Prep. Ev. i. 10). The identification was based upon a similarity of the legends and at- tributes referred to the two deities, but Herodotus (ii. 44) recognized their distinctness, and dwells on the extreme antiquity of the Tyrian rite (Herod. l. c.; ef. Strabo, xvi. p. 757; Arr. Alem. ii. 16; Jo- seph. Ant. viii. 5, § 3; ©. Apion. i. 18). The wor- ship of Melkart was spread throughout the Tyrian colonies, and was especially established at Carthage (cf. Hamilcar), where it was celebrated even with human sacrifices (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 4 (5); ef. Jer. xix. 5). Mention is made of public embassies sent from the colonies to the mother state to honor the national God (Arr. Alex. ii. 24; Q. Curt. iy. 2; Polyb. xxxi. 20), and this fact places in a clearer povs) to his festival (2 Mace. iv. 19 ff). worship of “ Baal’? was introduced from Tyre the strong conquers, has little probability. B: blessing, and its decrease as a curse (Gen. Xiil. Saul’s threat (1 Sam. xi. 7). The herd yielded most esteemed sacrifice (Num. vii. 3; Ps. Ixix. cultural and general usefulness of the ox, in plov burden (1 Chr. xii. 40; Is. xlvi. 1), made sue culties of grazing, fattening, etc., is beef the p waste lands, especially in the “south” re means cheese of cows’ milk ; TNvory, arab. @ This identification is distinctly made in a Maltese inscription quoted by Gesenius (Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklop. 8. v. Bel., and Thesaurus, 8. V- oD), where “VE bya moapbs answers to ‘HpaxAe? ap- xnyern- b These were common, and are frequently alluded to. The expression “PaO, 2 Sam. xvii. 29 ter” (which Gesenius, s. v., is mistaken in deel to be “hardly known to the Orientals, except as the Arab . light the offense of Jason in sending envoys '@@ slaughtering seem wasteful; nor, owing to ¢é uct of an eastern climate. The animal was bri? to service probably in his third year (Is. xv. 95 * xlviii. 34; comp. Plin. H. N. viii. 70, ed. Pi In the moist season, when grass abounded in! Gen. xviii: 8, Is. vii. 15, 2 Sam. xvii. 29, Job x! Judg. v. 25, Prov. xxx. 33, is properly rendered “* i a medicine ’’). The word m2, Job x. 10, is the ? ; r ,o>, applied by the Bedouins to! goats’-milk cheese. [BurTer; CHEESE.] a FE } There can be little doubt but that Melkart is th proper name of the Baal—the Prince (oyar! — mentioned in the later history of the O. T. Tk ( K. xvi. 31; ef. 2 K. xi. 18) after the earlier CQ: { naanitish idolatry had been put down (1 Sam. vi_ 4; cf. 1 K. xi. 5-8), and Melkart (Hercules) an Astarte appear in the same close relation (Josep] Ant. |. c.) as Baal and Astarte. The objectior which are urged against the identification appe: to have little weight; but the supposed connectior between Melkart and other gods (Moloch, ete which have been suggested (Pauly, Real-Eney s. vy. Melcarth) appear less likely (ef. Gesenius, _ c.; Movers, Phénizier, i. 176 ff., 385 ff). [BAAL The direct derivation of the word Hercules fro Pheenician roots, either as bb circuitor, t) traveller, in reference to the course of the sun, wi whom he was identified, or to the journeys of t) hero, or again as bons (Apxaadets, Etym. M FE. We. " HERD, HERDSMAN. The herd greatly regarded both in the patriarchal and My saic period. Its multiplying was considered as ps ie Deut. vii. 14, xxviii. 4; Ps. evii. 38, exliv. 14; ue li. 23). The ox was the most precious stock m_ to horse and mule, and (since those were rare) 1 thing of greatest value which was commonly p - sessed (1 K. xviii. 5). Hence we see the force i ; be H Is Ixvi. 3); also flesh-meat and milk, chiefly e- verted, probably, into butter and cheese (De xxxii. 14; 2 Sam. xvii. 29), which such milk yis more copiously than that of small cattle? (Ar. Hist. Anim. iii. 20). The full-grown ox is hary ever slaughtered in Syria; but, both for saerifil and convivial purposes, the young animal was ie ferred (Ex. xxix. 1)—perhaps three years mil be the age up to which it was so regarded (Gen. . 9)—and is spoken of as a special dainty (C. xviii. 8; Am. vi. 4; Luke xv. 23). The casel Gideon’s sacrifice was one of exigency (Judg. 25) and exceptional. So that of the people (1 S. xiv. 32) was an act of wanton excess. Thea- ing, threshing [AGRICULTURE], and as a Le pi L 7 ie i fi HERD Egyptian farm-yard. herds grazed there; ¢. g. in Carmel on the W. side of the Dead Sea (1 Sam. xxv. 2; 2 Chr. xxvi. 10). Dothan also, Mishor, and Sharon (Gen. xxxvii. 17; comp. Robinson, iii. 122; Stanley, S. g P. pp. 247, 260, 484, 485; 1 Chr. xxvii. 29; Is. Ixv. 10) were favorite pastures. For such purposes Uzziah built towers in the wilderness (2 Chr. xxvi. 10). Not only grass,* but foliage, is acceptable to the ox, and the hills and woods of Bashan and Gilead afforded both abundantly; on such upland (Ps. 1. 10; Ixv. 12) pastures cattle might graze, as also, of course, by river sides, when driven by the heat from the regions of the “ wilderness.”? Es- pecially was the eastern table-land (Ez. xxxix. 18; Num. xxxii. 4) “a place for cattle,’ and the pas- toral tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh who settled there, retained something of the no- madie character and handed down some image of the patriarchal life (Stanley, S. g P. pp. 824-5). Herdsmen, etc., in Egypt were a low, perhaps the lowest, caste; hence as Joseph’s kindred, through his position, were brought into contact with the highest castes, they are described as “an abomina- tion;”’ but of the abundance of cattle in Egypt, and of the care there bestowed on them, there is no doubt (Gen. xlvii. 6,17; Ex. ix. 4,20). Brands were used to distinguish the owner’s herds (Wil- kinson, iii. 8, 195; iv. 125-131). So the plague of hail was sent to smite especially the cattle (Ps. xxviii. 48), the first-born of which also were smitten (Ex. xii. 29). The Israelites departing stipulated for (Hix. x. 26) and took “ much cattle” with them (xii. 38). [WILDERNESS OF WANDERING.] Cattle ‘A deformed oxherd, so represented to mark contempt. ormed thus one of the traditions of the Israelitish lation in its greatest period, and became almost a art of that greatness. They are the object of —-. @ In Num. xxii. 4, the word [2.)>, in A. V. * grass, eally includes all vegetation. Comp. Ex. x. 15, Is. Xxvii. 27; Cato, de R. R. c. 80; Varro, de R. R. i. 5, and ii. 5. TST, Job viii. 12, xl. 15, seems used 1 @ signification equally wide. ([Grass.] b Rabbis differ on the question whether the owner f the animal was under this enactment liable or not eye (Wilkinson. ) providential care and legislative ordinance (Ex. xx. 10, xxi. 28,5 xxxiv. 19; Lev. xix. 19, xxv.7; Deut. xi. 15, xxii. 1, 4, 10, xxv. 4; Ps. civ. 14; Is. xxx. 23; Jon. iv. 11), and even the Levites, though not holding land, were allowed cattle (Num. xxxv. 2, 3). When pasture failed, a mixture of various grains (called, Job vi. 5, Syda, rendered fodder’? in the A. V., and, Is. xxx. 24, “ provender;”’ ¢ comp. the Roman farrago and ocymum, Plin. xviii. 10 and 42) was used, as also {2I), “chopped straw” (Gen. xxiv. 25; Is. xi. 7, Ixv. 25), which was torn in pieces by the threshing-machine and used probably for feeding in stalls. These last formed an important adjunct to cattle-keeping, be- ing indispensable for shelter at certain seasons (Ex. ix. 6, 19). The herd, after its harvest-duty was done, which probably caused it to be in high con- dition, was specially worth caring for; at the same time most open pastures would have failed because of the heat. It was-then probably stalled, and would continue so until vegetation returned. Hence the failure of “the herd” from “the stalls” ig mentioned as a feature of scarcity (Hab. iii. 17). “Calves of the stall’? (Mal. iv. 2; Prov. xv. 17) are the objects of watchful care. The Reubenites, etc., bestowed their cattle “in cities’? when they passed the Jordan to share the toils of conquest (Deut. iii. 19), ¢. e. probably in some pastures closely adjoining, like the “suburbs”? appointed for the cattle of the Levites (Num. xxxv. 2, 8; Josh. xxi. 2). Cattle were ordinarily allowed as a prey in war to the captor (Deut. xx. 14; Josh. viii. 2), and the case of Amalek is ex- ceptional, probably to mark the extreme curse to which that people was devoted (Ex. xvii. 14; 1 Sam. xv. 3). The occupation of herds- man was honorable in early times (Gen. xlvii. 6; 1 Sam. xi. 5; 1 Chr. xxvil. 29, xxviii. 1). Saul himself assumed it in the interval of his cares as king; also Doeg was cer- tainly high in his confidence (1 Sam. xxi. 7). Pharaoh made some of Joseph’s brethren “rulers over his cattle.” David’s herd-masters were (Wilkinson.) among his chief officers of state. In olomon’s time the relative import- ance of the pursuit declined as commerce grew, but it was still extensive (Eccl. ii. 7; 1 K. iv. 23). It must have greatly suffered from the inroads of the Soy i nell Co ch alae Se Neenah Mit iaaett eae tals liable. See de Re Rust. Veterum Hebreorum, c. ii.; Ugolini, xxix. ¢ The word seems to be derived from 222, to mix. The passage in Isaiah probably means that in the abundant yield of the crops the cattle should eat of the best, such as was usually consumed by man. 1046 HERES enemies to which the country under the later kings of Judah and Israel was exposed. Uzziah, however, (2 Chr. xxvi. 10), and Hezekiah (xxxii. 28, 29), resuming command of the open country, revived it. Josiah also seems to have been rich in herds (xxxv. 7-9). The prophet Amos at first followed this occupation (Am. i. 1, vii. 14). A goad was used (Judg. iii. 31; 1 Sam. xiii. 21, 1990, JBN), being, as mostly, a staff armed with a spike. For the word Herd as applied to swine, see SwINE; and on the general subject, Ugolini, xxix., de R. R. vett. Hebr. c. ii., which will be found nearly ex- haustive of it. HH. HE’RHS (ls. xix. 18; A. V. “destruction ’’ or “the sun’’). See [R-HA-HERES. HE’RESH (n= artificer: Aphs; [Vat. PapaimaA;] Alex. Apes: carpentarius), a Levite; one of the staff attached to the tabernacle (1 Chr. ix. 15). HER’MAS (‘Epuas, from ‘Epuijs, the “ Greek god of gain,” or Mercury), the name of a person to whom St. Paul sends greeting in his Epistle to the Romans (xvi. 14), and consequently then resi- dent in Rome, and a Christian: and yet the origin of the name, like that of the other four mentioned in the same verse, is Greek. However, in those days, even a Jew, like St. Paul himself, might ac- quire Roman citizenship. Irenzeus, Tertullian, and Crigen, agree in attributing to him the work called the Shepherd: which, from the name of Clement occurring in ‘it, is supposed to have been written in the pontificate of Clement I.; while others affirm it to have been the work of a namesake in the fol- lowing age, and brother to Pius I.; others again have argued against its genuineness. (Cave, Hist. Lit. s. v.; Bull, Defens. Fid. Nic. i. 2, 8-6; Din- dorf, Pref. ad Herme Past.) From internal evidence, its author, whoever he was, appears to have been a married man and father of a family: a deep mystic, but without ecclesiastical rank. Further, the work in question is supposed to have been originally written in Greek — in which lan- guage it is frequently cited by the Greek Fathers — though it now only exists entire in a Latin version.@ It was never received into the canon; but Yet was generally cited with respect only second to that which was paid to the authoritative books of the N. T., and was held to be in some sense inspired (Caillau’s Patres, tom. i. p. 17). It may be styled the Pilgrim’s Progress of ante-Nicene times; and is divided into three parts: the first containing four visions, the second twelve moral and spiritual precepts, and the third ten similitudes, each in- tended to shadow forth some verity (Caillau, 2bid.). Every man, according to this writer, is attended by a good and bad angel, who are continually attempt- ing to affect his course through life; a doctrine which forcibly recalls the fable of Prodicus respect- ing the choice of Hercules (Xenoph. Mem. ii. 1). The Hermas of the Epistle to the Romans is celebrated as a saint in the Roman calendar on May 9 (Butler’s Lives of the Saints, May 9). E. S. Ff. a * Nearly the whole of the Greek text of the Shep- herd has now been recovered from a manuscript found at Mount Athos by Constantine Simonides, and a con- siderable portion of the work is preserved in the Codex Sinaiticus published by Tischendorf in 1862. The ttreek text was first published by Anger and Dindorf HERMON HER’MES (‘Epp js), the name of a man ns tioned in the same epistle with the preceding (Rex. xvi. 14). “ According to the Greeks,” says Calm| (Dict. s. v.), “he was one of the Seventy disciple and afterwards Bishop of Dalmatia.” His festiv occurs in their calendar upon April 8 (Neale, Has) ern Church, ti. 774). E. S. Ff. | * HERMES, Acts xiv. 12. [Mercury.] | HERMOG’ENES (‘Epuoyévns) [born 0 Hermes], a person mentioned by St. Paul in ti latest of all his epistles (2 Tim. i. 15; see Alford Proleg. e. vii. § 85), when “all in Asia” (i, | those whom he had left there) “had turned aw: from him,” and among their number “ Phygell and Hermogenes.”? It does not appear whethi they had merely forsaken his cause, now that ]) was in bonds, through fear, like those of whom §| Cyprian treats in his celebrated work De Lapsi: or whether, like Hymenzeus and Philetus (iid. ¢| ii. 18), they had embraced false doctrine. It | Just possible that there may be a contrast intend¢ between these two sets of deserters. According | the legendary history, bearing the name of Abdi: (Fabricii Cod. Apocryph. N. T. p. 517), Herma enes had been a magician, and was, with Philetu converted by St. James the Great, who destroye the charm of his spells. Neither the Hermogene who suffered in the reign of Domitian (Hofmam Lex. Univ. s. y.; Alford on 2 Tim. i. 15), nor tl Hermogenes against whom Tertullian wrote — sti less the martyrs of the Greek calendar (Neal Eastern Church, ii. p. 770, January 24, and } 781, September 1)—are to be confounded with th person now under notice, of whom nothing mo: is known. E. S. Ff HERMON (awn [ prominent, lofty) "Aepuov: [Hermon]), a mountain on the nortl eastern border of Palestine (Deut. iii. 8; Josh. xi 1), over against Lebanon (Josh. xi. 17), adjoinin the plateau of Bashan (1 Chr. y. 23). Its situs tion being thus clearly defined in Scripture, thei can be no doubt as to its identity. It stands ¢ the southern end, and is the culminating point o the Anti-Libanus range; it towers high above th ancient border-city of Dan and the fountains of th| Jordan, and is the most conspicuous and _ beautifi mountain in Palestine or Syria. The name Her mon was doubtless suggested by its appearance -| ‘a lofty prominent peak,” visible from afi (Wa47 has the same meaning as the Arabi, S SS Nigies py>): just as Lebanon was suggested by th white character of its limestone strata. Othe names were also given to Hermon, each in lia manner descriptive of some striking feature. Th) Sidonians called it Sirion Qh, from rae} “to glitter ’’), and the Amorites Senir (793 4 from TW “to clatter’), both signifying « }reast) plate,” and suggested by its rounded glittering tor) when the sun’s rays were reflected by the snow tha’ covers it (Deut. iii. 9; Cant. iv. 8; Ez. xxvii. 5) at Leipsic in 1856, better by Tischendorf in Dressel’ Patres Apostolict, Lips. 1857 (2d ed. with the reading) of the Cod. Sin. 1868); but the best edition is that 0) Hilgenfeld, Fasc. iii. of his Novwm Testamentum extn) Canonem receptum, Lips. 1866. oe =. i HERMON HERMON 1047 the remains of a small and very ancient temple. = ; D iy. 48). 8 This is evidently one of those « high places,’’ which cowering over all its compeers (Deut. iv. ; ki ° | the old inhabitants of Palestine, and the Jews fre- 1ow, at the present day, it is called Jebel esh-Sheikh quently in imitation of them, set up “ upon every A v9 | hac ), “the chief mountain” —a |high mountain and upon every hill’ (Deut. xii. 2; ‘oo a‘ 2 K. xvii. 10, 11). In two passages of Scripture ame it well deserves; and Jebel eth-Thelj this mountain is called Baal-hermon (Sy2 ‘a ra dua), “snowy mountain,” which 7277, Judg. iii. 8; 1 Chr. y. 23); and the only reason that can be assigned for it is that Baal was there worshipped. Jerome says of it, ‘ dici- turque im vertice ejus insigne templum, quod ab | ethnicis cultui habetur e regione Paneadis et Li- bani ’’ — reference must here be made to the build- ing whose ruins are still seen (Onom. s. y. Hermon), It is remarkable that Hermon was anciently en- 2a was with the western (see D. in Ex. xxvii. compassed by a circle of temples, all Sacing the 2, A. V. “west: Josh. viii. 9). They conquered summit. Can it be that this mountain was the ll the land east of the Jordan, “from the river | great sanctuary of Baal, and that it was to the ron unto Mount Hermon ” (Deut. iii. 8, iy. 48; |0!d Syrians what Jerusalem was to the Jews, and osh. xi. 17). Baal-gad, the border-city before what Mekkah is to the Muslems? (See Handb, an became historic, is described as “ under Mount | ./0” Syr. and Pal. 454, 457; Reland, Pal. p. 323 fermon” (Josh. xiii. 5, xi. 17); and when the |) a alf-tribe of Manasseh conquered their whole al-| The height of Hermon has never been measured, tted territory, they are said to have ‘increased though it has been often estimated. It is unques- om Bashan unto Baal-hermon and Senir, and |tionably the second mountain in Syria, ranking ato Mount Hermon” (1 Chr. y. 23). In one | ext to the summit of Lebanon near the Cedars, sage Hermon would almost seem to be used to |224 only a few hundred feet lower than it. It may safely be estimated at 10,000 feet. It rises it was also named Sion, «the elevated ” (ND), very man who sees it will say is peculiarly appro- riate. When the whole country is parched with he summer-sun, white lines of snow streak the ead of Hermon. ‘his mountain was the great indmark of the Israelites. It was associated with heir northern border almost as intimately as the znify “north,” as the word “sea” (O%) is for west’ — “the north and the south Thou hast yname”’ (Ps. Ixxxix. 12). The reason of this obvious. From whatever part of Palestine the raelite turned his eyes northward, Hermon was ere, terminating the view. From the plain along mountain in Syria. The cone is entirely naked. A coating of disintegrated limestone covers the surface, rendering it smooth and bleak. The snow never disappears from its summit. In spring and @ coast, from the mountains of Samaria, from early summer the top is entirely covered. As sum- 2 Jordan valley, from the heights of Moab and|mer advances the snow gradually melts from the lead, from the plateau of Bashan, that pale-blue, | tops of the ridges, but remains in long glittering aw-capped cone forms the one feature on the streaks in the ravines that radiate from the centre, tthern horizon. The «dew of Hermon” is once looking in the distance like the white locks that erred to in a passage which has long been con-|scantily cover the head of old age. (See Five ered @ geographical puzzle—«« As the dew of Years in Damascus, vol. i.) tmon, the dew that descended on the mountains A tradition, originating apparently about the Zion” (Ps. exxxiii. 3). Zion (74°) is prob-|time of Jerome (Reland, p. 326), gave the name i As Hermon to the range of Jebel ed-Duhy near Tabor, y used here for Sion (TSW), one of the old|the better to explain Ps. lxxxix. 12. The name nes of Hermon (Deut. iv. 48).¢ The snow on | still continues in the monasteries of Palestine, and ‘Summit of this mountain condenses the vapors has thus crept into books of travel. [GiLBoa, t float during the summer in the higher regions note. | J.L.P the atmosphere causing light clouds to hover| : : und it, and abundant dew to descend on it, epi ag abel Sette Selig? le th ; the top of Hermon, and the view from it has not rt 'y nue eae Soret is parched;-and seul oftait \desoribed. We are indebted to Mr. Whole heaven elsewhere cloudless. Tri : Dor Tanel termon has three summits, situated like the BibAGa cA ee ek eI Ter ads les of a triangle, and about a quarter of a mile |?” sa ape Sep neach other. They do not differ much in ele- We were at last on Hermon, whose jonae apt ion. This may account for the expression in had been a sort of pole-star for the last six months. mer (6), “1 will remember thee ope tha lant We had looked at him from Sidon, from Tyre, : from Carmel, from Gerizim, from the hills about he Jordan and the Hermons (212777) — | Jerusalem, from the Dead Sea, from Gilead, and’ Japs also for the three appellations in 1 Chr. y. from Nebo; and now we were looking down on _ On one of the summits are curious and inter- | them all, as they stood out from the embossed map ag Tuins. Round a rock which forms the crest | that lay spread at our feet. The only drawback was he peak are the foundations of a rude circular |a light fleecy cloud which stretched from Carmel's » Composed of massive stones; and within the top all along the Lebanon, till it rested upon Jebel @ is a large heap of hewn stones, surrounding | Sunnin, close to Baal-bec. But it lifted sufficiently ee *Tt is Against this equivalence that the consonants | evant ; for we can refer the blessing and the spiritual lifferent (see above) and that the meanings are dif- | life spoken of only to Zion, the sac-ed mount. See tt (lofty : sunny, bright). Besides, to make the dew | under HERMON, THE Dew oF. H. lermon fall upon itself renders what follows irrel- 1048 HERMON to give us a peep of the Mediterranean in three places, and amongst them of Tyre. There was a haze, too, over the Ghor, so that we could only see as far as Jebel Ajlim and Gilead; but Lakes Huleh and Gennesaret, sunk in the depths beneath us, and reflecting the sunlight, were magnificent. We could scarcely realize that at one glance we were taking in the whole of the land through which, for more than six months, we had been incessantly wandering. Not less striking were the views to the north and east, with the head waters of the Aw (Pharpar) rising beneath us, and the Barada (Abana), in the far distance, both rivers marking the courses of their fertilizing streams by the deep green lines of verdure, till the eye rested on the brightness of Damascus, and then turned up the wide opening of Ceele-Syria, until shut in by Leb- anon. “A ruined temple of Baal, constructed of squared stones arranged nearly in a circle, crowns the high- est of the three peaks of Hermon, all very close together. We spent a great part of the day on the summit, but were before long painfully affected by the rarity of the atmosphere. The sun had sunk behind Lebanon before we descended to our tents, but long after we had lost him he continued to paint and gild Hermon with a beautiful ming- ling of Alpine and desert hues.” Mr. Porter, author of Five Years in Damascus, asceuded Hermon in 1852. For an extended ac- count of the incidents and results of the exploration, see Bibl. Sacra, xi. 41-56. See the notices, also, in Mr. Porter’s Handbook, ii. 453 ff. Tineseas (Land and Book, ii. 438) speaks of his surprise at finding that from the shores of the Dead Sea he had a distinct view of “‘ Mount Hermon towering to the sky far, far up the Ghor to the north.” It was a new evidence, he adds, that Moses also could have seen Hermon (Deut. xxxiv. 1 ff.) from the mountains of Moab [NEBo, Amer. ed. ]. Sirion or Shirion, the Sidonian name of Hermon, signifies a ‘ breast-plate,”’ or ‘coat of mail;’’ and if (as assumed above), it be derived from fT" “to glitter,’ ¢ it refers, naturally, not to any sup- posed resemblance of figure or shape, but to the shining appearance of that piece of armor. Her- mon answers remarkably to that description. As seen at a distance through the transparent atmos- phere, with the snow on its summit and stretching in long lines down its declivities, it glows and sparkles under the rays of the sun as if robed in a vesture of silver. It is altogether probable that the Saviour’s trans- figuration took place on some one of the heights of Hermon. The Evangelists relate the occurrence in connection with the Saviour’s visit to Ceesarea Philippi, which was in that neighborhood. Hence also the healing of the lunatic boy (Luke ix. 37) took place at the foot of Hermon. Dean Alford assumes (Greek Test. i. 168) that Jesus had been journeying southward from Ceesarea Philippi dur- ing the six or eight days which immediately preceded the transfiguration, and hence infers that ’ the high mountain which he ascended must be sought near Capernaum. But that is not the more obvious view. Neither of the Evangelists says that a *So Gesenius in Hoffmann’s ed. 1847 ; but accord- ing to Dietrich and First, from mel an to weave to- gether, fasten, as in making a shield. H. ‘a HEROD Jesus was journeying southward during these di; but, on the contrary, having stated just before | Jesus came into “the parts’? (Matt. xvi. 13); «the villages ’’ (Mark viii. 27) of Ceesarea Phil they leave us to understand that he preached ¢ ing the time mentioned, in that region, and t came to the mountain there on which he was tr: figured. [TABOR.] H * HERMON, DEW OF. The dew on | mountain is proverbially excellent and abunc| (see Ps. cxxxili. 3). “ More copious dew,’ says 1; tram (Land of Israel, p. 608 f. 2d ed.), ‘we ni experienced than that on Hermon. Everyth; was drenched with it, and the tents were small }) tection. The under sides of our macintosh sh; were in water, our guns were rusted, dew-dj) were hanging everywhere. ... . The hot aii the daytime comes streaming up the Ghor from | Huleh, while Hermon arrests all the moisture, | deposits it congealed at nights.’”’ As Mr. Po: states, ‘one of its hills is appropriately called | Abu Nedy, i. €. ‘ Father of the Dew,’ for the ele) seem to cling with peculiar fondness round; wooded top and the little Wely of Sheikh Nedy, which crowns it” (Handbook, ii. 41) Van de Velde (Syr. and Pal. i. 126) testifies this peculiarity of Hermon. It has perplexed commentators not a little to: plain how the Psalmist (exxxiii. 3) could speal the dew of Hermon in the north of Palestine: falling on Zion in Jerusalem. The A. V. does \ show the difficulty; for the words “and the de’ being interpolated between the clauses, the dew! Hermon appears there as locally different from {i which descended on Mount Zion. But the » brew sentence will not bear that construction ‘ Hupfeld, Die Psalmen, iv. 320). Nor, where § places are so far apart from each other, can we tlk of the dew as carried in the atmosphere from | place to the other. Hupfeld (iv. 322) suggests i! perhaps ‘as the dew of Hermon ”’ may be a } mula of blessing (¢omp. the curse on Gilboa, 2 Si i. 21), and as applied here may represent Zioi; realizing the idea of that blessing, both spirit and natural, in the highest degree. Bottct (Aehrentese zum A. T., p. 58) assumes an aph lative sense of pan, t. e. dew (not of any p ticular mountain of that name), but of lofty hess generally, which would include Zion. Hengsit berg’s explanation is not essentially different i this (Die Psalmen, iv. 83), except that with 1 the generalized idea would be = Hermon-dew,- stead of = Dew of Hermons. HER’MONITES, THE (O29: povietu: Hermoniim) [in the A. V.]. ’ Prop) the ‘“‘ Hermons,’’ with reference to the three » two ?] summits of Mount Hermon (Ps. xlii. 6 [) [HERmoN, p. 1047.] W. A. Wi * HER’MONS (according to the Hebri), Ps. xlii. 7 (6). Only one mountain is knowr the Bible as Hermon; the plural name refers/¢ doubt, to the different summits for which this i noted. [HERMON.] See also Rob. Phys. Ger’ p- 347. d HER’OD (‘Hpdéns, 7. e. Hero’des). JF HeERop1IAn Famrty ‘The history of the a dian family presents pne side of the last deve ment of the Jewish nation. The evils vie } | Lf HEROD © _ HEROD 1045 ranny of a foreign usurper. Religion was adopted us a policy; and the Hellenizing designs of ‘Anti- hus Epiphanes were carried out, at least in their spirit, by men who professed to observe the Law. Side by side with the spiritual “kingdom of God,” roclaimed by John the Baptist, and founded by he Lord, a kingdom of the world was established, yhich in its external splendor recalled the tradi- ional magnificence of Solomon. The simultaneous ealization of the two principles, national and spir- tual, which had long variously influenced the Jews, n the establishment of a dynasty and a church, is , fact pregnant with instruction. In the fullness f time a descendant of Esau established a false ounterpart of the promised glories of Messiah. Various accounts are given of the ancestry of the ferods; but neglecting the exaggerated statements f friends and enemies,* it seems certain that they ere of [dumean descent (Jos. Ant. xiv. 1, 3), a ut which is indicated by the forms of some of the ames which were retained in the family (Ewald, reschichte, iv. 477, note). But though aliens by ice, the Herods were Jews in faith. The Idu- ans had been conquered and brought over to udaism by John Hyrcanus (B. c. 130, Jos. Ant. li. 9, § 1); and from the time of their conversion ley remained constant to their new religion, look- g upon Jerusalem as their mother city and claim- g for themselves the name of Jews (Joseph. Ant. 15§ 7; B. J. i. 10, § 4, iv. 4, § 4). The general policy of the whole Herodian family, ough modified by the personal characteristics of € successive rulers, was the same. It centred in e endeavor to found a great and independent ngdom, in which the power of Judaism should bserve to the consolidation of a state. The pro- tion of Rome was in the first instance a neces- y, but the designs of Herod I. and Agrippa I. int to an independent eastern empire as their d, and not to a mere subject monarchy. Such a ‘summation of the Jewish hopes seems to have ind some measure of acceptance at first [Hr- DIANS]; and by a natural reaction the temporal ninion of the Herods opened the way to the truction of the Jewish nationality. The religion ich was degraded into the instrument of unscru- ous ambition lost its power to quicken a united ple. The high-priests were appointed and de- ed by Herod I. and his successors with such a sless disregard for the character of their office st, Gesch. d. Judenthums, i. 322, 325, 421), t the office itself was deprived of its sacred dig- 7 (comp. Acts xxiii. 2 ff.; Jost, 430, &.). The ion was divided, and amidst the conflict of sects niversal faith arose, which more than fulfilled nobler hopes that found no satisfaction in the cherous grandeur of a court. the family relations of the Herods are singularly iplicated from the frequent recurrence of the € names, and the several accounts of Josephus ‘hot consistent in every detail. The following &, however, seems to offer a satisfactory sum- SEE The Jewish partisans of Herod (Nicolaus Damas- 8, ap. Jos. Ant. xiv. 1, 3) sought to raise him to lignity of a descent from one of the noble fami- which returned from Babylon ; and, on the other I, early Christian writers represented his origin as ‘ly medn and servile. Africanus has preserved a tion (Routh, Rell. Sar. ii. p. 235), on the authority the natural kinsmen of the Saviour,” which makes pater, the father of Herod, the son of one Herod, mary of his statements. The members of the Herodian family who are mentioned in the N. T are distinguished by capitals. Josephus is the one great authority for the his- tory of the Herodian family. The scanty notices which occur in Hebrew and classic writers throw very little additional light upon the events which he narrates. Of modern writers Ewald has treated the whole subject with the widest and clearest view. Jost in his several works has added to the records of Josephus gleanings from later Jewish writers. Where the original sources are so accessible, mono- graphs are of little use. The following are quoted by .Winer: Noldii Hist. Jdumea .. . lraneq. 1660; E. Spanhemii Stemma... Herodis M., which are reprinted in Havercamp’s Josephus (ii. 331 ff; 402 ff). I. Herop THE GREAT (‘Hpédns) was the sec- ond son of Antipater, who was appointed procurator of Judea by Julius Cesar, B. c. 47, and Cypros, an Arabian of noble descent (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 7, § 3). At the time of his father’s elevation, though only fifteen years old, he received the government of Galilee (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 9, § 2), and shortly afterwards that of Ccle-Syria. When Antony came to Syria, B. Cc. 41, he appointed Herod and his elder brother Phasael tetrarchs of Judxa (Jo- seph. Ant. xiv. 13, § 1). Herod was forced to abandon Judea next year by an invasion of the Parthians, who supported the claims of Antigonus, the representative of the Asmonman dynasty, and fled to Rome (B. c. 40). At Rome he was well received by Antony and Octavian, and was ap- pointed by the senate king of Judza to the exclu- sion of the Hasmonzean line (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 14, § 4; App. Bell. C. 39). In the course of a few years, by the help of the Romans, he took Jerusalem (B. C. 37), and completely established his authority throughout his dominions. An expedition which he was forced to make against Arabia saved him from taking an active part in the civil war, though he was devoted to the cause of Antony. After the battle of Actium he visited Octavian at Rhodes, and his noble bearing won for him the favor of the conqueror, who confirmed him in the possession of the kingdom, B. c. 31, and in the next year in- creased it by the addition of several important cities (Joseph. Ant. xv. 10, § 1 ff.), and afterwards gave him the province of Trachonitis and the dis- trict of Paneas (Joseph. Ant. 1.c.). The remainder of the reign of Herod was undisturbed by external troubles, but his domestic life was embittered by an almost uninterrupted series of injuries and cruel acts of vengeance. Hyrcanus, the grandfather of his wife Mariamne, was put to death shortly before his visit to Augustus. Mariamne herself, to whom he was passionately devoted, was next sacrificed to his jealousy. One execution followed another, till at last, in B. C. 6, he was persuaded to put to death the two sons of Mariamne, Alexander and Aristo- bulus, in whom the chief hope of the people lay. Two years afterwards he condemned to death An- a a slave attached to the service of a temple of Apollo at Ascalon, who was taken prisoner by Idumean robbers, and kept by them, as his father could not pay his ran- som. The locality (cf. Philo, Leg. ad Caium, § 30) no less than the office, was calculated to fix a heavy reproach upon the name (cf. Routh, ad loc.). This story is repeated with great inaccuracy by Epiphanins (Her. xx.). "ET ‘Axx sjoy ‘nddiiby Bury (9 : 2 P= SRT Shite alee ae S Devas = a ‘ ae “T “Hx By “Dury 9u2 Poser 4 i Pay a 4 PL ‘fa wleyy ‘poser Guyy °f Xt EL ST WT oyNT fT Ars “yey ‘y919.02a7, ay7 posezyT . ga TAX "QU ‘ : “g*FoynT SB Lu yey “Ousy oy2 powozy Ch) "y $¢9 “THAX “Quy “Ydosor 3) Jepusxe eddiui3 snjngoysiryp svddusy sepor10xy ses el ay GF) () (GF) | ‘esourg jo" | | | SU, una acee oUUIVUIV, HOINAAAG snsniq VddlznVy sIUBISI (I¥) (WH) (68) (fe) i ie) (9¢) | | \ (te) aulo[yg = : sninq eduyor -O}SILy (¢¢) 79) snuvo snuvio as -lueleg a (ge) (gg) sord éc (e) HOINaUag = BipuBxo,y a2 ($8) edvjor (Ze) JepuexelV mal sord AQ = snjng ouUeLIiByy = sopoloRL md auure eULOTBS sUBISLY, xopuvxoly sviaoxay VddIloVy -OjsVy sepoleyy «=: xeyud uy ea (s. a (ig ‘ic (66) ($6) Up) () a (82) (se) snvjayo G9) (1g) sv1aouayy = sviadouay = sojqed () -«tyjo;:p= 2) G&D svidus[Q = aWlo[Vg = SAVYT svjatyjo‘p= (dITIHG) -HuUyY= pwsey_—= Joepue osdlueleg = osdulspeg = Eh) eekcles ydasor sUlO[BS BUvXOY pewssyg diTlvg seporsy svidwiA[Q -AHOUW SVdILNY seaportoyY soiddQ o1duieyeg -xoTV sn[ngoysiry dosdyuy jfevsvyd (¥3) (€2) (28) (12) (06) (6D (sD) uD (9) (¢D GD ep GD aD (op 6 (8) | cote. | | | | | | | | | | | sninq = es apy | | WOU JO “p | = sdiq— Bipeyg— seiy[vqg= B1yed0I19 = (avzyieueg ¥)sovIg[VA[T = ‘ouUVUIv_Y = = snuBoIAY JO “ppuvis ‘oumUEyy = slog = SBxITy = -¥1s0D = Yydesor— ok 6 fers fel “ET | I | | | | ; ewo[Vg svi01ayg ydesor saaoxvayq joveug.a a) ©) (@) 6) @ | | (g § *y -Atx ‘yup ‘Ydosor :UBIquIy UB) soud 6 = dloyedyuy @) 1 (@‘L ‘AIx ‘7up “Ydesor) eaeunpy jo Jouseaos ‘(sedyuy) bees ([ 1050 HEROD HEROD 1051 ter, his eldest son, who had been their most| legends; and he introduced heathen games within ive accuser, and the order for his execution was | the walls of Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. xv. 8,§ 1). He mg the last acts of Herod’s life, for he died | displayed ostentatiously his favor towards foreigners self five days after the death of his son, B. c.| (Jos. Ant. xvi. 5, § 3), and oppressed the old Jew- n the same year which marks the true date of | ish aristocracy (Jos. Ant. xv. 1,§ 1). The later Nativity. [Jesus CuRisr. ] Jewish traditions describe him as successively the These terrible acts of bloodshed which Herod| servant of the Hasmonans and the Romans, and petrated in his own family were accompanied by | relate that one Rabbin only survived the persecu- ars among his subjects equally terrible, from the| tion which he directed against them, purchasing nbers who fell victims to them. The infirmities | his life by the loss of sight (Jost, i. 319, &e.). ais later years exasperated him to yet greater While Herod alienated in this manner the affec- ity; and, according to the well-known story, | tions of the Jews by his cruelty and disregard for ordered the nobles whom he had called to him | the Law, he adorned Jerusalem with many splendid his last moments to be executed immediately | monuments of his taste and magnificence. The r his decease, that so at least his death might Temple, which he rebuilt with’ scrupulous care, SO attended by universal mourning (Joseph. Ant. | that it might seem to be a restoration of the old -7,§ 5). {t was at the time of this fatal ill-] one rather than a new building (Jos. Ané. xv. § 11), } that he must have caused the slaughter of the| was the greatest of these works. The restoration nts at Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 16-18), and from | was begun B. C. 20, and the Temple itself was com- comparative insignificance of the murder of a| pleted in a year and a half (Jos. Ant. xv. 11, § 6). young children in an unimportant village when | The surrounding buildings occupied eight years rasted with the deeds which he carried out or | more (Jos. Ant. xv. 11, § 5). But fresh additions gned, it is not surprising that Josephus has| were constantly made in succeeding years, so that ed it over in silence. The number of children | at the time of the Lord’s visit to Jerusalem at the Bethlehem and ‘all the borders thereof” (éy beginning of His ministry, it was said that the w Tois dplois) may be estimated at about ten Temple was “ built (godouh6n) in forty and six welve;@ and the language of the Evangelist years” (John ii. 20), a phrase which expresses the 2s in complete uncertainty the method in which | whole period from the commencement of Herod's deed was effected (GmroarelAas avetAev). The} work to the completion of the latest addition then e of open and undisguised violence which has made, for the final completion of the whole build- consecrated by Christian art is wholly at va-| ing is placed by Josephus (Ant. xx. 8, § 7, Hon be ce with what may be supposed to have been the| rére ka) td iepoby éreréAeoro) in the time of ric reality. Ata later time the murder of the| Herod Agrippa IT. (c. A. D. 50). ren seems to have been connected with the! Yet even this splendid work was not likely to h of Antipater. Thus, according to the anec-| mislead the Jews as to the real spirit of the king. preserved by Macrobius (c. A. D. 410), “ Au-} While he rebuilt the Temple at Jerusalem, he re- us, cum audisset inter pueros quos in Syria| built also the Temple at Samaria (Jos. Ant. xv. 8, des, Rex Judxorum, intra bimatum (Matt. ii. § 5), and made provision in hig new city Ceesarea ib. Vulg. a bimatu et infra) jussit interfici,| for the celebration of heathen worship (Jos. Ant. On quoque ejus occisum, ait: Melius est Herodis| xv. 9, § 5); and it has been supposed (Jost, Gesch. im esse quam filium’’ (Macrob. Sat. ii. 4),| d. Judenth. i. 323) that the rebuilding of the Temple Josephus has preserved two very remarkable| furnished him with the opportunity of destroying nees to a massacre which Herod caused to be} the authentic collection of genealogies which was > shortly before his death, which may throw | of the highest importance to the priestly families. ditional light upon the history. In this it is Herod, as appears from his public designs, affected that Herod did not spare «those who seemed | the dignity of a second Solomon, but he joined the ‘dear to him” (Ant. xvi. 11, § 7), but “slew! license of that monarch to his magnificence; and lose of his own family who sided with the| it was said that the monument which he raised over isees (6 apicaios)”’ in refusing to take the| the royal tombs was due to the fear which seized of allegiance to the Roman emperor, while} him after a sacrilegious attempt to rob them of looked forward to a change in the royal line| secret treasures (Jos. Ant. xvi. 7, § 1). ph. Ant. xvii. 2, § 6; cf. Lardner, Credibility, It is, perhaps, difficult t : : : : ps cult to see in the character coh ff, 332 f., 349 f.). How far this event | o¢ Ferod any of the true elements of greatness. ave been directly connected with the murder Some have even supposed that the title — the great thlehem it is impossible to say, from the ob-| , } 4 y of the details, but its occasion and charac-|— is a mistranslation for the elder (N27, J ost, i, row a great light upon St. Matthew's nar-| 319, note; 6 uéyas, Ewald, Gesch. iv. 473, &e.); and yet on the other hand he seems to haye pos- sessed the good qualities of our own Henry VIII. with his vices. He maintained peace at home during a long reign by the vigor and timely gen- erosity of his administration. Abroad he conciliated the good-will of the Romans under circumstances of unusual difficulty. His ostentatious display and even his arbitrary tyranny was calculated to inspire Orientals with awe. Bold and yet prudent, oppress- ive and yet profuse, he had many of the character- istics which make a popular hero; and the title Sea a Bae gs ots Ya ys ev ByOdcéu exédcvocv avarpeOjvar. Cf. Orig. c. Cels. i. p. 47, ed. Spenc. 6 88 “Hpwdns avetAe ravra Ta év ByOacéy. kat Tots Opios avTis madia ... dealing with the religious feelings or preju- of the Jews, Herod showed as great contempt iblie opinion as in the execution of his per- vengeance. He signalized his elevation to arone by offerings to the Capitoline J upiter Gesch. d. Judenthums, i. 318), and sur- ed his person by foreign mercenaries, some of had been formerly in the service of Cleopatra ‘Ant. xv. 7, § 3; xvii. 1,§ 1; 8,§ 3). His and those of his successors bore only Greek eee he language of St. Matthew offers an instructive st to that of Justin M. (Dial. c. Tryph. 78): Ons... mdvras ards TOS Taldas TOUS HEROD answers to the general tenor of his life. _He W scrupulous (Luke iii. 19, rep) mdvtwy dy em movnpav), tyrannical (Luke xiii. 81), and (Matt. xiv. 9). Yet his cruelty was ma cunning (Luke xiii. 82, 7 dAdment TAUTY followed by remorse (Mark vi. 14). In ee with Pilate he presents the type of an & despot, capricious, sensual, and superstitious. last element of superstition is both nature clearly marked. For a time “he heard gladly ’’ (Mark vi. 20), and was anxious Jesus (Luke ix. 9, xxiii. 8), in the expectation 1052 HEROD which may have been first given in admiration of successful despotism now serves to bring out in clearer contrast the terrible price at which the suc- cess was purchased. Copper Coin of Herod the Great. Obv. HPWAOY, Bunch of grapes. Rev. EONAPXO., Macedonian helmet: in the field caduceus. II]. Herop ANTIPAS (Aytimarpos, ’Avtimas) was the son of Herod the Great by Malthace, a Samaritan (Jos. Ant. xvii. 1, § 3). His father had originally destined him as his successor in the king- dom (cf. Matt. ii. 22; ARCHELAUS), but by the last change of his will appointed him “ tetrarch of Galilee and Perzea’’ (Jos. Ant. xvii. 8, § 1, ‘Hp. 6 tetpdpxns, Matt. xiv. 1; Luke iii. 19, ix. 7; Acts xiii. 1; cf. Luke ili. 1, rerpapyovvros ths Todt Aatas “Hp.), which brought him a yearly revenue of 200 talents (Jos. Ant. xvii. 13, § 4; ef. Luke viii. 3, XouGa émitpdmov ‘Hp.)- He first married a ‘daughter of Aretas, “king of Arabia Petreea,”’ but after some time (Jos. Ané. xviii. 5, § 1) he made overtures of marriage to Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Herod-Philip, which she received favorably. Aretas, indignant at the insult offered to his daughter, found a pretext for invading the territory of Herod, and defeated him with great loss (Jos. d. c.). This defeat, according to the famous passage in Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5, § 2), was attrib- uted by many to the murder of John the Baptist, which had been committed by Antipas shortly before, under the influence of Herodias (Matt. xiv. 4 ff.; Mark vi. 17 ff.; Luke iii. 19). Ata later time the ambition of Herodias proved the cause of her husband’s ruin. She urged him to go to Rome to gain the title of king (cf. Mark vi. 14, 6 BagctAevs ‘Hp. by courtesy), which had been granted to his nephew Agrippa; but he was opposed at the court of Caligula by the emissaries of Agrippa [Hrrop AGRIPPA], and condemned to perpetual banishment at Lugdunum, A. D. 39 (Jos. Ant. xviii. 7, § 2), whence he appears to have retired after- wards to Spain (B. J. ii. 9, § 6; but see note on p- 796). Herodias voluntarily shared his punish- ment, and he died in exile. [HERODIAS.] Pilate took occasion from our Lord’s residence in Galilee to send Him for examination (Luke xxiii. 6 ff.) to Herod Antipas, who came up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover (cf. Jos. Ant. xviii. 6, § 3), and thus heal the feud which had existed between the tetrarch and himself (Luke xxiii. 12; cf. Luke xiii. 1, wep) tdv TadiAalwy, ay Td aiua Midatos guitev peta Tay Ovoiav adTt@y).* ‘The share which Antipas thus took in the Passion is specially noticed in the Acts (iv. 27) in connection with Ps. ii. 1,2. His character, as it appears in the Gospels, a * Pilate’s sending Jesus to Herod seems to have been an expedient merely to dispose of the case, if pos- sibly he might do so, in that way. Herod, conciliated by an apparent act of courtesy, may then have made advances on his part to the procurator, which led to tke restoration of a better understanding between them. That it was their common enmity to Christ which made Herod and Pilate friends on this eccasion is said, of witnessing some miracle wrought b (Luke xiii. 31, xxiii. 8). The city of T1BERIAS, which Antipas fe and named in honor of the emperor, was th conspicuous monument of his long reign; br the rest of the Herodian family, he show passion for building cities in several places, ing Sepphoris, near Tabor, which had be stroyed in the wars after the death of Her Great (Jos. Ant. xvii. 12, § 9; xviii. 2, § Betharamphtha (Beth-haram) in Perza, wh named Julias, “from the wife of the em (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2,1; Hieron. Euseb. Chron 29, Livias). Ill. ARCHELAUS (ApxéAaos [ruler : people]) was, like Herod Antipas, the son of the Great and Malthace. He was brought u his brother at Rome (Joseph. Ant. xvii. J and in consequence of the accusations of his brother Antipater, the son of Doris, he y cluded by his father’s will from any share dominions. Afterwards, however, by a change, the “kingdom”’ was left to him, had been designed for his brother Antipas ( Ant. xvii. 8, § 1), and it was this une: arrangement which led to the retreat of Jo Galilee (Matt. ii. 22). Archelaus did not e his power without strong opposition and blo (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 9); but Augustus confirn will of Herod in its essential provisions, ar Archelaus the government of ‘ Idumea, | and Samaria, with the cities of Cesarea, & Joppa, and Jerusalem ”’ (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 1 which produced a revenue of 400 (Joseph. £ 6, § 3) or 600 talents (Ant. xvii. 13, 5). I time he received the title of Ethnareh, Ww promise of that of king, if he proved worth (Joseph. 1. ¢.). His conduct justified th which his character inspired. After violat Mosaic law by the marriage with Glaphy brother’s widow (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 138, § roused his subjects by his tyranny and er appeal to Rome for redress.o Augustus ¢ summoned him to his presence, and after hi was heard he was banished to Vienne i (A. D. 7), where probably he died (Joseph ef. Strab. xvi. p. 765; Dio Cass. lv. 27); in the time of Jerome, his tomb was he Bethlehem (Onomasticon). IV. Herop Pur I. (@/arwmos, Mark was the son of Herod the Great, and Mariar (as is often said) does not agree with the 1 anxiety of Pilate to release Jesus. 6 * Of this character of Archelaus Matthew ment (ii. 22) furnishes a significant intimatic returning from Egypt Joseph evidently meat directly to Bethlehem ; but hearing that Archel succeeded Herod rather than some other ont sons, he avoided that place and proceeded to { — HEROD | HEROD 1053 ghter of a high-priest Simon (Joseph. Ant. xviii. {), and must be carefully distinguished from the arch Philip. [Herop Puivip II.] He married -odias, the sister of Agrippa I., by whom he had qaughter Salome. Herodias, however, left him, | made an infamous marriage with his half- ther Herod Antipas (Matt. xiv. 3; Mark vi. 17; e iii. 19). He is called only Herod by Josephus, the repetition of the name Philip is fully justi- by the frequent recurrence of names in the ‘odian family (e. g. Antipater). The two Philips e confounded by Jerome (ad Matt. 1. c.); and confusion was the more easy, because the son Mariamne was excluded from all share in his ers possessions (rijs diadqkns e&hAewev) in sequence of his mother’s treachery (Joseph. B. i. 30, § 7), and lived afterwards in a private ion. .. Herop Puiwip II. (@{Aurmos) was the son ferod the Great and Cleopatra (‘IepoaoAvuirts): 2 his half-brothers @ Antipas and Archelaus, he brought up at Rome (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 1, § 3), on the death of his father advocated the claims Archelaus before Augustus (Joseph. B. J. ii. 6, . He received as his own government “ Batanza, chonitis, Auranitis (Gaulonitis), and some parts and was hanished to Gaul (A. D. 39), and his dominions were added to those already held by Agrippa (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 7, § 2). Afterwards Agrippa rendered important services to Claudius (Joseph. B. J. ii. 11, §§ 2, 3), and received from him in return (A. D. 41) the government of Judea and Samaria; so that his entire dominions equaled in extent the kingdom of Herod the Great. Unlike his predecessors, Agrippa was a strict observer of the Law (Joseph. Ant. xix. 7, § 3), and he sought with success the favor of the Jews.> It is probable that it was with this view¢ he put to death James the son of Zebedee, and further imprisoned Peter (Acts xii. 1 ff) But his sudden death, which fol- lowed immediately afterwards, interrupted his am- bitious projects. In the fourth year of his reign over the whole of Judxa (A. D. 44) Agrippa attended some games at Czesarea, held in honor of the emperor. When he appeared in the theatre (Joseph. Ant. xix. 8, § 2, Sevrépa Tay Oewpiaiv nuépa; Acts xii. 21, raxr7 nee pa) in “a robe of silver stuff (3 apypou TeToinuevny macay, Joseph.; écOAra BaciAukhy, Acts xii. 21) which shone in the morning light, his flatterers saluted him as a god; and suddenly he was seized with terrible pains, and being carried it Jamnia” (Joseph. B. J. ii. 6, § 3), with| from the theatre to the palace died after five days title of tetrarch (Luke iii. 1, @iAtmmov . . .| agony (ep’ jucpas méevTe TH THS yaotpds adrYh- papxovvros Tis ‘Irovpatas Kal Tpaxwyiridos| uati diepyacdels tov Bloy karéarpever, Joseph. as). His rule was distinguished by justice and | Ant. xix. 8; yevouevos cKwANKSBpwros eéputer, eration (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 4, § 6), and he ap-| Acts xii. 23; cf. 2 Mace. ix. 5-9). s to have devoted himself entirely to the duties By a singular and instructive confusion Euse- is office without sharing in the intrigues which | bius (H. E. ii. 10; ef. Heinichen, ac. 2, ad loc.) raced his family (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5, 6). He| converts the owl, which, according to Josephus, ap- t a new city on the site of Paneas, near the peared to Herod as a messenger of evil (& yyeAos ces of the Jordan, which he called Cxsarea| Karey) into “ the angel’’ of the Acts, who was the wapela, biAlmmov, Matt. xvi. 13; Mark viii.| unseen minister of the Divine Will (Acts xii. 23, and raised Bethsaida (in lower Gaulonitis) to erdratey avrTov wyyedos Kuplov; cf. 2 K. xix. 35, rank of a city under the title of Julias (Joseph. | LXX.). ‘Hi. 9, § 1; xviii. 2, § 1), and died there A. p.| Various conjectures have been made as to the xvill. 5, § 6). He married Salome, the daugh-| occasion of the festival at which the event took f Philip (1.) and Herodias (Ant. xviii. 6, § 4), place. Josephus (/. c.) says that it was in “ behalf as he left no children at his death his dominions | of the emperor’s safety,”’ and it has been supposed added to the Roman province of Syria (xviii. | that it might be in connection with his return from 6). Britain; but this is at least very uncertain (ef. I. Herop Acrirpa I. (‘Hp#dns, Acts ;| Wieseler, Chron. d. Apost. Zeit. p. 131 ff.). Jose- immas, Joseph.) was the son of Aristobulus phus mentions also the concourse “ of the chief men Berenice, and grandson of Herod the Great. throughout the province’? who were present on the vas brought up at Rome with Claudius and oceasion; and though he does not notice the em- us, and after a life of various vicissitudes bassy of the Tyrians and Agrippa’s speech, yet his ph. Ant. xviii. 7), was thrown into prison by | narrative is perfectly consistent with both facts. tius for an unguarded speech, where he re-| VII. Herop Acrrppa II. CAypinmas, N. T. ied till the accession of Caius (Caligula) A. D.| Joseph.) was the son of Herod Agrippa I. and Cy- The new emperor gave him the governments pros, a grand-niece of Herod the Great. At the erly held by the tetrarchs Philip and Lysanias, | time of the death of his father, A. p. 44, he was at bestowed on him the ensigns of royalty and| Rome, and his youth (he was 17 years old) pre- ‘marks of favor (Acts xii. 1, ‘Hp. 6 BaotAevs)-| vented Claudius from carrying out his first inten- jealousy of Herod Antipas and his wife Herodias | tion of appointing him his father’s successor (Jo- excited by these distinctions, and they sailed seph. Ant. xix. 9, §§ 1, 2). Not long afterwards, ome in the hope of supplanting Agrippa in the | however, the emperor gave him (c. A. p. 50) the Tor’s favor. Agrippa was aware of their de- kingdom of Chalcis, which had belonged to his and anticipated it by a counter-charge against | uncle (who died A. pD. 48; Joseph. Ant. xx. 4, § 2; ya8 of treasonous correspondence with the! B. J. ii. 12, § 1); and then transferred him (A. p. vans. Antipas failed to answer the accusation, 52) to the tetrarchies formerly held by Philip and es eet ed BIG 1) A |) Mes yh) Sir tl Bay ges he fos. Ant. xvii. 8, § 1, Josephus calls Philip Adov adeAdds yrjovos; but elsewhere he states distinct descent. ost (Gesch. d. Judenthums, i. 420) quotes a legend Agrippa burst into tears on reading in a public e Deut xvii. 15 ; Whereupon the people cried Be not distressea, Agrippa, thou art our brother ” in virtue, that is, of his half-descent from the Has- monzeans. ¢ Jost (p. 421, &c.), who objects that these acts are inconsistent with the known humanity of Agrippa, entirely neglects the reason suggested by St. Luke (Acts xii. 3) 1054 HERODIANS Lysanias (Joseph. Ant. xx. 6, § 1; B. J. ii. 12, § 8), with the title of king (Acts xxv. 13, "Aypimmas 6 BactAeds, xxvi. 2, 7, &e.). Nero afterwards increased the dominions of Agrippa by the addition of several cities (Ant. xx. 6, § 4); and he displayed the lavish magnificence which marked his family by costly buildings at Jerusalem and Berytus, in both cases doing violence to the feelings of the Jews (Ant. xx. 7, § 11; 8, § 4). The relation in which he stood to his sister Berenice (Acts xxv. 13) was the cause of grave sus- picion (Joseph. Ant. xx. 6, § 8), which was noticed by Juvenal (Sat. vi. 155 ff). In the last Roman war Agrippa took part with the Romans, and after the fall of Jerusalem retired with Berenice to Rome, where he died in the third year of Trajan (A. D. 100), being the last prince of the house of Herod (Phot. Cod. 33). . Copper Coin of Herod Agrippa II. with Titus. Obv.: AYTOKPTITOC KAICAPCEBA. Head lau- reate to the right. Rev.: ETO KS BA ATPIDIIA (year 26). Victory advancing to the right: in the field a star. The appearance of St. Paul before Agrippa (A. D. 60) offers several characteristic traits. Agrippa seems to have been intimate with Festus (Joseph. Ant. xx. 7, § 11); and it was natural that the Ro- man governor should avail himself of his judgment on a question of what seemed to be Jewish law (Acts xxv. 18 ff., 26; cf. Joseph. Ant. xx. 8, § 7). The *¢ pomp uh (1roAAN pavracia) with which the king came into the audience chamber (Acts xxv. 23) was accordant with his general bearing; and the cold irony with which he met the impassioned words of the Apostle (Acts xxvi. 27, 28) suits the temper of one who was contented to take part in the destruction of his nation. Bees VILL. Berentce. [BpRENICE.] [X. DrusttuaA. [DRusILia.] HERO’DIANS (‘Hpwdiavol: [Herodiant]). In the account which is given by St. Matthew (xxii. 15 ff.) and St. Mark (xii. 13 ff) of the last efforts made by different sections of the Jews to obtain from our Lord himself the materials for his accusation, a party under the name of Hero- dians is represented as acting in concert with the Pharisees @ (Matt. xxii. 16; Mark xii. 13). St. HERODIANS Mark mentions the combination of the two p: for a similar object at an earlier period (Maz 6), and in another place (viii. 15; ef. Luke x he preserves a saying of our Lord, in which leaven of Herod”’ is placed in close connection “the leaven of the Pharisees’’). In the Gosy St. Luke, on the other hand, the Herodians ar brought forward at all by name. These very scanty notices of the Evangelists the position of the Herodians are not compen by other testimonies; yet it is not difficult their characteristics by a reference to the conc of Jewish feeling in the Apostolic age. ‘ were probably many who saw in the power o Herodian family the pledge of the preservati their national existence in the face of Roman bition. In proportion as they regarded the pendent nationality of the Jewish people as th condition of the fulfillment of-its future de they would be willing to acquiesce in the dom of men who were themselves of foreign de [HrrRop], and not rigid in the observance ¢ Mosaic ritual. Two distinct classes might unite in supporting what was a domestic ty as contrasted with absolute dependence on Ro those who saw in the Herods a protection as direct heathen rule, which was the one obje their fear (cf. Juchas. f. 19, ap. Lightfoot, J Ev. p. 470, ed. Leusd. “¢ Herodes etiam senen lel magno in honore habuit; namque hi ho regem illum esse non egre ferebant’’), and who were inclined ‘to look with satisfaction such a compromise between the ancient fait heathen civilization, as Herod the Great an successors had endeavored to realize, as th and highest consummation of Jewish hopes.’ the one side the Herodians — partisans of He the widest sense of the term — were thus br into union with the Pharisees, on the other the Sadducees. Yet there is no reason to st that they endeavored to form any very syste harmony of the conflicting doctrines of th sects, but rather the conflicting doctrines then were thrown into the background by what ap to be a paramount political necessity. Such tions have been frequent in every age; an rarity of the allusions to the Herodians, as am body, seems to show that this, like similar coal had no enduring influence as the foundati party. The feelings which led to the coaliti mained, but they were incapable of animatir common action of a united body for any lens time. , B. F * On the occasion mentioned in Matt. x and Mark xii. 13, the Herodians appear as supp of the claim of the Roman emperors to 1 tribute-money from the Jews. This fact. @ Origen (Comm. in Matt. tom. xvii. § 26) regards this combination of the Herodians and Pharisees as a combination of antagonistic parties, the one favorable to the Roman government (cikds yap ote év TH Aaw TOTE oi wav SiSaoKovtes TeAety TOV Popov Kaicape exadovvTo “HpwScavot vrd Tov MH OeddvTwv TOUT yiverOaL ... ) and the other opposed to it; but this view, which is only conjectural (cixds), does not offer a complete solu- tion of the various relations of the Herodians to the other parties of the times. Jerome, following Origen, limits the meaning of the term yet more: ‘ Cum He- rodianis, id est, militibus Herodis, seu quos illudentes Phariszi, quia Romanis fributa solvebant, Herodianos vocabant et non divino cultui deditos ” (Hieron. Comm. in Matt. xxii. 15). 6 In this way the Herodians were said 0” Herod (Antipas) as “the Messiah”: HPO éxeivous TOvs xpdvous Haav ot Tov “Hpwdnv Xpr Aéyovtes, ws taropetrar (Vict. Ant. ap. Cram. ¢ Marc. p. 400). Philastrius (Her. xxviii.) appl same belief to Herod Agrippa; Epiphanius (He to Herod the Great. Jerome in one place (aa xxii. 15) calls the idea ‘ta ridiculous notion 0 Latin writers, which rests on no authority (qué quam legimus);” and again (Dial. c. Lucifer. mentions it in a general summary of heretical | without hesitation. The belief was, in fact, | general sentiment, and not of distinct and pron confession. t bl HERODIAS ast with the view that they were essentially a po- tical and not a religious party, and hence in this spect stood at the very opposite pole from the harisees, for the latter denied the Roman right of yvernment and resisted all foreign innovations. It remarkable that we find two such hostile parties ting together in any instance. And especially in gard to that earlier combination (Mark iii. 6), it yes not appear from the narrative how a coalition ‘the Pharisees with the Herodians was to enable em to accomplish the death of Jesus. We can ily conjecture how this may have been. ‘The in- ience of Christ among the people in Galilee at that riod was very great, and therefore any open act -yiolence on the part of his enemies was out of e question. Means more covert must be employed. he Herodians, as the partisans of Herod, had in- lence with that ruler; and the Pharisees, in- iguing with them and fixing upon some political cusation, may have hoped to secure Herod's inter- sition in arresting and putting to death the object their malice. It is not without significance that e overture for this alliance came from the Phari- es and not from the Herodians (uer& ray ‘Hpw- wav cuuBovArov érolovy, Mark iii. 6). HH. HERO’DIAS (‘Hpwaias, a female patronymic mm “Hpwédns; on patronymics and gentilic names tas, see Matthie, Greek Gr. § 101 and 103), the me of a woman of notoriety in the N. T., dangh- : of Aristobulus, one of the sons of Mariamne d Herod the Great, and consequently sister of srippa I. She first married’ Herod, surnamed Philip, an- ner of the sons of Mariamne and the first Herod oseph. Ant. xviii. 5,§ 4; comp. B. J. i. 29, § 4), d therefore her full uncle; then she eloped from n, during his lifetime (Ant. ibid.), to marry rod Antipas, her step-uncle, who had been long utied to, and was still living with, the daughter Aineas or Aretas-——his assumed name — king Arabia (ibid. xvii. 9,§ 4). Thus she left her sband, who was still alive, to connect herself with nan Whose wife was still alive. Her paramour s indeed less of a blood relation than her original sband; but being likewise the half-brother of ut husband, he was already connected with her affinity — so close that there was only one case itemplated in the Law of Moses where it could set aside, namely, when the married brother had d childless (Lev. xviii. 16, and xx. 21, and for + exception Deut. xxv. 5 ff.). Now Herodias had eady had one child — Salome — by Philip (Ant. ii, 5, § 4), and, as he was still alive, might have 1more. Well, therefore, may she be charged by sephus with the intention of confounding her mtry’s institutions (cid. xviii. 5, § 4); and well y St. John the Baptist have remonstrated against -enormity of such a connection with the tetrarch, Ose conscience would certainly seem to have been less hardened one (Matt. xiv. 9 says he “was a LS CIR 2 a ' This town is probably Lugdunum Conyenarum, own of Gaul, situated on the right bank of the tonne, at the foot of the Pyrenees, now St. Bertrand Comminges (Murray, Handb. of France, p. 814); sebius, H. F.i. 11, says Vienne, confounding An- ts with Archelaus ; Burton on Matt. xiv. 38, Alford, { moderns in general, Lyons. In Josephus (B. J. , § 6), Antipas is said to have died in Spain — ap- ently, from the context, the land of his exile. A n on the frontiers therefore, like the above, would sfy both passages. HERODIAS 1055 sorry; ’’ Mark vi. 20 that he “ feared’? St. John; and “heard him gladly ’’). The consequences both of the crime, and of the reproof which it incurred, are well known. Aretas made war upon Herod for the injury done to his daughter, and routed him with the loss of his whole army (Ant. xviii. 5,§ 1). The head of St. John the Baptist was granted to the request of Herodias (Matt. xiv. 8-11; Mark vi. 24-28). According to Josephus the execution took place in a fortress called Macheerus, on the frontier between the do- minions of Aretas and Herod, according to Pliny (v. 15), looking down upon the Dead Sea from the south (comp. Robinson, i. 570, note). And it was to the iniquity of this act, rather than to the im- morality of that illicit connection that, the historian says, some of the Jews attributed the défeat of Herod. In the closing scene of her career, indeed, Herodias exhibited considerable magnanimity; as she preferred going with Antipas to Lugdunum,¢ and there sharing his exile and reverses, till death ended them, to the remaining with her brother Agrippa I., and partaking of his elevation (Ané. xvili. 7, § 2). There are few episodes in the whole range of the N. T. more suggestive to the commentator than this one scene in the life of Herodias. 1. It exhibits one of the most remarkable of the undesigned coincidences between the N. T. and Josephus; that there are some discrepancies in the two accounts, only enhances their value. More than this, it has led the historian into a brief di- gression upon the life, death, and character of the Baptist, which speaks volumes in favor of the genuineness of that still more celebrated passage, in which he speaks of “Jesus,” that “wise man, if man he may be called”? (Ant. xviii. 3, § 3; comp. xx. 9, § 1, unhesitatingly quoted as genuine by Euseb. H. LE. i. 11).? 2. It has been warmly debated whether it was the adultery, or the incestuous connection, that drew down the reproof of the Baptist. It has been already shown that, either way, the offense merited condemnation upon more grounds than oue. 3. The birthday feast is another undesigned coincidence between Scripture and profane history. The Jews abhorred keeping birthdays as a pagan custom (Bland on Matt. xiv. 6). On the other hand, it was usual with the Egyptians (Gen. xl. 20; comp. Joseph. Ant. xii. 4, § 7), with the Per- sians (Herod. i. 133), with the Greeks, even in the case of the dead, whence the Christian custom of keeping anniversaries of the martyrs (Biihr, ad Herod. iv. 26), and with the Romans (Pers. Sat. ii. 1-3). Now the Herods may be said to have gone beyond Rome in the observance of all that was Roman. Herod the Great kept the day of his accession; Antipas—as we read here—and Agrippa I., as Josephus tells us (Ant. xix. 7, § 1), their 6 * Tholuck has made admirable use of the argu- ment from this source in his Glaubwiirdigkeit der Evang. Geschichte, pp. 854-857. It is shown that the personal names, the places, dates, and customs, Jewish and Roman, mentioned or implied in the account of Herodias and of the beheading of John, are fully con- firmed by contemporary writers. On the question whether Josephus and the evangelists disagree in re- gard to the place where John was imprisoned, see TIBERIAS. 1056 HERODION birthday, with such magnificence, that the birth- days of Herod’’ (Herodis dies) had passed into a proverb when Persius wrote (Sat. v. 180). 4, And yet dancing, on these festive occasions, was common to both Jew and Gentile; and was practiced in the same way — youths and virgins, singly, or separated into two bands, but never in- termingled, danced to do honor to their deity, their hero, or to the day of their solemnity. Miriam (Ex. xv. 20), the daughter of Jephthah (Judges xi. 34), and David (2 Sam. vi. 14), are familiar instances in Holy Writ; the “Carmen Seculare’’ of Horace, to quote no more, points to the same custom amongst Greeks and Romans. It is plainly owing to the elevation of woman in the social scale, that dancing in pairs (still unknown to the East) has come into fashion. 5. The rash oath of Herod, like that of Jeph- thah in the O. T., has afforded ample discussion to casuists. It is now ruled that all such oaths, where there is no reservation, expressed or implied, in favor of the laws of God or man, are illicit and without force. And so Solomon had long since decided (1 K. ii. 20-24; see Sanderson, De Juram. Oblig. Preelect. iii. 16). E. S. Ff. HERO’DION (‘Hpwdtwy: Herodion), a rela- tive of St. Paul (roy avyyevh pov: cognatus), to whom he sends his salutation amongst the Chris- tians of the Roman Church (Rom. xvi. 11). Noth- ing appears to be certainly known of him. By Hippolytus, however, he is said to have been bishop of Tarsus; and by Pseudo-Dorotheus, of Patre (Winer, sub voc.). HERON (77528). The Hebrew andphah ap- pears as the name of an unclean bird in Lev. xi. 19, Deut. xiv. 18. From the addition of the words ‘after her kind,’’ we may infer that it was a gen- eric name for a well-known class of birds, and hence it is the more remarkable that the name does not occur elsewhere in the Bible. It is quite uncer- tain what bird is intended; the only point on which any two commentators seem to agree is, that it is not the heron, for many suppose the preceding word, translated in the A. V. “‘stork,’”’ to apply in reality to the heron. The LXX. translates it ya- pddpios, which may be regarded as applicable to all birds frequenting swampy ground (év xapadpais), but more particularly to the plover. This explana- tion loses what little weight it might otherwise have had, from the probability that it originated in a false reading, namely, agaphah, which the trans- lators connected with agaph, “a bank.’ The Tal- mudists evidently were at a loss, for they describe it indefinitely as a “high-flying bird of prey”’ (Chulin, 63 a). The only ground on which an opinion can be formed, is the etymology of the word; it is connected by Gesenius (Thes. p. 127) with the root anaph, “to snort in anger,’’ and is therefore applicable to some irritable bird, perhaps the goose. The parrot, swallow, and a kind of eagle have been suggested without any real reason. W. L. B. HE/SED (TDM [kindness, favor]: *Eodl; Alex. Ea: Berhesed), the son of Hesed, or Ben- Chesed, was commissary for Solomon in the district of “the Arubboth, Socoh, and all the land of Hepher ”’ (1 K. iv. 10). HESH’BON (}IDWT [prudence, under- standing]: ’EoeBav; [Rom. Vat. in Josh. xxi. 39, ’EaBdy:| Hescbon), the capital city of Sihon king tS HESHMON i of the Amorites. (Num. xxi. 26). It stood ont western border of the high plain (Mishor, Jos xiii. 17), and on the boundary-line between t tribes of Reuben and Gad. ‘The ruins of Hesb¢ 20 miles east of the Jordan, on the parallel of t northern end of the Dead Sea, mark the site, they bear the name, of the ancient Heshbon. T city is chiefly celebrated from its connection wi Sihon, who was the first to give battle to the inva ing Israelites. He marched against them to Jah: which must have been situated a short distan south of Heshbon, and was there completely oy thrown (Deut. ii. 32 ff.). Heshbon was rebuilt the tribe of Reuben (Num. xxxii. 37), but was < signed to the Levites in connection with the tri of Gad (Josh. xxi. 89). After the Captivity it f into the hands of the Moabites, to whom it h originally belonged (Num. xxi. 26), and hence is mentioned in the prophetic denunciations agait Moab (Is. xv. 4; Jer. xlviii. 2, 34, 45). In t fourth century it was still a place of some n¢ (Onom. s. v. /’sebon), but it has now been for ma centuries wholly desolate. The ruins of Heshbon stand on a low hill risi out of the great undulating plateau. They ¢ more than a mile in circuit; but not a buildi remains entire. Towards the western part is a §) gular structure, whose crumbling ruins exhibit t workmanship of successive ages—the massive stor of the Jewish period, the sculptured cornice of t Roman era, and the light Saracenic arch, all grour together. There are many cisterns among t ruins; and towards the south, a few yards from t base of the hill, is a large ancient reservoir, whi calls to mind the passage in Cant. vii. 4, “ Thi eyes are like the fish-pools of Heshbon by the g: of Bath-rabbim.” (See Burckhardt, Trav. in Sy p. 865; Irby and Mangles, p. 472.) [BATH-nA BIM. | J. Las * For a description of the ruins of Hesban, : Tristram’s Land of’ Israel, p. 544, 2d ed. Amo other monuments of the old city, he speaks of “t foundations of a forum, or public building of 1 Roman period, arranged exactly like the forum Pompeii. . . . Some portions of the walls : standing —a few tiers of worn stones; and t space is thickly strewn with piles of Doric shai capitals of columns, broken entablatures, and lat stones with the broad bevelled edge. In one edifi of which a large portion remains, near the foot the hill, Jewish stones, Roman arches, Doric pilla and Saracenic arches, are all strangely mingled. . The old wells were so numerous that we had to r with great care to avoid them.’’ Instead of “fis pools” said (A. V.) to have been at Heshbon (Cai vii. 4), we should read “pools” or ‘tank: (SDB): and, as we see above, the remains water-works of this description are still abunde there. Of all the marks of antiquity the Ar: consider none more decisive than the ruins cisterns or reservoirs (Wetzstein’s Retsebert iiber Hauran, etc., p. 86). H. HESH’MON (VWowr) [thriving, fruity ness}: LXX. omits, both MSS.; [Comp. A "Aceudv:| Hassemon), a place named, with othe as lying between Moladah and Beer-sheba (Josh. : 27), and therefore in the extreme south of Jud: Nothing further is known of it; but may it! be another form of the name AzZMon, given Num. xxxiv. 4 as one of the landmarks of | southern boundary of Judah? G. - HESRON . HEZEKIAH 1057 r Masia . | Geogr. Sacr. p. 920; see Keil on 2 K. xviii. a HES’RON (77 An [enclosed, as by a wall]: Knobel, Jes. 22, &ec.); but, if any change be de~ Agowv; Alex. Aopwyu: Hesron). Hxzron, the sirable, it is better to suppose that Ahuz was 25 wn of Reuben (Num. xxvi. 6, [21]). Our trans- and not 20 years old at his accession (LXX. Syr ators followed the Vulg. in adopting this form of ‘ he name. [In many modern editions of the A.| Arab. 2 Chr. xxviii. 1), reading TTD for D in 2 V. however, it is spelt Hezron. A.]} W. A.W. | K. xvi. 2. 2 335 ; Hezekiah was one of the three most perfect kings HES'RONITES, THE QS: 6] 54 (2 K. xviii. 5; Ecclus. xlix. 4). His Acpwvl; [Vat.] Alex. 0 Agpwrve: Hesronite). fi 1a tl rR first act was to purge, and repair, and reopen with ao 0 eee OOF eu splendid sacrifices and perfect ceremonial, the Tem- en (Num. xxvi. 6). [In many modern editions : : ple which had been despoiled and neglected during f the A. V. the word is spelt Actes yeni the careless and idolatrous reign of his father, This consecration was accompanied by a revival of HETH (517, «. e¢. Cheth (terror, giant]: the theocratic spirit, so strict as not even to spare cér: Heth), the forefather of the nation of rue |“ the high places,” which, although tolerated by iirrires. In the genealogical tables of Gen. x. many well-intentioned kings, had naturally been nd 1 Chr. i., Heth is stated as a son of Canaan, | profaned by the worship of images and Asherahs ounger than Zidon the firstborn, but preceding (2 K. xviii. 4). On the extreme importance and he Jebusite, the Amorite, and the other Canaanite | probable consequences of this measure, see HIGH milies. Heth and Zidon alone are named as|PLACEs. A still more decisive act was the de - ersons; all the rest figure as tribes (Gen. x. 15;| Struction of a brazen serpent, said to have been Chr. i. 13; LXX. roy Xerrutov: [Vulg. Heth-| the one used by Moses in the miraculous healing um ;] and so Josephus, Ant. i. 6, § 2). of the Israelites (Num. xxi. 9), which had been The Hittites were therefore a Hamite race, | removed to Jerusalem, and had become, “ down to either of the “country” nor the “ kindred” of those days,” an object of adoration, partly in con- braham and Isaac (Gen. xxiv. 3, 4; xxviii. 1, 2), | Sequence of its venerable character as a relic, and 1 the earliest historical mention of the nation — partly perhaps from some dim tendencies to the e beautiful narrative of Abraham’s purchase of | Ophiolatry common in ancient times (Ewald, Gesch. le cave of Machpelah — they are styled, not Hit- iii. 622). To break up a figure so curious and go tes, but Bene-Cheth (A. V. “sons, and children | highly honored showed a strong mind, as well as a Heth,” Gen. xxiii. 3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 18, 20; xxv. | clear-sighted zeal, and Hezekiah briefly justified his ); xlix. 32). Once we hear of « daughters of eth” (xxvii. 46), the “daughters of the land; ” Oat oe eee TTT, Heinen ! . ; Ss 9 : ’ ” sh 4 that early period still called, after their less im-|“" supe, .P Sssibly with a contemptuous play on ediate progenitor, « daughters of Canaan” (xxviii. | the word wri, ‘a serpent.” How necessary this 8, compared with xxvii. 46, and xxvi. 34, 35). was in such times may be inferred from the fact In the Egyptian monuments the name Chat is| that “the brazen serpent’ is, or was, reverenced id to stand for Palestine (Bunsen, A gypten,|in the Church of St. Ambrose at Milan (Prideaux, loted by Ewald, Gesch. i. 317, note). G. Connect. i. 19, Oxf. ed.).¢ When the kingdom of : , | Israel had fallen, Hezekiah extended his pious en- HETH’LON C) ela pit the way of deavors to Ephraim and Manasseh, and by inviting ethlon [%. e. of the lurking-place or strong- the scattered inhabitants to a peculiar Passover id |: [LXX. translate the name: 1 ethalon}), the | kindled their indignation also against the idolatrous me of a place on: the northern border of the | practices which still continued among them. This romised land.”? _It is mentioned only twice in| Passover was, from the necessities of the case, cel- ripture (Ez. xlvii. 15, xlviii. 1). In all prob-| erated at an unusual, though not illegal (Num. lity the “ way of Hethlon” is the pass at the | jx, 10, 11) time, and by an excess of Levitical zeal, tthern end of Lebanon, from the sea-coast of the di , it was continued for the unprecedented period of iterranean to the great plain of Hamath, and | fourteen days. For these latter facts the Chronicler thus identical with the entrance of Hamath ” 7 : I : I (2 Chr. xxix., xxx., XXxl.) is our sole authority, and UM. XXXIV. 8, &c. (See Five Years in Da- he characteristically narrates them at great length. SCUS, li. 356.) J. Lin? It would appear at first sight that this Passover HEZEKI Qtr, 2. e. Hizki, a short form of | was celebrated immediately after the purification of zkiah, strength 0 jf ek nwah 2 Hezekiah 14 canis the Temple (see Prideaux, /. c.), but careful con- at. A Carer: ] Hezeci), a man in the genealogies sideration makes it almost certain that it could not Benjamin, one of the Bene-Elpaal [sons of E.], have taken place before the sixth year of Hezekiah’s escendant of Shaaraim (1 Chr. viii. 17). reign, when the fall of Samaria had stricken re- HEZEKVAH (TANI, generally WITT, morseful terror into the heart of Israel (2 Chr. xxxi. 1, xxx. 6, 9, and Keil on 2 K. xviii. 3). eo oe vith initial» — arvarzerTs |, By.a rare and happy providence the most pious mae oS 3 X. and Joseph. *§ Cenlas: Ezechias ; = sirengih of kings was confirmed in his faithfulness, anc chovah, comp. Germ. Gotthard, Ges.), twelfth 3 of Judah, son of the apostate Ahaz and Abi seconded in his endeavors by the powerful assist- ance of the noblest and most eloquent of prophets. Abijah), ascended the throne at the age of 25 %. 726. Since, however, Ahaz died at the age The influence of Isaiah was, however, not gained 6, some prefer to make Hezekiah only 20 years without a struggle with the “ scornful’? remnant of the former royal counsellors (Is. xxviii. 14), who at his accession (reading > for TD), as other- he must have been born when Ahaz was a boy in all probability recommended to the king such Ea ee ee ee ee Fels ls @ “Un serpent de bronze qui selon une croyance 1 years old. This, indeed, is not impossible ron Ep. ad Vitalem, 132, quoted by Bochart, 67 populaire serait celui que leva Moise, et qui dort siffler a la fin dv. monde.” (Itin. de VItane, p 117.) 1058 HEZEKIAH alliances and con.promises as would be in unison rather with the dictates of political expediency, than with that sole unhesitating trust in the arm of Jehovah which the prophets inculeated. The lead- ing man of this cabinet was Shebna, who, from the omission of his father’s name, and the expression in Is. xxii. 16 (see Blunt, Undes. Coincidences), was probably a foreigner, perhaps a Syrian (Hitzig). At the instance of Isaiah, he seems to have been subsequently degraded from the high post of. pre- fect of the palace (which office was given to Elia- kim, Is. xxii. 21), to the inferior, though still honorable, station of state-secretary (MHD, 2 K. xviii. 18); the further punishment of exile with which Isaiah had threatened him (xxii. 18) being possibly forgiven on his amendment, of which we have some traces in Is. xxxvii. 2 ff. (Ewald, Gesch. iii. 617). At the head of a repentant and united people, Hezekiah ventured to assume the aggressive against the Philistines, and in a series of victories not only rewon the cities which his father had lost (2 Chr. xxviii. 18), but even dispossessed them of their own cities except Gaza (2 K. xviii. 8) and Gath (Joseph. Ant. ix. 13, § 3). It was perhaps to the purposes of this war that he applied the money which would otherwise have been used to pay the tribute exacted by Shalmanezer, according to the agreement of Ahaz with his predecessor, Tiglath Pileser. When, after the capture of Samaria, the king of Assyria applied for this impost, Hezekiah refused it, and in open rebellion omitted to send even the usual pres- ents (2 K. xviii. 7), a line of conduct to which he was doubtless encouraged by the splendid exhorta- tion of his prophetic guide. Instant war was averted by the heroic and long- continued resistance of the Tyrians under their king Eluleus (Joseph. Ant. ix. 14), against a siege, which was abandoned only in the fifth year (Grote, Greece, iii. 359, 4th ed.), when it was found to be impracticable. This must have been a critical and intensely anxious period for Jerusalem, and Heze- kiah used every available means to strengthen his position, and render his capital impregnable (2 K. xx. 20; 2 Chr. xxxii. 8-5, 30; Is. xxii. 8-11, xxxiii. 18; and to these events Ewald also refers Ps. xlviii. 13). But while all Judeea trembled with anticipa- tion of Assyrian invasion, and while Shebna and others were relying “in the shadow of Egypt,”’ Isaiah’s brave heart did not fail, and he even de- nounced the wrath of God against the proud and sinful merchant-city (Is. xxiii.), which now seemed to be the main bulwark of Judeea against immediate attack. It was probably during the siege of Samaria that Shalmanezer died, and was succeeded by Sargon, who, jealous of Egyptian influence in Judea, sent an army under a Tartan or general (Is. xx. 1), which penetrated Egypt (Nah. iii. 8-10) and destroyed No-Amon; although it is clear from Hezekiah’s rebellion (2 K. xviii. 7) that it can have produced but little permanent impression. Sargon, in the tenth year of his reign (which is the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah), made an expedition to Palestine; but his annals make no mention of any conquests from Hezekiah on this occasion, and he seems to have occupied himself in the siege of Ashdod (Is. xx. 1), and in the inspection of mines (Rosenmiiller, Bibl. Geogr. ix.). This must there- fore be the expedition alluded to in 2 K. xviii. 13; Is. xxxvi. 1; an expedition which is merely alluded HEZEKIAH ‘J to, as it led to no result. But if the Scripture r: rative is to be reconciled with the records of Ass ian history it seems necessary to make a transpe tion in the text of Isaiah (and therefore of the be of Kings). That some such expedient must resorted to, if the Assyrian history is trustwort is maintained by Dr. Hincks in a paper On rectification of Chronology, which the newly- covered Apis-steles render necessary. ‘+ The tex he says, ‘as it originally stood, was probably this effect: 2 K. xviii. 18. Now in the fourtee year of king Hezekiah the king of Assyria ca up {alluding to the attack mentioned in Sarge Annals]; xx. 1-19. In those days was king He kiah sick unto death, etc., xviii. 18. And § nacherib, king of Assyria, came up against all fenced cities of Judah, and took them, ete., x 13, xix. 87” (Dr. Hincks, in Journ. of Sacer, . Oct. 1858). Perhaps some later transcriber, unaw of the earlier and unimportant invasion, confu the allusion to Sargon in 2 K. xviii, 18 with detailed story of Sennacherib’s attack (2 K.x 14 to xix. 87), and, considering that the acco of Hezekiah’s illness broke the continuity of narrative, remoyed it to the end. According to this scheme, Hezekiah’s danger illness (2 K. xx.; Is. xxxviii.; 2 Chr. xxxil. nearly synchronized with Sargon’s futile inyas in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign, ele years hefore Sennacherib’s invasion. ‘That it n have preceded the attack of Sennacherib is ne obvious from the promise in 2 K. xx. 6, as wel from modern discoveries (Layard, Nin. and Ba 145); and such is the view adopted by the Ra (Seder Olam, cap. xxiii.), Ussher, and by most ¢ mentators, except Vitringa and Gesenius (Keil loc.; Prideaux, i. 22). There seems to be ground whatever for the vague conjecture 0 | fidently advanced (Winer, s. v. Hiskias; J Hebr. Common. § xli.) that the king’s illness the same plague which had destroyed the Assy army. The word pw is not elsewhere apy to the plague, but to carbuncles and inflamma ulcers (Ex. ix. 9; Job ii. 7, &e.). Hezekiah, w kingdom was in a dangerous crisis, who had at time no heir (for Manasseh was not born till afterwards, 2 K. xxi. 1), and who regarded 4 as the end of existence (Is. xxxviii.), “turned face to the wall and wept sore’’ at the threat approach of dissolution. God had compassio his anguish, and heard his prayer. Isaiah hardly left the palace when he was ordere promise the king immediate recovery, and a: lease of life, ratifying the promise by a sign, curing the boil by a plaster of figs, which were used medicinally in similar cases (Ges. The 311; Celsius, Hierobot. ii. 377; Bartholinus Morbis Biblicis, x. 47). What was the exact nm of the disease we cannot say; according to M it was fever terminating in abscess. For account of the retrogression of the shadow 01 sundial of Ahaz, see DraL. On this remar passage we must be content to refer the read Carpzov, App. Crit. p. 851 ff.; Winer, 8. ¥- vet and Uhren; Rawlinson, Herod. ii. 382 i elaborate notes of Keil on 2 K. xx.; Rosenm and Gesenius on Is. xxxviii., and especially E Gesch. iii. 638. : Various ambassadors came with letters and ito congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery (2 xxxii. 23), and among them an embassy from | e HEZEKIAH lach-Baladan (or Berodach, 2 K. xx. 12; § Bdy- das, Joseph. /. c.), the viceroy of Babylon, the Jardokempados of Ptolemy’s canon. The osten- ible object of this mission was to compliment Heze- jah on his convalescence (2 K. xx. 12; Is. xxxix. ), and “to inyuire of the wonder that was done 1 the land’’ (2 Chr. xxxii. 31), a rumor of which ould not fail to interest a people devoted to astrol- ey. But its real purpose was to discover how far n alliance between the two powers was possible or esirable, for Mardokempados, no less than Heze- lah, was in apprehension of the Assyrians. In ct Sargon expelled him from the throne of Baby- nm in the following year (the 16th of Hezekiah), though after a time he seems to have returned id reéstablished himself for six months, at the end which he was murdered by Belibos (Dr. Hincks, e.; Rosenmiiller, Bibl. Geogr. ch. viii.; Layard, im and Bab. i. 141). Community of interest ade Hezekiah receive the overtures of Babylon ith unconcealed gratification; and, perhaps, to hance the opinion of his own importance as an y, he displayed to the messengers the princely sasures which he and his predecessors had ac- mulated. ‘The mention of such rich stores is an ditional argument for supposing these events to ve happened before Sennacherib’s invasion (see 2 XViil. 14-16), although they are related after am in the Scripture historians. If ostentation re his motive it received a terrible rebuke, and was informed by Isaiah that from the then tot- ing and subordinate province of Babylon, and t from the mighty Assyria, would come the ruin | captivity of Judah (Is. xxix. 5). This prophecy 1 the one of Micah (Mic. iy. 10) are the earliest inition of the locality of that hostile power, where clouds of exile so long threatened (Lev. xxvi. ; Deut. iv. 27, xxx. 3) were beginning to gather. is an impressive and fearful circumstance that moment of exultation was chosen as the oppor- ity for warning, and that the prophecies of the yrian deliverance are set side by side with those he Babylonish Captivity (Davidson On Prophecy, 256). The weak friend was to accomplish that ch was impossible to the powerful foe. But, ough pride was the sin thus vehemently checked the prophet, Isaiah was certainly not blind to political motives (Joseph. Ant. x. 2, § 2), which le Hezekiah so complaisant to the Babylonian assadors. Into those motives he had inquired ain, for the king met that portion of his ques- (“What said these men? ”) by emphatic ice. Hezekiah’s meek answer to the stern de- ciation of future woe has been most unjustly ured as “a false resignation which combines shness with silliness ” (Newman, Hebr. Mon. 74). On the contrary it merely implies a con- on that God’s decree could not be otherwise Just and right, and a natural thankfulness for : oy suspension of its inevitable ful- ent. irgon was succeeded (B. c. 702) by his son lacherib, whose two invasions occupy the greater of the Scripture records concerning the reign ezekiah. The first of these took place in the i year of Sennacherib (x. c. 700), and occupies three verses (2 K. xviii. 13-16), though the of the advancing Assyrians may be traced in 5, xi. The rumor of the invasion redoubled kiah’s exertions, and he prepared for a siege viding offensive and defensive armor, stopping de wells, and diverting the watercourses, con- HEZEKIAH 105$ ducting the water of Gihon into the city by a sub- terranean canal (Ecclus. xlviii. 17. For a similar precaution taken by the Mohammedans, see Will. Tyr. viii. 7, Keil). But the main hope of the political faction was the alliance with Egypt, and they seem to have sought it by presents and private entreaties (Is. xxx. 6), especially with a view to obtaining chariots and cavalry (Is. xxxi. 1-3), which was the weakest arm of the Jewish service, as we see from the derision which it excited (2 K. xviii. 23). Such overtures kindled Isaiah’s indignation, and Shebna may have lost his high office by recom- mending them. The prophet clearly saw that Egypt was too weak and faithless to be serviceable, and the applications to Pharaoh (who is compared by Rabshakeh to one of the weak reeds of his own river), implied a want of trust in the help of God. But Isaiah did not disapprove of the spontaneously proffered assistance of the tall and warlike Ethio- pians (Is. xviii. 2, 7, acc. to Ewald’s trans.); be- cause he may have regarded it as a providential aid. The account given of this first invasion in the Annals of Sennacherib is that he attacked Heze- kiah, because the Ekronites had sent. their king Padiya (or “ Haddiya”’ ace. to Col. Rawlinson) as a prisoner to Jerusalem (cf. 2 K. xviii. 8); that he took forty-six cities (“all the fenced cities” in 2 K. xviii. 13 is apparently a general expression, ef. xix. 8) and 200,000 prisoners; that he besieged Jerusalem with mounds (ef. 2 K. xix. 32); and although Hezekiah promised to pay 800 talents of silver (of which perhaps 300 only were ever paid) and 30 of gold (2 K. xviii. 14; but see Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 145), yet not content with this he muleted him of a part of his dominions, and gave them to the kings of Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza (Rawlinson, Herod. i. 475 ff). So important was this expedition that Demetrius, the Jewish his- torian, even attributes to Sennacherib the Great Captivity (Clem. Alex. Strom. p. 146, ed. Sylb.). In almost every particular this account agrees with the notice in Scripture, and we may see a reason for so great a sacrifice on the part of Hezekiah in the glimpse which Isaiah gives us of his capital city driven by desperation into licentious and impious mirth (xxii. 12-14). This campaign must at least have had the one good result of proving the worth- lessness of the Egyptian alliance; for at a place called Altagti (the Eltekon of Josh. xv. 59?) Sen- nacherib inflicted an overwhelming defeat on the combined forces of Egypt and Ethiopia, which had come to the assistance of Ekron. But Isaiah re- garded the purchased treaty as a cowardly defection, and the sight of his fellow-citizens gazing peacefully from the house-tops on the bright array of the car- borne and quivered Assyrians, filled him with in- dignation and despair (Is. xxii. 1-7, if the latest explanations of this chapter be correct). Hezekiah’s bribe (or fine) brought a temporary release, for the Assyrians marched into Egypt, where, if Herodotus (ii. 141) and Josephus (Ant. x. 1-3) are to be trusted, they advanced without resistance to Pelusium, owing to the hatred of the warrior-caste against Sethos the king-priest of Pthah, who had, in his priestly predilections, inter- fered with their prerogatives. In spite of this advantage, Sennacherib was forced to racse the siege of Pelusium, by the advance 0! Tirhakah or Tarakos, the ally of Sethos and Hezekiah, who afterwards united the crowns of Egypt and Ethiopia. This magnificent Ethiopian hero, who had extended a a 1060 HEZEKIAH HEZEKIAH alarmed by a “rumor” of Tirhakah's advanee { avenge the defeat at Altagi?), he was forced relinqnish once more his immediate designs, a content himself with a defiant letter to Hezekic Whether on this occasion he encountered and ¢ feated the Ethiopians (as Prideaux precariou: infers from Is. xx. Conmect. i. p. 26), or not, cannot tell. The next event of the campaign, abc which we are informed, is that the Jewish ki with simple piety prayed to God with Sennacheri letter outspread before him (cf. 1 Mace. iii. 4 and received a prophecy of immediate deliveran Accordingly “that night the Angel of the L went out and smote in the camp of the Assyri: 185,000 men.” There is no doubt that some secondary cause 1 employed in the accomplishment of this eye We are certainly “ not to suppose,’’ as Dr. John observed, “ that the angel went about with a sw in his hand stabbing them one by one, but t some powerful natural agent was employed.” 1 Babylonish Talmud and some of the Targums tribute it to storms of lightning (Vitringa, Vo: ete.); Prideaux, Heine (de causd Strag. Assy and Faber to the Simoon; R. Jose, Ussher, Preiss causa clad. Assyr.), etc., ete., to a nocturnal att by Tirhakah; Paulus to a poisoning of the wat and finally Josephus, followed by an immense 1 jority of ancient and modern commentators, inel ing even Keil, to the Pestilence. ‘This would | cause not only adequate (Justin, xix. 11; Dio xix. p. 434: see the other instances quoted by senmiiller, Winer, Keil, Jahn, etc.), but most pi able in itself from the crowded and terrified s of the camp. There is therefore no necessit; adopt the ingenious cenjectures by which Dé lein, Koppe, and Wessler endeavor to get rid of large number 185,000.¢ After this reverse Sennacherib fled precipita to Nineveh, where he revenged himself on as Jews as were in his power (Tob. i. 18), and < many years (not fifty-five days, as Tobit say: 21), was murdered by two of his sons as he di himself drunk in the house of Nisroch (Assarz his god. He certainly lived till B. c. 680, for 22d year is mentioned on a clay tablet (Rawlin l. c.); he must therefore have survived Hezel by some seventeen years. It is probable that eral of the Psalms (e. g. xlvi.—xlviii., Ixxyi.) al to his discomfiture. Hezekiah only lived to enjoy for about one more his well-earned peace and glory. He § with his fathers after a reign of twenty-nine yt in the 56th year of his age (B. c. 697), and buried with great honor and universal moun “in the chiefest of the sepulchres (or ‘the ! leading up to the sepulchres,’ éy dvaBdoe: 44 LXX., because, as Thenius conjectures, the ac sepulchres were full) of the sons of David” (2! xxxii. 33). He had found time for many work peace in the noble and almost blameless cours his troubled life, and to his pious labors we ar a seven months at Cairo (Gesenius, ad loc.). tm be accompanied by a stotm. So Vitringa under: it, and this would best suit the words in Is. Xxx. (History of the Jewish Church, ii. 580). A muti account of this wonder was current among the } tians. They ascribed it, as a matter of cours their own divinities, but unquestionably had in the same occurrence (seo Rawlinson, Herod. ii. i his conquests to the pillars of Hercules (Strab. xv. 472), was indeed a formidable antagonist. His deeds are recorded in a temple at Medineet Haboo, but the jealousy of the Memphites (Wilkinson, Ane. Egypt. i. 141) concealed his assistance, and attrib- uted the deliverance of Sethos to the miraculous interposition of an army of mice (Herod. ii. 141). This story may have had its source, however, not in jealousy, but in the use of a mouse as the em- blem of destruction (Horapoll. Hierogl. i. 50; Raw- linson, Herod. ad loc.), and of some sort of disease or plague (? 1 Sam. vi. 18; Jahn, Arch. Bibl. § 185). The legend doubtless gained ground from the extraordinary circumstances which afterwards ruined the army of Sennacherib. We say a/ter- wards, because, however much the details of the two occurrences may have been confused, we can- not agree with the majority of writers (Prideaux, Bochart, Michaelis, Jahn, Keil, Newman, etc.) in identifying the flight of Sennacherib from Pelusium with the event described in 2 K. xix. We prefer to follow Josephus in making them allude to dis- tinct events. Returning from his futile expedition (@mpakros avexdpnoe, Joseph. Ant. x. 1, § 4), Sennacherib “ dealt treacherously ”’ with Hezekiah (Is. xxxiii. 1) by attacking the stronghold of Lachish. This was the commencement of that second invasion, respect- ing which we have such full details in 2 K. xviii. 17 ff; 2 Chr. xxxii. 9 ffi; Is. xxxvi. That there were two invasions (contrary to the opinion of Layard, Bosanquet, Vance Smith, etc.) is clearly proved by the details of the first given in the Assyrian annals (see Rawlinson, Herod. i. p. 477). Although the annals of Sennacherib on the great cylinder in the Brit. Museum reach to the end of his eighth year, and this second invasion belongs to his fifth year (B. Cc. 698, the twenty-eighth year of Hezekiah), yet no allusion to it has been found. So shameful a disaster was naturally concealed by national vanity. From Lachish he sent against Jerusalem an army under two officers and his cup- bearer the orator Rabshakeh, with a blasphemous and insulting summons to surrender, deriding Heze- kiah’s hopes of Egyptian succor, and apparently endeavoring to inspire the people with distrust. of his religious innovations (2 K. xviii. 22, 25, 30). The reiteration and peculiarity of the latter argu- ment, together with Rabshakeh’s fluent mastery of Hebrew (which he used to terapt the people from their allegiance by a glowing promise, v. 31, 382), give countenance to the supposition that he was an apostate Jew. Hezekiah’s ministers were thrown into anguish and dismay; but the undaunted Tsaiah hurled back threatening for threatening with un- rivaled eloquence and force. He even prophesied that the fires of Tophet were already burning in expectancy of the Assyrian corpses which were destined to feed their flame. Meanwhile Sen- nacherib, having taken Lachish (an event possibly depicted on a series of slabs at Mosul, Layard, NV. and B. 148-152), was besieging Libnah, when, Pieris Ur asi Aye Ue ee ee a *Stanley’s note may be cited here: “By what special means this great destruction was effected, with how large or small a remnant Sennacherib returned, is not told. It might be a pestilential blast (Is. XXXvVii. 7; Joseph. Ant. x. 1, § 5), according to the analogy by which a pestilence is usually described in Scripture under the image of a destroying angel (Ps. xxviii. 49 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 16); and the numbers are not greater than are reecrded as perishing within very short periods — 150,000 Carthaginians in Sicily, 500,000 in a . HEZEKIAH HEZEKIAH 1061 debied for at least one portion of the present canon (Prov. xxv. 1; Ecclus. xlviii. 17 ff). He can have yo finer panegyric than the words of the son of Sirach, “even the kings of Judah failed, for they forsook the law of the Most High; all except Da- vid, and Ezekias, and Judas failed.’ Besides the many authors and commentators who have written on this period of Jewish history (on which much light has been recently thrown by Mr. Layard, Sir G. Wilkinson, Sir. H. Rawlinson, Dr. Hincks, and other scholars who have studied the Nineveh remains), see for continuous lives of Hezekiah, Josephus (Ant. ix. 13-x. 2), Prideaux (Connect. i. 16-30), Jahn (Hebr. Comm. § xli.), Winer (s. v. Hisktas), and Ewald (Gesch. iii. 614- 644, 2d ed.). Ra Warca" * Dean Stanley devotes a long lecture (History of the Jewish Church, ii. 505-540) to the character of Hezekiah, and the events with which he was connected. “The reign of Hezekiah is the cul- inating point of interest in the history of the kings of Judah.”’ Yet the interest of his personal history is mainly that which arises from the con- emplation of his example as one of faith and piety, und of the wonderful deliverances vouchsafed to the nation for his sake, though both these and his ear- uest efforts for the reformation of the people served mnly to delay, but not to avert the hastening ruin f the commonwealth. The sketch drawn by Mr. stanley of Hezekiah’s repairing to the temple with she defiant letter of Sennacherib, to spread it before Jehovah and to implore his help, brings out the nonarch’s character at that. most critical juncture n its best light. - The Assyrian conqueror had sent rom Lachish, demanding the submission of Heze- jah and the surrender of Jerusalem into the hands f his general. On hearing this summons, Eli- kim, Shebna, and Joah, Hezekiah’s three highest fficers, “tore their garments in horror, and ap- eared in that state before the king. He, too, gave yay to the same uncontrolled burst of grief. He nd they both dressed themselves in sackcloth, and he king took refuge in the Temple. The minis- ers went to seek comfort from Isaiah. The in- ulting embassy returned to Sennacherib. The rmy was moved from Lachish and lay in frent of he fortress of Libnah. A letter couched in terms ke those already used by his envoys, was sent irect from the king of Assyria to the king of Ju- ah. What would be their fate if they were taken, ley might know from the fate of Lachish, which e still see on the sculptured monuments, where 1e inhabitants are lying before the king, stripped 1 order to be flayed alive. Hezekiah took the ter, and penetrating, as it would seem, into the lost Holy Place, laid it before the Divine Presence ithroned above the cherubs, and called upon him hose name it insulted, to look down and see with is own eyes the outrage that was offered to him. rom that dark recess no direct answer was vouch- fed. The answer came through the mouth of jaiah. From the first moment that Sennacherib’s ‘my had appeared, he had held the same language ‘ unbroken hope and confidence, clothed in every iety of imagery. . . . It was a day of awful ispense. In proportion to the strength of Isaiah’s mfidence and of Hezekiah’s devotion, would have en the ruin of the Jewish church and faith, if ey had been disappointed of their hope. It was day of suspense also for the two great armies aich were drawing near to their encounter on the nfines of Palestine. Like Anianus in the siege of Orleans, Hezekiah must have looked southward and westward with ever keener and keener eager- ness. For already there was a rumor that Tirha- kah, the king of Egypt, was on his way to the rescue Already Sennacherib had heard the rumor, and it was this which precipitated his endeavor to in- timidate Jerusalem into submission. The evening closed in on what seemed to be the devoted city. The morning dawned, and with the morning came the tidings from the camp at Libnah, that they were delivered. ‘It came to pass that night (2 K. xix. 35) that the Angel of Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand.’ . .. The As- syrian king at once returned, and, according to the Jewish tradition, wreaked his vengeance on the Israelite exiles whom he found in Mesopotamia. He was the last of the great Assyrian conquerors. No Assyrian host again ever crossed the Jordan. Within a few years from that time ... the As- syrian power suddenly vanished from the earth.” It was in all probability at the time of Sen- nacherib’s first invasion of Palestine that Hezekiah purchased his exemption from subjection to the Assyrian yoke by the payment of a fine. If the Assyrian inscriptions are rightly interpreted, they furnish an important confirmation of the Biblical account of this expedition, and of its results as re- gards Hezekiah and the Jews. The boastful record on one of the cylinders is said to read as follows: “*And because Hezekiah, king of Judah,’ says Sennacherib, ‘would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power, I took forty-six of his strong Jenced cities ; and of the smaller towns which were scattered about, I took and plundered a countless number. And from these places I captured and car- ried off as spoil two hundred thousand one hundred and fifty people, old and young, male and female, together with horses and mares, asses and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless multitude. And Heze- kiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates, so as to prevent escape. . . . Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver, and divers treasures, a rich and imhmense booty. (See 2 K. xviii. 13-165) ile. All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government, Hezekiah having sent them by way of tribute, and as a token of his sub- mission to my power.’”” (See Rawlinson’s Bamp- ton Lectures for 1859, p. 316 f., Amer. ed.) Dean Milman also calls attention to this coincidence (History of the Jews, i. 427, Amer. ed.). The chronological order of some of the events in Hezekiah’s life is not easily adjusted. The events are related in different books (Kings, Chron- icles, Micah, Isaiah), and not with many notations of time. M. von Niebuhr treats of some of the questions relating to the synchronism of Hezekiah’s history with that of the Babylonians and Egyp- tians (Geschichte Assur’s u. Babel's, pp. 71, 76, 88, 100 f., 179). For valuable articles on Heze- kiah, see Winer’s Bibl. Realw. i. 496-499; Her- zog’s fteal-Encyk. vi. 151-157; and Zeller’s Bibl. Worterb. i. 612-615, 2te Aufl. For information on related subjects, the reader is referred in this Dictionary to DraL; IsAtAn; SarGon; SEN- NACHERIB; LACHISH; and MICAH. H. 1062 HEZION 2. PECexia.] Son of Neariah, one of. the de- acendants of the royal family of Judah (1 Chr. iii. 23). 3. [Hzecias; ed. 1590, -chias.] The same name, though rendered in the A. V. H1zK1AH, is ‘found in Zeph. i. 1. 4. ArrR-oF-HEZEKIAH. [ATER.] F. W. F. HE’ZION (JIT [sight, vision]: °Acly; [Vat. A¢ew;] Alex. A€ana: Hezion), a king of Aram (Syria), father of Tabrimon, and grandfather of Benhadad I. He and his father are mentioned only in 1 K. xy. 18, and their names are omitted by Josephus. In the absence of all information, the natural suggestion is that he is identical with REzoN, the contemporary of Solomon, in 1 K. xi. 23; the two names being very similar in Hebrew, and still more so in other versions (compare Arab. and Peshito on the latter passage); and indeed this conclusion has been adopted by some translators and commentators (Junius, Kchler, Dathe, Ewald). Against it are (a), that the number of generations of the Syrian kings would then be one less than those of the contemporary kings of Judah. But then the reign of Abijam was only three years, and in fact Jeroboam outlived both Rehoboam and his son, (.) The statement of Nicolaus of Damascus (Joseph. Ant. vii. 5, § 2), that from the time of David for ten generations the kings of Syria were one dynasty, each king taking the name of Hadad, “as did the Ptolemies in Egypt.’? But this would exclude, not only Hezion and Tabrimon, but Rezon, unless we may interpret the last sentence to mean that the otticial title of Hadad was held in addition to the ordinary name of the king. [Rezon; Tap- RIMON. | HE’ZIR (WT [swine]: xiv; [Vat. Xn- Gerv;] Alex. IeCerp; [Comp. Xn(etp: Hezir]). 1. A priest in the time of David, leader of the 17th monthly course in the service (1 Chr. xxiv. 15). 2. PHCip ; Vat. Alex. FA. Hep: Hazir.| One of the heads of the people (laymen) who sealed the solemn covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 20). HEZRAI [2 syl.] CIET [= JNM, Hez- ron, which see], according to the Keri of the Ma- sorets, but the original reading of the text, Cetib, has ST1=Hezro: *Acapat; [Alex. Acapat:] Hesrat), a native of Carmel, perhaps of the south- ern one, and in that case possibly once a slave or adherent of Nabal; one of the 30 heroes of David’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 85). In the parallel list the name appears as — HEZRO (723F [see infra]: "Hoepé; Alex. Acapa; [Ald.’Acpat: Comp. ’Egpi:] Hesro), in 1 Chr. xi. 37. Kennicott, however (Dissertation, pp- 207, 208), decides, on the almost unanimous authority of the ancient versions, that Hetzrai is the original form of the name. HEZRON (Ent [blooming, Fiirst; but walled, as a garden, Ges.]: ’"Acpév; [Alex. in Num., Acpwu:] Hesron). 1. A son of Reuben (Gen. xlvi. 9; Ex. vi. 14), who founded the family of the Hezronites (Num. xxvi. 6). 2. A son of Pharez, and one of the direct an- eestors of David (Gen. xlvi. 12; Ruth iv. 18); in LXX. ’Eopey (once var. lect. Grab. "Agpdy), and "Eopéu, which is followed in Matt. i. 3. [Vat. in Ruth, Eopov; in 1 Chr. ii. 9; 18, 21, 25, Eoepwv; li, 5, iv. 1, Apowy: Vulg. Hesron, in Ruth Lsron.] T. E. B. HIEL HEZRONITES, THE (2727: 6'a pwrt [Vat. -ve.]: Hesronite). A branch of ¢ tribe of Judah, descendants of Hezron, the gon ¢ Pharez (Num. xxvi. 21). [In the A. V. ed. 161 the word is spelt Hesronites. —A.] W. A. W. -HID’DAI [2 syl.] Qa [mighty chief” Alex. A@@a:; [Comp. "Hdai; Ald. Odpt;] Va omits: Heddat), one of the thirty-seven heroes ¢ David’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 30), described as “¢ the torrents of Gaash.’’ Jn the parallel list of Chr. (xi. 32) the name is given as Hurar. Ke nicott (Dissert. p. 194) decides in favor of “ Hurai on grounds for which the reader must be referre to his work. oece gris), one of the rivers of Eden, the river whic ‘‘goeth eastward to Assyria” (Gen. ii. 14), an which Daniel calls “the Great river’’ (Dan. x. 4 seems to have been rightly identified by the LX) with the Tigris. It is difficult to account for tl initial TT, unless it be for TJ, “lively,” which used of running water in Gen. xxvi. 19. Dek (997) is clearly an equivalent of Digla or Diglat a name borne by the Tigris in all ages. The for Diglath occurs in the Targums of Onkelos and Jor athan, in Josephus (Ant. i. 1), in the Armenia Eusebius (Chron. Can. pars i. ec. 2), in Zonare (Ann. i. 2), and in the Armenian version of tl Scriptures. It is hardened to Diglit (Diglito) b Pliny (1. N. yi. 27). The name now in use amon the inhabitants of Mesopotamia is Dijleh. It has generally been supposed that Digla is mere Semitic corruption of Tigra, and that th latter is the true name of the stream. Strabo (x 14, § 8), Pliny (doc. cit.) and other writers tell 1 that the river received its designation from i rapidity, the word Tigris (Tigra) meaning in th Medo-Persic language “an arrow.” This seem probable enough; but it must be observed that th two forms are found side by side in the Babylonia transcript of the Behistun inscription, and that th ordinary name of the stream in the inscriptions 0 Assyria is Yiggar. Moreover, if we allow th Dekel of Hiddekel, to mean the Tigris, it woul seem probable that this was the more ancient 0 the two appellations. Perhaps, therefore, it is bes to suppose that there was in early Babylonian root dik, equivalent in meaning, and no doubt con nected in origin, with the Aryan tg or ty, an that from these two roots were formed independ ently the two names, Dekel, Dikla, or Digla, an Tiggar, Tigra, or Tigris. The stream was know! by either name indifferently; but on the whole th Aryan appellation predominated in ancient times and was that most commonly used even by Semiti races. The Arabians, however, when they conquere Mesopotamia, revived the true Semitic title, an this (Dyleh) continues to be the name by whiel the river is known to the natives down to the pres ent day. The course of the river is described unde TIGRIS. G. R. HYVEL (Osort, perhaps for om [ Goe lives, Ges.]: ’Axiha; [Vat. Axema; Comp Xifa:] Hiel), a native of Bethel, who rebuilt Jer icho in the reign of Ahab (1 K. xvi. 84); and iD whom was fulfilled the curse pronounced by Joshue i od 9 HIERAPOLIS HIGH PLACES 1068 Josh. vi 26). Strabo speaks of this cursing of a; of Ezr. x.; but whence our translators obtained estroyed city as un ancient custom, and instances | their form of the name does not appear. ¢ curses imprecated by Agamemnon and Cresus| * (ur translators evidently derived this form of arot. Annot. ad Josh. vi. 26); Masius compares} the name from the Aldine edition of the LXX. ie cursing of Carthage by the Romans (Pol. Syn.).| which they have so often followed in the Apoc- he term Bethelite CONT FWD) here only is ren- | 'YpPha. A. red fumily of cursing (Pet. Mart.), and also HIER’MAS (‘Tepuds; [Vat. lepua:] Remias), muse or place of cursing (Arab., Syr., and Chald.|1 Esdr. ix. 26. [RAMIAH. ] rsions), qu. TDs IVD 5 but there seems no rea- HIERON’YMUS © (‘tepdvopos [sacred m for questioning the accuracy of the LXX. 6 named |: Hieronymus), a Syrian general in the aOndAirns, Which is approved by most commen-| time of Antiochus V. Fupator (2 Mace. xii. 2). tors, and sanctioned by Ges. (Lex. s. y.). The|The name was made distinguished among the building of Jericho was an intrusion upon the! Asiatic Greeks by Hieronymus of Cardia, the his- ngdom of Jehoshaphat, unless with Pet. Mart. | torian of Alexander's successors. B. F. W. 2 suppose that Jericho had already been detached * HIERU’SALEM is used in the A. V. ed. om it by the kings of Israel, T. E. B. 1611, and other early editions, for JERUSALEM. HIERAP’OLIS (“Iepdrodus [sacred city | ). HIGGAIVON [3 syl.] (VV art: gdh), a word . P 9 oy comeing a y ate re sp thet en which occurs three times in the book of Psalms eee nk 1S, where its G7 [16], xix. 15 [14], xeii. 4 [3]). Mendelssohn urch is associated atta hh 7 S, CoLoss.# and translates it meditation, thought, idea. Knapp SOpICEA. Such association is just what bie (Die Psatmen) identifies it, in Ps. ix. 17, with the ould expect; for the three towns were all in the ; ’ sin of the Meander, and within a few miles of | Arabic “QT and SIT, “to mock,” and hence e another. It is probable that Hierapolis was | his rendering “ What a shout of laughter!” (be- e of the “inlustres Asiz urbes” (Tac. Ann. xiv. | cause the wicked are entrapped in their own snares); ) which, with Laodicea, were simultaneously des-| but in Ps. xcii. 4, he translates it by “Lieder” ted by an earthquake about the time when Chris- (songs). R. David Kimchi likewise assigns two nity was established in this district. There is separate meanings to the word; on Ps. ix. 17 he ile doubt that the church of Hierapolis was says, “ This aid is for us (a subject of) meditation inded at the same time with that of Colosse, and thankfulness,’’ whilst in his commentary on 1 that its characteristics in the apostolic period | the passage Ps. xcii. 4, he gives to the same word re the same. Its modern name is Pambouk- the signification of melody, ‘this is the melody of uessi. The most remarkable feature of the the hymn when it is recited (played) on the harp.” ghborhood consists of the hot calcareous springs, | « We will meditate on this forever ” (Rashi, Comm. ich have deposited the vast and singular incrus-| on Ps. ix. 17). In Ps. ix. 17, Aben Ezra’s Com- ions noticed by travellers. See, for instance, | ment. on « Higgaion Selah ”’ is, “ this will I record andler, Yrav. in Asia Minor (1817), i. 264-272] in trath:” on Ps. xcii. 4 he says, «“ Higgaion milton, Res. in Asia Minor (1842), i. 507-522. | means the melody of the hymn, or it is the name ® situation of Hierapolis is extremely beautiful; | of a musical instrument.” According to Fiirst, | its ruins are considerable, the theatre and gym- TTT is derived from FIT. «to whisper: ” (a) ium being the most conspicuous. J. S. H. t erly. * Arundel passed within sicht of Hierapolis, | it refers to the vibration of the harp, or to the % , | opening of an interlude, an opinion supported by ich he describes as high up on the mountain : Loan * the LXX., Symmachus, and Aquilas: (4) it refers ) On a terrace extending several miles (Discov- é Abe he 8 in Asia Minor, ii. 200). Richter (Wallfahr-| to silent meditation: this is agreeable to the use of the word in the Talmud and in the Rabbinical Pp. 933 ff.) states that Hierapolis and Laodicea mtioned together, Col. iy. 13) lie within view writings; hence 73M for logic (Concord. Hebr. atque Chald.). ach other on opposite sides of the Lycus. For lees by still other travellers, see Pococke’s De- It should seem, then, that Higgaion has two meanings, one of a general character implying ption of the East, ete., ii. pt. ii. 75; Fellows’s thought, reflection, from T2371 (comp. JP) a Minor, p. 283 ff.: and Schubert's Reise in Morgenland, p- 283. The various observations 8a), Ps. ix. 17, and BY b> soy DIyI7), Lam. iii. 62), and another in Ps. ix. 17 and Ps. brought concisely together in Lewin’s sketch xeli. 4, of a technical nature, bearing on the im. fe and Epistles of’ St. Paul, i. 204 f.). Ep- tas may have founded the church at Hierapolis ; port of musical sounds or signs well known in the age of David, but the precise meaning of which at all events, that city was one of the places eelebrated Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, was a cannot at this distance of time be determined. 9 ones ? QER’EEL (‘Iepeha: Jeelech), 1 Esdr. ix. | books, ra ipndd, 7d bn; in the Prophets, Boot ; dr. ix. 27 [JerEmorn.] From the earliest times it was the custom among IERIE’LUS Cle(pifAos, i. e. Tezrielos;| Trojans sacrificed to Zeus on Mount Ida (il. x. te he manifested that zeal for the truth ac- ited to him by the Apostle (Col. iv. 13). ve of. Hierapolis, and nearly contemporary with , D..W. M. | and Epaphras. HIGH PLACES (MY22: in the historical [JEHIEL. } in the Pentateuch, orjaAa, Lev. xxvi. 30, &e.;. (IER’EMOTH (‘lepeudd: Erimoth). 1. and once ¢/SwAa, Ez. xvi. 16: excelsa, fana). 5 y all nations to erect altars and places of worship on _Werimoth.] 1 Esdr. ix. 30. [Ramorn.] lofty and conspicuous spots. We find that the TeCopixaAos; Ald. ‘IepinAos:] Jezrelus), 1| 171), and we are repeatedly told that such was the Ix. 27. This answers to JEHIEL in the list] custom of the Persians, Greeks Germans, ete., 1064. HIGH PLACES Lecause they fancied that the hill-tops were nearer heaven, and therefore the most favorable places for prayer and incense (Herod. i. 131; Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7; Mem. iii. 8, § 10; Strab. xv. p. 732; Luc. de Sacrif. i. 4; Creuzer, Symb. i. 159; Winer, s. v. Berggotter). To this general custom we find con- stant allusion in the Bible (Is. lxv. 7; Jer. iii. 6; Ez. vi. 13, xviii. 6; Hos. iv. 18), and it is espe- cially attributed to the Moabites (Is. xv. 2, xvi. 12; Jer. xlviii. 85). Even Abraham built an altar to the Lord on a mountain near Bethel (Gen. xii. 7, 8; cf. xxii. 2-4, xxxi. 54) which shows that the practice was then as innocent as it was natural; and although it afterwards became mingled with idol- atrous observances (Num. xxiii. 3), it was in itself far less likely to be abused than the consecration of groves (Hos. iv. 13). The external religion of the patriarchs was in some outward observances different from that subsequently established by the Mosaic law, and therefore they should not be con- demned for actions which afterwards became smful only because they were forbidden (Heidegger, Hist. Patr. I. iii. § 53). [BAman.] It is, however, quite obvious that if every grove and eminence had been suffered to become a place for legitimate worship, especially in a country where they had already been defiled with the sins of polytheism, the utmost danger would have resulted to the pure worship of the one true God (Haver- nick, Hin. i. p. 592). It would infallibly have led to the adoption of nature-goddesses, and “ gods of the hills” (1 K. xx. 23). It was therefore implic- itly forbidden by the law of Moses (Deut. xii. 11- 14), which also gave the strictest injunction to destroy these monuments of Canaanitish idolatry (Lev. xxvi. 30; Num. xxxiii. 52; Deut. xxxiii. 29, ubi LXX. rpayndos), without stating any general reason for this command, beyond the fact that they had been connected with such associations. It seems, however, to be assumed that every Israelite would perfectly understand why groves and high places were prohibited, and therefore they are only condemned by virtue of the injunction to use but one altar for the purposes of sacrifice (Lev. xvii. 3, 4; Deut. xii. passim, xvi. 21; John iv. 20). The command was a prospective one, and was not to come into force until such time as the tribes were settled in the promised land, and “had rest from all their enemies round about.’? ‘Thus we find that both Gideon and Manoah built altars on high places by Divine command (Judg. vi. 25, 26, xiii. 16-23), and it is quite clear from the tone of the book of Judges that the law on the subject was either totally forgotten or practically obsolete. Nor could the unsettled state of the country have been pleaded as an excuse, since it seems to have been most fully understood, even during the life of Joshua, that burnt-offerings could be legally offered on one altar only (Josh. xxii. 29). It is more sur- prising to find this law absolutely ignored at a much later period, when there was no intelligible reason for its violation — as by Samuel at Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 10) and at Bethlehem (xvi. 5); by Saul at Gilgal (xiii. 9) and at Ajalon (? xiv. 35); by David (1 Chr. xxi. 26); by Elijah on Mount Carmel (1 K. xviii. 30); and by other prophets (1 Sam. x. 5). To suppose that in all these cases the rule was superseded by a Divine: intimation appears to us an unwarrantable expedient, the more so as the actors in the transactions do not appear to be aware of anything extraordinary in théir conduct. The Rabbis have invented elaborate HIGH PLACES ' methods to account for the anomaly; thus th say that high places were allowed until the buil ing of the Tabernacle; that they were then illeg until the arrival at Gilgal, and then during t¢ period while the Tabernacle was at Shiloh; th they were once more permitted whilst it was Nob and Gideon (ef. 2 Chr. i. 3), until the buil ing of the Temple at Jerusalem rendered the finally unlawful (R. Sol. Jarchi, Abarbanel, et quoted in Carpzoy, App. Crit. p. 333 ff.; Relan Ant. Hebi. i. 8 ff.). - Others content themsely with saying that until Solomon’s time all Palesti was considered holy ground, or that there exist a recognized exemption in favor of high places { private and spontaneous, though not for the stat and public sacrifices. Such explanations are sufficiently unsatisfactor but it is at any rate certain that, whether from t¢ obvious temptations to the disobedience, or fre the example of other nations, or from ignorance | any definite law against it, the worship in hi places was organized and all but universal throug out Juda, not only during (1 K. iii. 2-4), b even after the time of Solomon. ‘The convenien of them was obvious, because, as local centres religious worship, they obviated the unpleasant ai dangerous necessity of visiting Jerusalem for t celebration of the yearly feasts (2 K. xxiii. § The tendency was ingrained in the national min and although it was severely reprehended by t later historians, we have no proof that it was knoy to be sinful during the earlier periods of the mo archy, except of course where it was directly co nected with idolatrous abominations (1 K. xi. 2 K. xxiii. 13). In fact the high places seem have supplied the need of synagogues (Ps. lxxiv. § and to have obviated the extreme self-denial i volved in having but one legalized locality fort highest forms of worship. Thus we find th Rehoboam established a definite worship at t high places, with its own peculiar and separat priesthood (2 Chr. xi. 15; 2 K. xxiii. 9), the met bers of which were still considered to be priests Jehovah (although in 2 K. xxiii. 5 they are call by the opprobrious term ap =) It was ther fore no wonder that Jeroboam found it so easy seduce the people into his symbolic worship at t high places of Dan and Bethel, at each of whieh - built a chapel for his golden calves. Such chap were of course frequently added to the mere alta on the hills, as appears from the expressions in 1] xi. 7; 2K. xvii. 9, &e. Indeed, the word S110 became so common that it was used for any ide atrous shrine even in @ valley (Jer. vii. 31), the streets of cities (2 K. xvii. 9; Ez. xvi. 31 These chapels were probably not structures of stor but mere tabernacles hung with colored tapest (Kz. XVi. a6 euBoAioua, Aqu. Theod. ; Jer. | loc.; e{SwAov parry, LXX.), like the oxnyvy ig of the Carthaginians (Diod. Sic. xx. 65; Creuzé Symbol. vy. 176, quoted by Ges. Thes. i. 188), at like those mentioned in 2 K. xxiii. 7; Am. vy. 26 Many of the pious kings of Judah were eith too weak or too ill informed to repress the worsh of Jehovah at these local sanctuaries, while they: course endeavored to prevent it from being contal inated with polytheism. It is therefore append as a matter of blame or a (perhaps venial) drawba to the character of some of the most pious prine that they tolerated this disobedience to the prev! HIGH-PRIEST p of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. On the other ind it is mentioned as an aggravation of the sin- Iness of other kings that they built or raised high aces (2 Chr. xxi. 11, xxviii. 25), which are gen- ully said to have been dedicated to idolatrous s. It is almost inconceivable that so direct iolation of the theocratic principle as the per- tted existence of false worship should have been erated by kings of even ordinary piety, much s by the highest sacerdotal authorities (2 K. xii. When therefore we find’ the recurring phrase, nly the high places were not taken away; as yet » people did sacrifice and burn incense on the h places” (2 K. xiv. 4, xv. 4, 35; 2 Chr. xv. &.), we are forced to limit it (as above) to ces dedicated to Jehovah only. The subject, vever, is mace more difficult by a double discrep- y, for the assertion, that Asa “ took away the h places” (2 Chr. xiv. 3), is opposite to what is ed in the first book of Kings (xv. 14), and a lar discrepancy is found in the case of Jehosh- at (2 Chr. xvii. 6, xx. 33). Moreover in both ances the chronicler is apparently at issue with self (xiv. 3, xv. 17, xvii. 6, xx. 33). It is in- ible that this should have been the result of lessness or oversight, and we must. therefore ose, either that the earlier notices expressed will and endeavor of these monarchs to remove high places, and that the later ones recorded ' failure in the attempt (Ewald, Gesch. iii. 468 ; , Apology. Versuch, p. 290; Winer, s. vv. Assa, phat); or that the statements refer respectively Jamoth, dedicated to Jehovah and to idols haelis, Schulz, Bertheau on 2 Chr. xvii. 6, &e. ) ose devoted to false gods were removed, those evoted to the true God were suffered to remain. kings opposed impiety, but winked at error” 1op Hall). last Hezekiah set himself in good earnest to uppression of this prevalent corruption (2 K. 4, 22), both in Judah and Israel (2 Chr. 1), although, so rapid was the growth of the hat even his sweeping reformation required to vally consummated by Josiah (2 K. xxiii), hat too in Jerusalem and its immediate neigh- od (2 Chr. xxxiy. 3). The measure must caused a very violent shock to the religious lices of a large number of people, and we 4 curious and almost unnoticed trace of this ment in the fact that Rabshakeh appeals to iscontented faction, and represents Hezekiah angerous innovator who had provoked God’s by his arbitrary impiety (2 K. xviii. 22: 9 cxxli, 12). After the time of Josiah we find ther mention of these Jehovistic high places. Es Wik. GH-PRIEST (757, with the definite » lee. the Priest; and in the books subse- to the Pentateuch with the frequent addition T and w NT), Lev. xxi. 10 seems to ex- he epithet 213 (as érloxomos and 8:dxovos N. T.) in a transition state, not yet wholly ‘al; and the same may be said of Num. ‘0, where the explanation at the end of the “which was anointed with the holy oil,” show that the epithet m7} was not yet le as distinctive of the chi i. i} t is si . ef priest In all other passages of the Penta- mply “ the priest,’’ Ex. xxix. 30, 44; HIGH-PRIEST 1065 Lev. xvi. 32: or yet more frequently “ Aaron,” on ‘ Aaron the priest,’ as Num. iii. 6, iv. 33; Lev. i. 7, &e. So too “ Eleazar the priest,” Num. xxvii. 22, xxxi. 26, 29, 31, &e. In the LXX. 6 apxie- pevs, OF icpeds, where the Heb. has only {iTD, Vulg. sacerdos magnus, or primus pontifex, prin- ceps &icerdotum. In treating of the office o the Israelites it will be convenient to consider it — I. Legally. II. Theologically. IIT. Historically. I. The legal view of the high-priest’s office com- prises all that the law of Moses ordained respecting it. The first distinct separation of Aaron to the office of the priesthood, which previously belonged to the firstborn, was that recorded Ex. xxviii. A partial anticipation of this call occurred at the gathering of the manna (ch. xvi.), when Moses bid Aaron take a pot of manna, and lay it up before the Lord: which implied that the ark of the Testi- mony would thereafter be under Aaron’s charge, though it was not at that time in existence. The taking up of Nadab and Abihu with their father | Aaron to the Mount, where they beheld the glory of the God of Israel, seems also to have been intended as a preparatory intimation of Aaron’s hereditary priesthood. See also xxvii. 21. But it was not till the completion of the directions for making the tabernacle and its furniture that the distinct order was given to Moses, “Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his song with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons” (Ex. xxviii. 1). And after the order for the priestly garments to be made «for Aaron and his sons,” it is added, “and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute; and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons,’’ and “TJ will sanctify both Aaron and his sons to minister to me in the priest’s office,” xxix. 9, 44. We find from the very first the following charac- teristic attributes of Aaron and the high-priests hig successors, as distinguished from the other priests. (1.) Aaron alone was anointed. « He poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him to sanctify him” (Lev. viii. 12); whence one. of the distinctive epithets of the high-priest was TWIT TID, “the anointed priest” (Ley. iv. 8, 5, 16, xxi. 10; see Num. xxxv. 25). This appears also from Ex. xxix. 29, 30, where it is ordered that the one of the sons of Aaron who suc- ceeds him in the priest’s office shall wear the holy garments that were Aaron’s for seven days, to be anointed therein, and to be consecrated in them. Hence Eusebius (Hist. Kccles. i. 6; Dem. Evang. viii.) understands the Anointed (A. V. « Messiah,” or, as the LXX. read, ypfeua) in Dan. ix. 26, the anointing of the Jewish high-priests: « It means nothing else than the succession of high-priests, whom the Scripture commonly calls Xpiorous, anointed ;’’ and so too Tertullian and Theodoret (Rosenm. ad /. c.). The anointing of the sons of Aaron, 7. @., the common priests, seems to have been confined to sprinkling their garments with the anointing oil (Ex. xxix. 21, xxviii. 41, &c.), though according to Kalisch on Ex. xxix. 8, and Lightfoot, following the Rabbinical interpretation, the differ- f high-priest_ among ence consists in the abundant pouring of oil (DES) on the head of the high-priest, from whence it was drawn with the finger into two streams, in the 1066 HIGH-PRIEST shape of a Greel. X, while the priests were merely marked with the finger dipped in oil on the fore- head (TWD). But this is probably a late inven- tion of the Rabbins. The anointing of the high- priest is alluded to in Ps. exxxili. 2: “It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard, that went down to the skirts of his garments.’ ‘The com- position of this anointing oil, consisting of myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, cassia, and olive oil, is pre- scribed Ex. xxx. 22-25, and its use for any other purpose but that of anointing the priests, the tabernacle, and the vessels, was strictly prohibited on pain of being “cut off from his people.” The manufacture of it was intrusted to certain priests, called apothecaries (Neh. iii. 8). But this oil is said to have been wanting under the second Temple (Prideaux, i. 151; Selden, cap. ix.). rer nln ih IT WALLAAL! | aA HIG High-priest. (2.) The high-priest had a peculiar dress, which, as we have seen, passed to his successor at his death. This dress consisted of eight parts, as the Rabbins constantly note, the breastplate, the ephod with its curious girdle, the robe of the ephod, the mitre, the broidered coat or diaper tunic, and the girdle, the materials being gold, blue, red, crimson, and_fine (white) linen (Ex. xxviii.). To the above are added, in ver. 42, the breeches or drawers (Lev. xvi. 4) of linen; and to make up the number 8, some reckon the high-priest’s mitre, or the plate (YS) separately from the bonnet; while others reckon the curious girdle of the ephod separately from the ephod.¢ Of these 8 articles of attire, 4, namely, the coat or tunic, the girdle, the breeches, and the bonnet or a In Lev. viii. 7-12 there is a complete account of the putting on of these garments by Aaron, and the whole ceremony of his consecration and that of his sons. It there appears distinctly that, besides the girdle common to all the priests, the high-priest also wore the curious girdle of the ephod. b Josephus, however, whom Bihr follows, calls the HIGH-PRIEST turban, TYDID, instead of the mitre, pabap hss belonged to the common priests. ie It is well known how, in the Assyrian sculpty the king is in like manner distinguished by shape of his head-dress; and how in Persia n but the king wore the cidaris or erect tia Taking the articles of the high-priest’s dress in order in which they are enumerated above, we h (1) the breastplate, or, as it is further named ( xxviii. 15, 29, 30), the breastplate of judgm Deu eT, Aoyeioy TaY Kploewy (OF. kpioews) in the LXX., and only in ver. 4, me thoy. It was, like the inner curtains of tabernacle, the vail, and the ephod, of “cunr work,” DWT MWY, “ opus plumarium,” “ arte plumaria,” Vulg. [See EmMBROIDERI The breastplate was originally 2 spans long, ar span broad, but when doubled it was square, shape in which it was worn. It was fastened at top by rings and chains of wreathen gold to two onyx stones on the shoulders, and beneath two other rings and a lace of blue to two ec sponding rings in the ephod, to keep it fixed i place, above the curious girdle. But the 1 remarkable and most important parts of this bre plate, were the 12 precious stones, set in 4 rov in a row, thus corresponding to the 12 tribes, divided in the same manner as their camps wW each stone having the name of one of the chil of Israel engraved upon it. Whether the o followed the ages of the sons of Israel, or, as s most probable, the order of the encampment, be doubted; but unless any appropriate dist symbolism of the different tribes be found in names of the precious stones, the question scarcely be decided. According to the LXX. Josephus, and in accordance with the languag Scripture, it was these stones which constituted Urim and Thummim, nor does the notion a cated by Gesenius after Spencer and others, these names desiguated two little images pl between the falds of the breastplate, seem to on any sufficient ground, in spite of the Egy, analogy¢ brought to bear upon it. Josepl opinion, on the other hand, improved upon by Rabbins, as to the manner in which the stones out the oracular answer, by preternatural illun tion, appears equally destitute of probability. seems to be far simplest and most in agree! with the different accounts of inquiries mad Urim and Thummim (1 Sam. xiv. 3, 18, 19,: 2, 4,9, 11, 12, xxviii. 6; Judg. xx. 28; 2 ‘ v. 23, &c.) to suppose that the answer was § simply by the Word of the Lord to the high-p (comp. John xi. 51), when he had inquired of Lord clothed with the ephod and breastplate. } a view agrees with the true notion of the br plate, of which it was not the leading characte! to be oracular (as the term Aovyezoy supposes, as is by many thought to be intimated by th scriptive addition “of judgment,” 4% €, a8 2 SO ee bonnets of the priests by the name of DIZM. below. er. c Bahr compares also the apices of the fl Dialis. d For an account of the image of Thmei W the Egyptian judge and priest, see Kalisch’s 00 Ex. xxviii.; Hengstenberg’s Egypt and the Boo Moses ; Wilkinson’s Egyptians, ii. 27, &e. HIGH-PRIEST erstand it, “decision’’), but only an incidental ilege connected with its fundamental meaning. at that meaning was we learn from Ex. xxviii. 30, re we read “‘ Aaron shall bear the judgment of the ren of Israel upon his heart before the Lord inually.’ Now DEW is the judicial sen- e by which any one is either justified or con- ned. In prophetic vision, as in actual oriental the sentence of justification was often expressed he nature of the robe worn. “ He hath clothed vith the garments of salvation, He hath covered with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom eth himself with ornameuts, and as a bride neth herself with her jewels ”’ (Is. lxi. 10), is a | illustration of this; cf. lxii. 3. In like man- in Rev. iii. 5, vii. 9, xix. 14, &e., the white | robe expresses the righteousness or justifica- of saints. Something of the same notion be seen in sth. vi. 8, 9, and on the contrary 12. he addition of precious stones and costly orna- $ expresses glory beyond simple justification. } in Is. Ixii. 3, «Thou shalt be a crown of glory e hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the of thy God.” Exactly the same symbolism ry is assigned to the precious stones in the iption of the New Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. 11, L), a passage which ties together with singular the arrangement of the tribes in their camps, that of the precious stones in the breastplate. moreover, the high-priest being a representa- sersonage, the fortunes of the whole people | most properly be indicated in his person. A ng instance of this, in connection too with lical dress, is to be found in Zech. iii. «« Now ia (the high-priest, ver. 1) was clothed with garments and stood before the angel. And swered and spake unto those that stood before saying, Take away the filthy garments from And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe with change of raiment. And I said, Let set a fair mitre (F)‘23*) upon his head. So et a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed ith garments.’ Here the priest's garments, 3, and the mitre, expressly typify the restored dusness of the nation. Hence it seems to be atly obvious that the breastplate of righteous- r judgment, resplendent with the same pre- stones which symbolize the glory of the New lem, and on which were engraved the names 12 tribes, worn by the high-priest, who was aid to bear the judgment of the children of upon his heart, was intended to express by ls the acceptance of Israel grounded upon the ial functions: of the high-priest. The sense symbol is thus nearly identical with such *s as Num. xxiii. 21, and the meaning of the and Thummim is explained by such expres- i JS SID STIS WAIN, « Arise, for thy light is come”? (Is. Ix. 1). Thum- xpresses alike complete prosperity and com- nnocence, and so falls in exactly with the ‘Notion of light (Is. Ix. 1, and Ixii. de) ‘ivilege of receiving an answer from God he same relation to the general state of Israel ized by the priest's dress, that the promise iv. 13, “ All thy children shall be taught of Wd.” does to the preceding description, “I HIGH-PRIEST 1067 will lay thy stones with fair colors, and lay thy foundations with sapphires, and I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuneles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones,” ver. dA. comp. also ver. 14 and 17 (Heb.). It is obvious to add how entirely this view accords with the bless- ing of Levi in Deut. xxxiii. 8, where Levi is called God’s holy one, and God’s Thummim and Urim are said to be given to him, because he came out of the trial so clear in his integrity. (See also Bar. v. 2.) (6.) The Ephod (TEN), This consisted of two parts, of which one covered the back, and the other the front, 7 ¢., the breast and upper part of the body, like the érwufs of the Greeks (see Dict. of Antiquitees, art. Tunic t, p- 1172). These were clasped together on the shoulder with two large onyx stones,each having engraved on it 6 of the names of the tribes of Israel. It was further united by a “ curious girdle” of gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen round the waist. Upon it was placed the breastplate of judgment, which in fact was a part of the ephod, and included in the term in such passages as 1 Sam. ii. 28, xiv. 3, xxiii. 9, and was fastened to it just above the curi- ous girdle of the ephod. Linen ephods were also worn by other priests (1 Sam. xxii. 18), by Samuel, who was only a Levite (1 Sam. ii. 18), and by David when bringing up the ark (2 Sam. vi. 14). The expression for wearing an ephod is « girded with a linen ephod.” The ephod was also fre- quently used in the idolatrous worship of the Israelites. See Judg. viii. 27, xvii. 5, &c. [EPHop; GIRDLE. ] (c.) The Robe of the ephod (O°Y79). This was of inferior material to the ephod itself, being all of blue (Ex. xxviii. 31), which implied its being only of “ woven work ” (QS Mwy, xxxiz. 29). It was worn imniediately under the ephod, and was longer than it, though not so long as the broidered coat or tunic (YR wy AY FM), according to some statements (Biihr, Winer, Kalisch, etc.). The Greek rendering, however, of pn, modnpns, and Josephus’s description of it (B. J. v. 5, § 7) seem to outweigh the reasons given by Biihr for thinking the robe only came down to the knees, and to make it improbable that the tunic should have been seen below the robe. It seems likely therefore that the sleeves of the tunic, of white diaper linen, were the only parts of it which were visible, in the case of the high-priest, when he wore the blue robe over it. For the blue robe had no sleeves, but only slits in the sides for the arms to come thruugh. It had a hole for the head to pass through, with a border round it of woven work, to prevent its being rent. The skirt of this robe had a remarkable trimming of pomegranates in blue, red, and crimson, with a bell of gold between each pomegranate alternately. The bells were to give a sound when the high-priest went in and came out of the Holy Place. Josephus in the Antiquities gives no explanation of the use of the bells, but merely speaks of the studied beauty of their appearance. In his Jewish War, however, he tells us that the bells signified thunder, and the pomegranates lightning. For Philo’s very curioua observations see Lightfoot’s Works, ix. p. 25. Neither does the son of Sirach very distinetly explain it (Ecclus. xlv.), who in his description of 1068 HIGH-PRIEST HIGH-PRIEST and at his death Eleazar (Num. xx. 26, 28 their successors in the high-priesthood, wet emnly inaugurated into their office by bein in these eight articles of dress on seven suc days. From the time of the second Temple, the sacred oil (said to have been hid by Josia lost) was wanting, this putting on of the gar was deemed the official investiture of the Hence the robes, which had used to be kept of the chambers of the Temple, and were bj canus deposited in the Baris, which he bu purpose, were kept by Herod in the same which he called Antonia, so that they mighi his absolute disposal. The Romans did the till the government of Vitellius in the rei Tiberius, when the custody of the robes was 1 to the Jews (Ant. xv. 11, § 4; xviii. 4, § 3). (3.) Aaron bad peculiar functions. To hin it appertained. and he alone was permitted, t the Holy of Holies, which he did once a y the great day of atonement, when he sprink blood of the sin-offering on the mercy-sea burnt incense within the vail (Lev. xvi.). said by the Talmudists, with whom agree Lig Selden, Grotius, Winer, Bahr, and many not to have worn his full pontifical robes ¢ occasion, but to have been clad entirely in linen (Lev. xvi. 4, 82). It is singular, he that on the other hand Josephus says th great fast day was the chief, if not the only the year, when the high-priest wore all his (B. J. v. 5, § 7), and in spite of the alleg propriety of his wearing his splendid appar day of humiliation, it seems far more probak on the one occasion when he performed fu peculiar to the high-priest, he should hay his full dress. Josephus too could not hay mistaken as to the fact, which he repeats (co lib. ii. § 7), where he says the high-priests might enter into the Holy of Holies, “ stol& cireumamicti.”” For although Selder strenuously supports the Rabbinical stateme the high-priest only wore the 4 linen ga when he entered the Holy of Holies, endea make Josephus say the same thing, it is imy to twist his words into this meaning. It on the other hand, that Lev. xvi. distine scribes that Aaron should wear the 4 priest ments of linen when he entered into the I Holies, and put them off immediately he ca and leave them in the Temple; no one bein ent in the Temple while Aaron made the ato (ver. 17). Either therefore in the time of Jc this law was not kept in practice, or else ¥ reconcile the apparent contradiction by suj that in consequence of the great jealou: which the high-priest’s robes were kept by t power at this time, the custom had arisen. to wear them, not even always on the 3 gre: vals (Ant. xviii. 4, § 3), but only on the gr of expiation. Clad in this gorgeous attire h enter the Temple in presence of all the peo} after having performed in secret, as the law r" the rites of expiation in the linen dress, ht resume his pontifical robes and so appear 4 public. Thus his wearing the robes woult come to be identified chiefly with the day of ment; and this is perhaps the most prob the high-priest’s attire seems chiefly impressed with its beauty and magnificence, and says of this trim- ming, “ He compassed him with pomegranates and with many golden bells round about, that as he went there might be a sound, and a noise made that might be heard in the temple, for a memorial to the children of his people.” Perhaps, however, he means to intimate that the use of the bells was to give notice to the people outside, when the high- priest went in and came out of the sanctuary, as Whiston, Vatablus, and many others have sup- posed. (d.) The fourth article peculiar to the high-priest is the mitre or upper turban, with its gold plate, engraved with HOLINESS To THE Lorp, fastened to it by a ribbon of blue. Josephus applies the term MDIZID (uacvaeupejs) to the turbans of the common priests as well, but says’ that in addi- tion to this, and sewn on to the top of it, the high- priest had another turban of blue; that beside this he had outside the turban a triple crown of gold, consisting, that is, of 8 rims one above the other, and terminating at top in a kind of conical calyx, like the inverted calyx of the herb hyoscyamus. Josephus doubtless gives a true account of the high- priest’s turban as worn in his day. It may be fairly conjectured that the crown was appended when the Asmoneans united the temporal monarchy with the priesthood, and that this was continued, though in a modified shape, after the sovereignty was taken from them. Josephus also describes the méradov, the lamina or gold plate, which he says covered the forehead of the high-priest. In Ant. vii. 3, § 8, he says that the identical gold plate made in the days of Moses existed in his time; and Whiston adds in a note that it was still preserved in the time of Origen, and that the inscription on it was engraved in Samaritan characters (Ant. iii. 3, § 6). It is certain that R. Eliezer, who flourished in Hadrian’s reign, saw it at Rome. It was doubt- less placed, with other spoils of the Temple, in the Temple of Peace, which was burnt down in the reign of Commodus. ‘These spoils, however, are expressly mentioned as part of Alaric’s plunder when he took Rome. They were carried by Gen- seric into Africa, and brought by Belisarius to By- zantium, where they adorned his triumph. On the warning of a Jew the emperor ordered them back to Jerusalem, but what became of them is not known (Reland, de Spolits Templi). (e.) The broidered coat, yarn m3 "a tunic or long shirt of linen with a tessellated or diaper pattern, like the setting of a stone. The e -—= \ ss 1, was girdle, MIAN, also of linen, was wound round the body several times from the breast downwards, and the ends hung down to the ankles. The breeches or drawers, MXOIDID, of linen, covered the loins and thighs; and the bonnet or )TYDAD was a turban of linen, partially covering the head, but not in the form of a cone like that of the high-priest when the mitre was added to it. These four last were common to all priests. Josephus speaks of the robes (évdtuara) of the chief priests, and the tunics and girdles of the priests, as forming part of the spoil of the Temple, (B. J. vi. 8, § 3). Aaron, NEE SSE A a ELSE TY GSS ae, ce aE 8 a Josephus (A. J. xx. 10) says that Pompey would not allow Hyrcanus to wear the diadem, when he restored him te the high priesthood. b Selden himself remarks (cap. vii. in JU Josephus and others always describe the P robes by the name of ris wroAys apxrepaTeKys: 4 i pa HIGH-PRIEST ation. In other respects the high-priest per- ed the functions of a priest, but only on new ns and other great feasts, and on such solemn sions as the dedication of the Temple under mon, under Zerubbabel, etc. [ATONEMENT, OF. .) Dee high-priest had a peculiar place in the of the manslayer, and his taking sanctuary in cities of refuge. The manslayer might not » the city of refuge during the lifetime of the ing high-priest who was anointed with the oil (Num. xxxv. 25, 28). It was also forbid- to the high-priest to follow a funeral, or rend lothes for the dead, according to the precedent ev. x. 6. he other respects in which the high-priest ex- ed superior functions to the other priests arose r from his position and opportunities, than distinctly attached to his office, and they con- ently varied with the personal character and les of the high-priest. Such were reforms in ion, restorations of the Temple and its service, preservation of the Temple from intrusion or nation, taking the lead in ecclesiastical or civil 8, judging the people, presiding in the San- im (which, however, he is said by Lightfoot y to have done), and other similar transactions, lich we find the high-priest sometimes prom- » Sometimes not even mentioned. (See the rical part of this article.) Even that portion wer which most naturally and usually fell to are, the rule of the Temple, and the govern- of the priests and Levites who ministered , did not invariably fall to the share of the priest. For the title «Ruler of the House d,” DT ASTND P29, which usually es the high-priest, is sometimes given to those were not high-priests, as e. g. to Pashur the f Immer in Jer. xx. 1; comp. .1 Chr. xii. 27. Rabbins speak very frequently of one second gnity to the high-priest, whom they call the , and who often acted in the high-priest’s @ He is the same who in the O. T. is called second priest’ (2 K. xxiii. 4, xxv. 18). They lat Moses was sagan to Aaron. Thus too it lained of Annas and Caiaphas (Luke iii. 2), Annas was sagan. Ananias is also thought ne to have been sagan, acting for the high- (Acts xxiii. 2). In like manner they say ‘and Abiathar were high-priest and sagan in ime of David. The sagan is also very fre- ly called memunneh, or prefect of the Temple, pou him chiefly lay the care and charge of emple services (Lightfoot, passim). If the wiest was incapacitated from officiating by eidental uncleanness, the sagan or vice-high- took his place. Thus, e. g., the Jerusalem id tells a story of Simon son of Kamith, that he eve of the day of expiation, he went out ak with the king, and some spittle fell upon ments and defiled him: therefore Judah his T went in on the day of expiation, and served Stead; and so their mother Kamith saw two sons high-priests in one day. She had seven ind they all served in the high-priesthood ”* foot, ix. 35). It does not appear by whose ity the high-priests were appointed to their os a ne dere is a controversy as to whether the deputy hier was the same as the sagan. Lightfoot. no HIGH-PRIEST 1069 office before there were kings of Israel. But as we find it invariably done by the civil power in later times, it is probable that, in the times preceding the monarchy, it was by the elders, or Sanhedrim The installation and anointing of the high-priest or clothing him with the eight garments, which was the formal investiture, is ascribed by Maimonides to the Sanhedrim at all times (Lightfoot, ix 22). It should be added, that the usual age for enter- ing upon the functions of the priesthood, according to 2 Chr. xxxi. 17, is considered to have been 20) years, though a priest or high-priest was not actuall y incapacitated if he had attained to puberty, as ap- pears by the example of Aristobulus, who was high. priest at 17. Onias, the son of Simon the Just, could not be high-priest, because he was but a child at his father’s death. Again, according to Ley. xxi., no one that had a blemish could officiate at the altar. Moses enumerates 11 blemishes, which the Talmud expands into 142. Josephus relates how Antigonus mutilated Hyrcanus’s ears, to inca- pacitate him for being restored to the high-priest- hood. Illegitimate birth was also a bar to the high-priesthood, and the subtlety of Jewish dis- tinctions extended this illegitimacy to being born of a mother who had been taken captive by heathen conquerors (Joseph. c. Apion. i. § 7). Thus Eleazar said to John Hyrcanus (though, Josephus Says, falsely) that if he was a just man, he ought to resign the pontificate, because his mother had been a captive, and he was therefore incapacitated. Lev. xxi. 13, 14, was taken as the ground of this and similar disqualifications. For a full account of this branch of the subject the reader is referred to Selden’s learned treatises De Successionibus, ete., and De Success. in Pontif. Ebreor.; and to Pri- deaux, ii. 306. It was the universal opinion of the Jews that the deposition of a high-priest, which became so common, was unlawful. Josephus (Ant. xv. 3) says that, Antiochus Epiphanes was the first who did so, when he deposed Jesus or Jason; Aris- tobulus, who deposed his brother Hyrcanus, the second; and Herod, who took away the high-priest- hood from Ananelus to give it to Aristobulus, the third. See the story of Jonathan son of Ananus, Ant. xix. 6, § 4. Il. Theologically. The theological view of the high-priesthood does not fall within the scope of this Dictionary. It must suffice therefore to indi- cate that such a view would embrace the considera- tion of the office, dress, functions, and ministrations of the high-priest, considered as typical of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and as setting forth under shadows the truths which are openly taught under the Gospel. This has been done to a great extent in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and is occasionally done in other parts of Scripture, as, e. g-, Rey. i. 13, where the rodfpns, and the girdle about the paps, are distinctly the robe, and the curious girdle of the ephod, characteristic of the high-priest. It would also embrace all the moral and spiritual teaching supposed to be intended by such symbols. Philo (de vité Mosis), Origen (Homil. in Levit.), Eusebius (Demonst. Evang. lib. iii.); Epiphanius (cont. Melchized. iv. &c.), Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. i., and Elie Cretens. Comment. p. 195), Augustine (Quest. in Exod.) may be cited among many others of the ancients who have more or less thus treated the subject. Of moderns, Bahr (Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus), Fairbairn (Typology of Script.), Kalisch (Com- ment. on Exod.) have entered fully into this sub- 1070 - HIGH-PRIEST ject, both frm the Jewish and Christian point of view. [See end of the article. ] If). To pass to the historical view of the subject. The history of the high-priests embraces a period of about 1370 years, according to the opinion of the present writer, and a succession of about 80 high-priests, beginning with Aaron, and ending with Phannias. “The number of all the high- priests (says Josephus, Ant. xx. 10) from Aaron . until Phanas . . . was 83,’ where he gives a comprehensive account of them. They naturally arrange themselves into three groups: (a) those before David; (b) those from David to the Cap- tivity; (c) those from the return from the Baby- lonish Captivity till the cessation of the office at the destruction of Jerusalem. The two former have come down to us in the canonical books of Scripture, and so have a few of the earliest and the latest of the latter; but for by far the larger portion of the latter group we have only the au- thority of Josephus, the Talmud, and some other profane writers. (a.) The high-priests of the first group who are distinctly made known to us as such, are: (1) Aaron; (2) Eleazar; (3) Phinehas; (4) Eli; (5) Ahitub (1 Chr. ix. 11; Neh. xi. 11: 1 Sam. xiv. 3); (6) Ahiah; (7) Ahimelech. Phinehas the son of Eli, and father of Ahitub, died before his father, and so was not high-priest. Of the above the three first succeeded in regular order, Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s eldest sons, having died in the wilderness (Lev. x.). But Eli, the 4th, was of the line of Ithamar. What was the exact interval between the death of Phinehas and the accession of Eli, what led to the transference of the chief priesthood from the line of Eleazar to that of Ithamar, and whether any, or which, of the descendants of Elea- zar between Phinehas and Zadok (seven in number, namely, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub), were high-priests, we have no means of determining from Scripture. Judg. xx. 28, leaves Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, priest at Shiloh, and 1 Sam. i. 3, 9, finds Eli high-priest there, with two grown-up sons priests under him. The only clew is to be found in the genealogies, by which it appears that Phinehas was 6th in succes- sion from Levi, while Eli, supposing him to be the same generation as Samuel’s grandfather, would be 10th. If, however, Phinehas lived, as is probable, to a great old age, and Eli, as his age admits, be placed about half a generation backward, a very small interval will remain. Josephus asserts (Ant. vili. 1, § 3) that the father of Bukki— whom he calls Joseph, and (Ant. v. 11, § 5) Abiezer, 7. ¢., Abishua — was the last high-priest of Phinehas’s line, before Zadok. This is probably a true tradi- tion, though Josephus, with characteristic levity, does not adhere to it in the above passage of his 5th book, where he makes Bukki and Uzzi to have been both high-priests, and Eli to have succeeded Uzzi; or in bk. xx. 10, where he reckons the high- priests before Zadok and Solomon to have been 13 (a reckoning which includes apparently all Elea- zar’s descendants down to Ahitub), and adds Eli and his son Phinehas, and Abiathar, whom he calls Eli’s grandson. If Abishua died, leaving a son or grandson under age, Eli, as head of the line of Ith- amar, might have become high-priest as a matter of course, or he might have been appointed by the elders. His having judged Israel 40 years (1 Sam. iv. 18) marks him as a man of ability. If Ahiah and Ahimelech are not variations of the name of e HIGH-PRIKST the same person, they must have been bro since both were sons of Ahitub. The high then before David’s reign may be set down as in number, of whom seven are said in Seript have been high-priests, and one by Josephus : The bearing of this on the chronology of the from the Exodus to David, tallying as it does the number of the ancestors of David, is to portant to be passed over in silence. It mu: be noted that the tabernacle of God, durir high-priesthood of Aaron’s successors of ‘hi group, was pitched at Shiloh in the tribe of raim, a fact which marks the strong influence the temporal power already had in ecclesi: affairs, since Ephraim was Joshua’s tribe, as . was David’s (Josh. xxiv. 80, 33; Judg. xx. 2 xxi. 21; 1 Sam. i. 3, 9, 24, iv. 6, 4) xivags Ps. lxxviii. 60). This strong influence and ference of the secular power is manifest throu the subsequent history. This first period we marked by the calamity which befell the high as the guardians of the ark, in its capture | Philistines. This probably suspended all inc by Urim and Thummim, which were made the ark (1 Chr. xiii. 3; comp. Judg. xx. Sam. vii. 2. xiv. 18), and must have greatly ¢ ished the influence of the high-priests, on the largest share of the humiliation expres the name Ichabod would naturally fall. TI of Samuel as a prophet at this very time, a paramount influence and importance in the to the entire eclipsing of Ahiah the priest cides remarkably with the absence of the ar the means of inquiring by Urim and Thum (b.) Passing to the second group, we begi: the unexplained circumstance of there bein priests in the reign of David, apparently of equal authority, namely, Zadok and Abiat: Chr. xv. 11; 2 Sam. viii. 17). Indeed, it i from the deposition of Abiathar, and the plac Zadok in his room, by Solomon (1 K. ii. 38 we learn certainly that Abiathar was the priest, and Zadok the second. Zadok was Ahitub, of the line of Eleazar (1 Chr. vi. § the first mention of him is in 1 Chr. xii. “a young man, mighty in valor,’ who joine vid in Hebron after Saul’s death, with 22 c of his father’s house. It is therefore not u that after the death of Ahimelech and the se of Abiathar to David, Saul may have made priest, as far as it was possible for him to in the absence of the ark and the high-priest’ and that David may have avoided the diffie deciding between the claims of his faithful Abiathar, and his new and important ally (who perhaps was the means of attaching vid's cause the 4600 Levites and the 3700 who came under Jehoiada their captain, vv. 2 by appointing them to a joint priesthood: tl place, with the Ephod, and Urim and Thu remaining with Abiathar, who was in actu session of them. Certain it is that from th Zadok and Abiathar are constantly named to and singularly Zadok always first, both in tl of Samuel and that of Kings. We can, hi trace very clearly up to a certain point the ¢ of the priestly offices and dignities betweer coinciding, as it did, with the divided state Levitical worship in David’s time. For w from 1 Chr. xvi. 1-7, 87, compared with and yet more distinctly from 2 Chr. i. 3, 4 the tabernacle and the brazen altar made by , ie" x HIGH-PRIEST HIGH-PRIEST 1071 d Bezalee] in the wilderness were at this time at beon, while the ark was at Jerusalem, in the te tent made for it by David. [Grpxon, p. 3.] Now Zadok the priest and his brethren the iests were left “ before the tabernacle at Gibeon ”’ offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord morning and sning, and to do according to all that is written the law of the Lord (1 Chr. xvi. 39, 40). It is erefore obvious to conclude that Abiathar had cial charge of the ark and the services connected th it, which agrees exactly with the possession the ephod by Abiathar, and his previous position th David before he became king of Israel, as well with what we are told 1 Chr. xxvii. 34, that hoiada and Abiathar were the king’s counsellors xt to Ahithophel. Residence at Jerusalem with 2 ark, and the privilege of inquiring of the Lord ‘ore the ark, both well suit his office of counsel- Abiathar, however, forfeited his place by ing part with Adonijah against Solomon, and dok was made high-priest in his place. The itificate was thus again consolidated and trans- red permanently from the line of Ithamar to it of Eleazar. This is the only instance recorded the deposition of a high-priest (which became nmon in later times, especially under Herod and Romans) during this second period. It was fulfillment of the prophetic denunciations of sin of Eli's sons (1 Sam. ii., iii.). Che first considerable difficulty that meets us in historical survey of the high-priests of the ond group is to ascertain who was high-priest he dedication of Solomon’s Temple — J osephus u. x. 8,§ 6) asserts that Zadok was, and the ler Olam makes him the high-priest in the of Solomon. But first it is very improbable t Zadok, who must have been very old at Sol- m’s accession (being David's contemporary), wld have lived to the 11th year of his reign ; next, 1 K. iy. 2 distinctly asserts that Azariah son of Zadok was priest under- Solomon, and hr. vi. 10 tells us of Azariah,¢ “he it is that uted the priest's office.in the Temple that Sol- m built in Jerusalem,’’ obviously meaning at its ‘completion. We can hardly therefore be wrong aying that Azariah the son of Ahimaaz was the high-priest of Solomon’s Temple. The non- tion of him in the account of the dedication he Temple, even where one would most have eted it (as 1 K. viii. 3, 6, 10, 11, 62; 2 Chr. v. 1, &.), and the prominence given to Solomon he civil power —are certainly remarkable. ipare also 2 Chr. viii. 14,15. The probable ence is that Azariah had no great personal ities or energy. In constructing the list of the ession of priests of this group, our method t be to compare the genealogical list in 1 Chr. I-15 (A. V.) with the notices of high-priests te sacred history, and with the list given by phus, who, it must be remembered, had access ie lists preserved in the archives at Jerusalem: ng the whole by the application of the ordinary of genealogical succession. Now as regards senenlogy, it is seen at once that there is some- $ defective; for whereas from David to Jeconiah » are 20 kings, from Zadok to Jehozadak there mt 13 priests. Moreover the passage in ques- tion is not a list of high-priests, but the pedigree of Jehozadak. Then again, while the pedigree in its six first generations from Zadok, inclusive, ex- actly suits the history — for it makes Amariah the sixth priest, while the history (2 Chr. xix. 11) tells us he lived in Jehoshaphat’s reign, who was the sixth king from David, inclusive; and while the same pedigree in its five last generations also suits the history — inasmuch as it places Hilkiah the son of Shallum fourth from the end, and the history tells us he lived in the reign of Josiah, the fourth king from the end — yet is there a great gap in the middle. For between Amariah, the high-priest in Jehoshaphat’s reign, and Shallum the father of Hilkiah, the high-priest in Josiah’s reign — an in- terval of about 240 years—there are but two names, Ahitub and Zadok, and those liable to the utmost suspicion from their reproducing the same sequence which occurs in the earlier part of the same genealogy — Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok. Besides which they are not mentioned by Josephus. This part, therefore, of the pedigree is useless for our purpose. But the historical books supply us with four or five names for this interval, namely, Jehoiada in the reigns of Athaliah and Joash, and probably still earlier; Zechariah his son; Azariah in the reign of Uzziah; Urijah in the reign of Ahaz; and Azariah in the reign of Hezekiah. If, however, in the genealogy of 1 Chr. vi. Azariah and Hilkiah have been accidentally transposed, as is not unlikely, then the Azariah who was high-priest in Hezekiah’s reign will be the Azariah of 1 Chr. vi. 13, 14. Putting the additional historical names at four, and deducting the two suspicious names from the genealogy, we have 15 high-priests indicated in Scripture as contemporary with the 20 kings, with room, however, for one or two more in the history. Turning to Josephus, we find his list of 17 high- priests (whom he reckons as 18 (Ant. xx. 10), as do also the Rabbins) in places exceedingly corrupt, a corruption sometimes caused by the end of one name sticking on to the beginning of the following (as in Axioramus), sometimes apparently by sub. stituting the name of the contemporary king or prophet for that of the high-priest, as Joel and Jotham. Perhaps, however, Sudeas, who corre- sponds to Zedekiah in the reign of Amaziah in the Seder Olam, and Odeas, who corresponds to Hosh- aiah in the reign of Manasseh, according to the same Jewish chronicle, may really represent high- priests whose names have not been preserved in Scripture. This would bring up the number to 17, or, if we retain Azariah as the father of Seraiah, to 18, which agrees with the 20 kings. Reviewing the high-priests of this second group, the following are some of the most remarkable in- cidents: — (1) The transfer of the seat of worship from Shiloh in the tribe of Ephraim to Jerusalem in the tribe of Judah, effected by David.’ and con- solidated by the building of the magnificent Temple of Solomon, (2.) The organization of the temple service under the high-priests, and the division of the priests and Levites into courses, who resided at the Temple during their term of service — all which necessarily put great power into the hands of an able high-priest. (3.) The revolt of the ten tribes BSBA ine Sk eee b * Its transfer by David was not immediate, for the ark, after its capture by the Philistines at the time of Eli’s death, was kept at several other places before its ultimate removal to Jerusalem. ([Samon; TABERNA- i CLE, H'story.] It appears from 1 Chr. vi. 9 that Azariah was ison to Zadok, being the son of Ahimaaz. The © in ver. 10 seems to belong to him, and not to on of Johanan. 1072 HIGH-PRIEST from the dynasty of David and from the worship at Jerusalem, and the setting up of a schismatical priesthood at Dan and Beer-sheba (1 K. xii. 31; 2 Chr. xiii. 9, &c.). (4.) The overthrow of the usurpation of Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, by Jehoiada the high-priest, whose near relationship to king Joash, added to his zeal against the idol- atries of the house of Ahab, stimulated him to head the revolution with the force of priests and Levites at his command. (5.) The boldness and success with which the high-priest Azariah with- stood the encroachments of the king Uzziah upon the office and functions of the priesthood. (6.) The repair of the temple by Jehoiada, in the reign of Joash, the restoration of the temple services by Azariah in the reign of Hezekiah, and the discovery of the book of the law, and the religious reforma- tion by Hilkiah in the reign of Josiah. [HI.L- KIAH.| (7.) In all these great religious move- ments, however, excepting the one headed by Jehoiada, it is remarkable how the civil power took the lead. It was David who arranged all the temple service, Solomon who directed the building and dedication of the temple, the high-priest being not so much as named; Jehoshaphat who sent the priests about to teach the people, and assigned to the high-priest Amariah his share in the work; Hezekiah who headed the reformation, and urged on Azariah and the priests and Levites; Josiah who encouraged the priests in the service of the house of the Lord. On the other hand we read of no opposition to the idolatries of Manasseh by the high-priest, and we know how shamefully subser- vient Urijah the high-priest was to king Ahaz, actually building an altar according to the pattern of one at Damascus, to displace the brazen altar, and joining the king in his profane worship before it (2 K. xvi. 10-16). The preponderance of the civil over the ecclesiastical power, as an historical fact, in the kingdom of Judah, although kept within ‘ bounds by the hereditary succession of the high- priests, seems to be proved from these circum- stances. The priests of this series ended with Seraiah, who was taken prisoner by Nebuzar-adan, and slain at Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar, together with Zeph- aniah the second priest or sagan, after the burn- ing of the temple and the plunder of all the sacred vessels (2 K. xxv. 18). His son Jehozadak or Jose- dech was at the same time carried away captive (1 Chr. vi. 15). The time occupied by these (say) eighteen high- priests who ministered at Jerusalem, was about 454 years, which gives an average of something more than twenty-five years to each high-priest. It is remarkable that not a single instance is recorded after the time of David of an inquiry by Urim and Thummim as a means of inquiring of the Lord. The ministry of the prophets seems to have super- seded that of the high-priests (see e. g. 2 Chr. xy., xvili., xx. 14, 15; 2 K. xix. 1, 2, xxii. 12-14; Jer. xxi. 1, 2). Some think that Urim and Thummim ceased with the theocracy; others with the division of Israel into two kingdoms. Nehemiah seems to have expected the restoration of it (Neh. vii. 65), and so perhaps did Judas Maccabzeus, 1 Mace. iv. 46; comp. xiv. 41, while Josephus affirms that it had been exercised for the last time 200 years be- fore he wrote, namely, by John Hyrcanus (Whis- ton, Note on Ant. iii. 8, and Prid. Connect. i. 150, 151). It seems therefore scarcely true to reckon Urim and Thummim as one of the marks of God’s HIGH-PRIEST presence with Solomon’s Temple, which was want to the second ‘Temple (Prid. i. 1388, 144 ff). 1 early cessation of answers by Urim and Thumm though the high-priest’s office and the wearing the breastplate continued in force during so m: centuries, seems to confirm the notion that gs answers were not the fundamental, but only accessory uses of the breastplate of judgment. (c) An interval of about fifty-two years elay between the high-priests of the second and tl group, during which there was neither temple, altar, nor ark, nor priest. Jehozadak, or Josed as it is written in Haggai (i. 1, 14, &c.), who she have succeeded Seraiah, lived and died a eaptivs Babylon. The pontifical office revived in his Jeshua, of whom such frequent mention is mad Ezra and Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah Esdr. and Eeclus.; and he therefore stands at head of this third and last series, honorably tinguished for his zealous codperation with Zer babel in rebuilding the Temple, and restoring dilapidated commonwealth of Israel. His suee ors, as far as the O. T. guides us, were Joiak Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan (or Jonathan), and J dua. Of these we find Eliashib hindering rat than seconding the zeal of the devout Tirshe Nehemiah for the observance of God’s law in Is (Neh. xiii. 4,7); and Johanan, Josephus tells murdered his own brother Jesus or Joshua in Temple, which led to its further profanation by goses, the general of Artaxerxes Mnemon’s ai (Ant. xi. 7). Jaddua was high-priest in the t of Alexander the Great. Concerning him Josep relates the story that he went out to meet Alex der at Sapha (probably the ancient Mizpeh) at head of a procession of priests; and that w Alexander saw the multitude clothed in white, the priests in their linen garments, and the hi priest in blue and gold, with the mitre on his h and the gold plate, on which was the name of ¢ he stepped forward alone and adored the Na and hastened to embrace the high-priest (Ant 8, § 5). Josephus adds among other things 1 the king entered Jerusalem with the high-pmi and went up to the Temple to worship and « sacrifice; that he was shown the prophecies Daniel concerning himself, and at the high-prie intercession granted the Jews liberty to live ace ing to their own laws, and freedom from tribute the Sabbatical years. The story, however, has obtained credit. It was the brother of*this Jad¢ Manasseh, who, according to the same author was at the request of Sanballat made the first hi priest of the Samaritan temple by Alexander Great. | Jaddua was succeeded by Onias I., his son, he again by Simon the Just, the last of the 1 of the great synagogue, as the Jews speak, ani whom is usually ascribed the completion of Canon of the O. T. (Prideaux, Conn. i. 545). him Jesus, the son of Sirach, speaks in terms most glowing eulogy in Ecclus. i., and aseribin; him the repair and fortification of the Temple, ' other works. The passage (1-21) contains an teresting account of the ministrations of the h priest. Upon Simon’s death, his son Onias b under age, Eleazar, Simon’s brother, succeeded | The high-priesthood of Eleazar is memorable being that under which the LXX. version of Scriptures was made at Alexandria for Ptol Philadelphus, according to the account of Jose] taken from Aristeas (Ant. xii. 2). This transla a | | HIGH-PRIEST HIGH-PRIEST 10738 t the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, valuable as | mus himself died, and that Alexander, king of _ was with reference to the wider interests of re-| Syria, made Jonathan, the brother of J udas, high- gion, and marked as was the Providence which priest. Josephus himself too calls Jonathan “the ave it to the world at this time as a preparation | first of the sons of Asamoneus, who was high- wr the approaching advent of Christ, yet viewed in priest” (Vita, § 1). It is possible, however, that s relation to Judaism and the high-priesthood, | Judas may have been elected by the people to the as a sign, and perhaps a helping cause of their | office of high-priest, though never confirmed in it ay. It marked a growing tendency to Hellenize, | by the Syrian kings. The Asmonean family were iterly inconsistent with the spirit of the Mosaic priests of the course of Joiarib, the first of the onomy. Accordingly in the high-priesthood of twenty-four courses (1 Chr. xxiv. 7), and whose leazar’s rival nephews, Jesus and Onias, we find| return from captivity is recorded 1 Chr. ix. 10 eir very names changed into the Greek ones of Neh. xi. 10. They were probably of the house of ison and Menelaus, and with the introduction of Kleazar, though this cannot be affirmed with cer- is new feature of rival high-priests we find one tainty; and Josephus tells us that he himself wag them, Menelaus, strengthening himself and seek- related to them, one of his ancestors having mar- z support from the Syro-Greek kings against the| ried a daughter of Jonathan, the first high-priest wish party, by offering to forsake their national of the house. This Asmonean dynasty lasted from ys and customs, and to adopt those of the Greeks, B. C. 153 till the family was damaged by intestine ie building of a gymnasium at Jerusalem for the divisions, and then destroyed by Herod the Great. 2 of these apostate Jews, and their endeavor to Aristobulus, the last high-priest of his line, brother aweal their circumcision when stripped for the| of Mariamne, was murdered by order of Herod, his mes (1 Mace. i. 14, 15; 2 Mace. iv. 12-15; Jos. brother-in-law, B. c. 35. The independence of t. xii. 5, § 1), show the length to which this Juda, under the priest-kings of this raze, had rit was carried. The acceptance of the spurious | lasted till Pompey took Jerusalem, and sent king esthood of the temple of Onion from Ptolemy} Aristobulus II. (who had also taken the high- ilometor by Onias (the son of Onias the high- | priesthood from his brother Hyreanus) a prisoner est), who would have been the legitimate high-| to Rome. Pompey restored Hyreanus to the high- 2st on the death of Menelaus, his uncle, is another priesthood, but forbad him to wear the diadem. king indication of the same degeneracy. By Everything Jewish was now, however, hastening s flight of Onias into Egypt the succession of | to decay. Herod made men of low birth high- h-priests in the family of Jozadak ceased; for| priests, deposed them at his will, and named others tough the Syro-Greek kings had introduced | in their room. In this he was followed by Arche- zh uncertainty into the succession, by deposing laus, and by the Romans when they took the goy- their will obnoxious persons, and appointing | ernment of Judwa into their own hands; so that m they pleased, yet the dignity had never gone| there were no fewer than twenty-eight high-priests of the one family. Alcimus, whose Hebrew| from the reign of Herod to the destruction of the te was Jakim (1 Chr. xxiy. 12), or perhaps Temple by Titus, a period of 107 years.¢ The N. iin (1 Chr. ix, 10, xxiv. 17), or, according to|'T. introduces us to some of these later, and oft- inus (ap. Selden), Joachim, and who was made changing high-priests, namely, Annas and Caiaphas \-priest by Antiochus Eupator on Menelaus| — the former, high-priest at the commencement § put to death by him, was the first who was of Jehn Baptist’s ministry, with Caiaphas as sec- different family. One, says Josephus, that| ond priest; and the latter high-priest himself at 's indeed of the stock of Aaron, but not of this! our Lord’s crucifixion — and Ananias, thought to ly” of Jozadak. | ba the same as Ananus who was murdered by the "hat, however, for a time saved the Jewish in-| Zealots just before the siege of Jerusalem, before tions, infused a new life and consistency into] whom St. Paul was tried, as we read Acts Xxiii., sriesthood and the national religion, and ena-| and of whom he said ‘God shall smite thee, thou them to fulfill their destined course till the| whited wall.” T heophilus, the son of Ananus, was at of Christ, was the cruel and impolitic perse-| the high-priest from whom Saul received letters to n of Antiochus Epiphanes. This thoroughly | the synagogue at Damascus (Acts ix. 1, 14, Kui- ied the piety and national spirit of the Jews,| noel). Both he and Ananias seem certainly to drew together in defense of their temple and| have presided in the Sanhedrim, and that officially, ty all who feared God and were attached to | nor is Lightfoot’s explanation (viii. 450, and 484) national institutions. The result was that} of the mention of the high-priest, though Gama- the high-priesthood had been brought to the} liel and his son Simeon were respectively presidents t degradation by the apostasy and crimes of | of the Sanhedrim, at all probable or satisfactory ‘st Onias or Menelaus, and after a vacancy of | (see Acts v. 17, &.). The last high-priest. was years had followed the brief pontificate of | appointed by lot by the Zealots from the course of us, his no less infamous Successor, a new and | priests called by Josephus Eniachim (probably a MS Succession of high-priests arose in the corrupt reading for Jachim). He is thus described nean family, who united the dignity of civil] by the Jewish historian, « His name was Phan- » and for a time of independent. sovereigns, | nias: he was the son of Samuel of the village of ut of the high-priesthood. Josephus, who is Aphtha, a man not only not of the number of the ed by Lightfoot, Selden, and others, calls| chief priests, but who, such a mere rustic was he, | Maceabeeus “high-priest of the nation of | scarcely knew what the high-priesthood meant. .” (Ant. xii. 10, § 6), but, according to the} Yet did they drag him reluctant from the country, tter authority of 1 Mace. x. 20, it was not! and setting him forth in a borrowed character as er the death of Judas Maccabeus that Alci-| on the stage, they put the sacred vestments on him, sephus tells us of one Ananus and his five sons Agrippa for the part he took in causing “James the | filled the office of high-priest in turn. One brother of Jesus who was called Christ ” to be stoned , Ananus the younger, was deposed by king| (Ant. xx. 9, § 1). 68 1074 HIGH-PRIEST and instructed him how to act on the occasion. This shocking impiety, which to them was a sub- ject of merriment and sport, drew tears from the other priests, who beheld from a distance their law turned into ridicule, and groaned over the subver- sion of the sacred honors’ (B. J. iv. 8, § 8). Thus ignominiously ended the series of high-priests which had stretched in a scarcely broken line, through nearly fourteen, or, according to the com- mon chronology, sixteen centuries. The Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires, which the Jewish high-priests had seen in turn overshadowing the world, had each, except the last, one by one withered away and died — and now the last successor of Aaron was stripped of his sacerdotal robes, and the temple which he served laid level with the ground to rise no more. But this did not happen till the true High-priest and King of Israel, the Minister of the sanctuary and of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man, had offered His one sacrifice, once for all, and had taken His place at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, bearing on His breast the judgment of His redeemed people, and continuing a Priest forever, in the Sanctuary which shall never be taken down! The subjoined table shows the succession of high- priests, as far as it can be ascertained, and of the contemporary civil rulers. Antigonus). Ptolemy Soter . . =. - Ptolemy Philadelphus . 66 ° ° ° e . Ptolemy Euergetes Ptolemy Philopator Ptolemy Epiphanes and Antiochus. Antiochus Epiphanes . 66 'e CIVIL RULER. HIGH-PRIEST. Moses eed so itell enh oh ROMs Jost vost ells fen ced eoleazar Oflamielt 1.) Gale Aeiioeteee Seninehas. ADISHUA Peceelole ss er ey -Abishiua, Eli Se ee cea Eli. Samiaelic vii) oan +e. Ahitub. Sailer dite iuieme lis tere Ahijah. David A Ape rarer Se Zadok and Abiathar. Solomon... . . ~ Azariah. Abijah Johanan. SANS, oie le aee) 8 oie Azariah. Jehoshaphat . .- - Amariah. Jehoram. . . +. © ~ Jehoiada. PA Taziall dactiers sane. © ness one “ Jehoash . «. . + « « Do. and Zechariah. IAT AZARND Rect Jone alesis 2 Uziah . 2. +» » -Azatiah, Leen, Saaoiec 2 WAZ ie) seth cei Urijah. Hezekiah - A Azariah. Manasseh .. - - Shallum. . Amon Ai, Ah aca Se SNA “ Josiah Hilkiah. Jehoiakim Azariah ? Zedekiah . ne ett bie Seraiah. Evil-Merodach . . . . Jehozadak. Zerubbabel (Cyrus and Jeshua. Darius). Mordecai? (Xerxes) . . Joiakim. Ezra and Nehemiah (Ar- SEliashib. taxerxes). Darius Nothus . . . . Joiada. Artaxerxes Mnemon Johanan Alexander the Great , Jaddua. Onias I. (Ptolemy Soter, Onias I. Simon the Just. Eleazar. Manasseh. Onias II. Simon II. Onias III. (Joshua, or) Jason. Onias, or Menelaus. HILEN CIVIL RULER Ate HIGH-PRIEST. Demetrius . . - « dJacimus, or Alcimus, Alexander Balas . » Jonathan, brother Simon (Asmonean) . - John Hyrcanus (Asm.) King Aristobulus (Asm.) King Alexander Jannzeus (Asmonean). : Queen Alexandra (Asm.) King Aristobulus II. (As- monean). Pompey the Great and Hyrcanus, or rather, towards the end of his pontificate, Antipater. Pacorus the Parthian . Herod, K. of Judea » - 66 ae ia ° ° ° Herod the Great . . . 66 Archelaus, K. of Judea . 66 ° ° ° ° ° (z9 . ° . . . Cyrenius, governor of » Syria, second time. Valerius Gratus, procura- tor of Judea. 66 . ° ii vere a 66 . ° ° e 6c ramet Bh Vitellius, governor of Syria 00S th aa ante Sep ee Herod Agrippa. . . » 66 . e ° ° ° 66 e ° ° e ° Herod, king of Chalcis . 66 . . ° e Appointed by the people Do. (Whiston on B. J. iv. 8, § 6). Chosen by lot . . Judas Maccabseus ( monean). Simon (Asmonean), John Hyrcanus (Do.). Aristobulus (Do.). Alexander Janneus (1) Hyrcanus TI. (Do.). Aristobulus II. (Do.). Hyrcanus II. (Do.). Antigonus (Do.). Ananelus. Aristobulus (last of moneans) murderec Herod. Ananelus restored. Jesus, son of Phabes. Simon, son of Boét father-in-law to Hi Matthias, son of 1 philus. Joazarus, son of § {rather, Boéthus, _ seph. Ant. xviii. 1, Eleazar. Jesus, son of Sie. Joazarus (second time Ananus. Ishmael, son of Phat Eleazar, son of Anan Simon, son of Kamit! Caiaphas, called als seph. Jonathan, son of An Theophilus, brothe Jonathan. Simon Cantheras. Matthias, brother of athan, son of Ana Elioneus, son of theras. Joseph, son of Came Ananias, son of Nebe Jonathan. Ishmael, son of Phal Joseph, son of Simon Ananus, son of Au or Ananias. Jesus, son of Damné Jesus, son of Gamali Matthias, son of philus. Phannias, son of Sa The latter part of the above list is taken | from Lightfoot, vol. ix. p. 26 ff. — also in part Josephus directly, on Ant. xx. 8, § 5. and in part from Whiston’ A. ©. * The subject. of the preceding article ant of Priests are so related to each other, that ¥ have usually discussed them under the same For a list of some of the writers who have t of the topics more or less in connection wit! other, see under PRIESTS. * HIGHWAY. [Hipers; WaY.] | HYVLEN on [perh. fortress, Fir HMILKIAH HILKIAH 1075 Avd; Alex. NnAwry:¢ Helon), the name of a city | which may be Judah allotted with its « suburbs” to the priests | writings of Jeremiah Chr. vi. 58); and which in the corresponding | of Scripture. As regards the ts of Joshua is called Honon. HILKYVAH (97137277 and mNST, se rd [Jehovah] is my portion : XeAnlas; [in 2 K. ui, 18, Alex. XaAxias; 26, 37, Vat. Alex. -Ket-:] lenag).- 1. HILKIA‘HU, father of Eliakim (2 K. ii. [18, 26,] 37; Is. xxii. 20, xxxvi. [3,] 22). LIAKIM. | 2. [Vat. genr. XeAres; in Ezr. vii. LeVat: keias, Alex. XeAxeras; in Neh. xi. 11, Rom. xia, Vat. FA. Evxesa.] High-priest in the in of Josiah (2 K. xxii. 4 ff; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 9 ff; isdr. i. 8). According to the genealogy in 1 . vi. 13 (A. V.) he was son of Shallum, and a Ezr. vii. 1, apparently the ancestor of Ezra seribe. His high-priesthood was rendered par- larly illustrious by the great reformation effected er it by king Josiah, by the solemn Passover /at Jerusalem in the 18th year of that king’s a, and above all by the discovery which he eof the book of the law of Moses in the Temple. h regard to the latter, Kennicott (Heb. Tect, 99) is of opinion that it was the original scarcely conceivable; and perhaps even the smaller bulk of a copy of Deuteronomy compared with that of the whole law, considered with reference to its place by the ark, point strongly to the conclusion that “the book of the law” ordered to be put “in the side of the ark of the covenant ”’ was the book of Deuteronomy alone, whether or no exactly in its present form is a further question. As regards the second, the 28th and 29th chapters of Deut. seem to be those especially referred to in 2 K. xxii. 13, 16, 17, and 2 K. xxiii. 2, 3 seem to point directly to Deut. xxix. ] , in the mention of the covenant, and ver. 3 of the former to Deut. xxx. 2, in the expression with all their heart and all their soul. The words in 2 Chr. Xxxv. 3, “ The Levites that taught all Israel,’ seem also to refer to Deut. xxxiii. 10. All the actions of Josiah which followed the reading of the book found, the destruction of all a — idolatrous symbols, the putting away of wizards and raph copy of the Pentateuch eRe) DY | 8 With familiar spirits, and the keeping of the e Which Hilkiah found. _ He argues from the assover, were such as would follow from hearing tar form of » Pression: In..2 Chr. xxxiv. 14, the 16th, 18th, and other chapters of Deuteronomy, oe a MT AD! “ID, “ the book of | while there is not one that points to any precept ww of Jehovah by the hand of’ Moses; whereas | Contained in the other books, and not in Deuter- 2 fourteen other places in the O. T. where the onomy. If there is any exception to this statement f Moses or the book of Moses are mentioned, | it is to be found in the description of the Passover either “the book of Moses,” or “the law of | in ch. xxxy. T he phrases “ on the fourteenth day 3, or “ the hook of the law of Moses.” But | of the first month,” in ver. 1: Tgument is far from conclusive, because the | selves, and prepare your brethren, that they may 2 in question may quite as properly signify | do according to the word of the Lord by the hand book of the law of the Lord given through | Of Moses,” ver. 6; « The priests sprinkled the -” Compare the expression ey ye1 p) wectrov | blood,” ver. 11; and perhaps the allusion in yer. 12, may be thought to point to Ley. Xxili. 5, or Num. ix. 3; to Ley. Xxli. and Num. viii. 20-22: 1} to Lev. i. 5; iii, 2 &e.; and to Ley. iii. 3-5, &e. er, the copy cannot be proved to have been respectively. But the allusions are not marked, and ‘autograph from the words in question, it | jt must be remembered that the Levitical institu- Probable that it was, from the place where it | tions existed in practice, and that the other books und, namely, in the Temple; and, from its cf Moses were certainly extant, though they were wing been discovered before, but being only | not kept by the side of the ark. As regards the to light on the cecasion of the repairs third, it is well known how full the writings of were hecessary, and from the discoverer being Jeremiah are of direct. references and of points of ‘h-priest himself, it seems natural to conclude rese : € particular part of the Temple where it was this j i the high-priest. Such a place exactly w. > where we know the original copy of tl 00ks, as Bertheau, or the book of Deuter- do, with reference to the curse for disobedience (see ; ng UL - 8, 5); a very strong confirmation of the pre- uted, (1) to an examination of the terms ceding arguments which tend to prove that Deuter- 2¢ depositing the book of the law by the enomy was the book found by Hilkiah. But again: in Josh. viii. we have the account of the first execu- é ) 9! tion by Joshua and the Israelites of that which 8 they transpire; (3) to any indications Moses had commanded relative to writing the law ee " te LXX. this name appears in ver. 59, having laces with Jattir. b Hitzig, on Jer. xi., also supposes the expressions in this chapter to have been occasioned by the finding of the book of the law. 1076 HILKIAH . HILKIAH Z The troublous times of the Judges were obvic more likely to obliterate than to promote the s: of letters. And whatever occasional revival of se learning may have taken place under such kin; David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Jotham,) Hezekiah, yet on the other hand such reigr that of Athaliah, the last years of Joash, thi Ahaz, and above all the long reign of Mana: with their idolatries and national calamities, | have been most unfavorable to the study of | sacred letters.’? On the whole, in the days of J. irreligion and ignorance had overflowed all, dykes erected to stay their progress. In spi such occasional acts as the public reading 0; law to the people, enjoined by Jehoshaphat (2. xvii. 9), and such insulated evidences of the } reading the law, as commanded by Moses, a) action recorded of Amaziah affords (2 K. xiv. where by the way the reference is still to the upon stones to be set upon Mount Ebai; and it is added in ver. 34, “and afterwards he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, accord- ing to all that is written in the book of the law.” In ver. 32 he had said “he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses.”” Now not only is it impossible to imagine that the whole Penta- teuch was transcribed on these stones, but all the references which transpire are to the book of Deu- teronomy. The altar of whole stones untouched by iron tool, the peace-offerings, the blessings and the cursings, as well as the act itself of writing the law on stones and setting them on Mount Ebal, and placing half the tribes on Mount Ebal, and the other half on Mount Gerizim, all belong to Deuter- onomy. And therefore when it is added in ver. 35, “ There was not a word of all that Moses com- manded which Joshua read not before all the con- gregation of Israel,’ we seem constrained to accept the words with the limitation to the book of Deu- teronomy, as that which alone was ordered by Moses to be thus publicly read. And this increases the probability that here too the expression is limited to the same book. The only discordant evidence is that of the book of Nehemiah. In the 8th chapter of that book, and ix. 3, we have the public reading by Ezra of « the book of the law of Moses’’ to the whole con- gregation at the feast of Tabernacles, in evident obedience to Deut. xxxi. 10-13. But it is quite certain, from Neh. viii. 14-17, that on the second day they read out of Leviticus, because the directions about dwelling in booths are found there only, in| then can we wonder that under such cireums ch. xxiii. Moreover in the prayer of the Levites the knowledge of the law had fallen into desu which follows Neh. ix. 5, and which is apparently | or fail to see in the incident of the startli based upon the previous reading of the law, reference | covery of the copy of it by Hilkiah one o! ’ is freely made to all the books of Moses, and indeed | many instances of simple truthfulness whi to the later books also. It is, however, perhaps not | press on the Scripture narrative such an | an improbable inference that, Ezra haying lately | takable stamp of authenticity, when it is ‘ completed his edition of the Holy Scriptures, more | the same guileness spirit in which it is w was read on this occasion than was strictly enjoined | In fact, the ignorance of the law of ea py Deut. xxxi., and that therefore this transaction | this history reveals is in most striking hi does not really weaken the foregoing evidence. with the prevalent idolatry disclosed by the [ But no little surprise has been expressed by history of Judea, especially since its con critics at the previous non-acquaintance with this|with the house of Ahab, as well as with { ook on the part of Hilkiah, Josiah, and the people | state of education which is apparent from : generally, which their manner of receiving it plainly | incidental notices. evidences; and some have argued from hence that| The story of Hilkiah’s discovery throws 1 «the law of Moses”? is not of older date than the | whatever upon the mode in which other ! reign of Josiah; in fact that Josiah and Hilkiah | of the Scriptures were preserved, and theref invented it, and pretended to have found a copy in | is not the place to consider it. But 7 the Temple in order to give sanction to the refor- | observes that the expression in 2 K. xxii. mation which they had in hand. The following | implies that the existence of the law of Me remarks are intended to point out the true inferences | a thing well known to the Jews. It is int to be drawn from the narrative of this remarkable | to notice the concurrence of the king with t] discovery in the books of Kings and Chronicles. | priest in the restoration of the Temple, a! The direction in Deut. xxxi. 10-13 for the public | the analogy of the circumstances with wl reading of the law at the feast of Tabernacles on place in the reign of Joash, when Jehoi each seventh year, or year of release, to the whole | high-priest, as related 2 Chr. xxiv. (Bert! congregation, as the means of perpetuating. the | loc. ; Prideaux, Connect. i. 48, 315; Lewi knowledge of the law, sufficiently shows that at that | Hed. bk. viii. ch. 8, &c.) [Cuecrs.] time a multiplication of copies and a multitude of A readers was not contemplated. The same thing seems to be implied also in the direction given in Deut. xvii. 18, 19, concerning the copy of the law to be made, for the special use of the king, distinct from that in the keeping of the priests and Levites. And this paucity of copies and of readers is just what one would have expected in an age when the art of reading and writing was confined to the pro- fessional scribes, and the very few others who, like Moses, had learnt the art in Egypt (Acts vii. 22). of Deuteronomy —and the yet more marke quaintance with the law attributed to Hez (2 K. xviii. 5, 6) [GENEALOGY], everythi Josiah’s reign indicates a very. low state of edge. There were indeed still professional s\ among the Levites (2 Chr. xxxiv. 13), and Shi was the king’s scribe. But judging from th rative, 2 K. xxii. 8,10; 2 Chr. xxxiv., it) probable that neither Hilkiah nor Josiah | read. The same may perhaps be said of Jeri who was always attended by Baruch the serib wrote down the words of Jeremiah from his (Jer. xxxvi. 2, 4, 6, 8, 18, 28, 32. xlv., &e.). | me a 3. Hinkr’an (LXX. [Rom. Vat.] omit} Xernias; Comp. Ald. Xeaxlas or -a] Hi Merarite Levite, son of Amzi, one of the: | HILLEL “those who stood on the right hand of Ezra when ‘2 read the law to the people. Doubtless a Levite, ad probably a priest (Neh. viii. 4). He may be entical with the Hilkiah who came up in the pedition with Jeshua and Zerubbabel (xii. 7), and hose descendant Hashabiah is commemorated as ‘ving in the days of Joiakim (xii. 21). 6. Hitkra’Hv; a priest, of Anathoth, father of 1e prophet JEREMIAH (Jer. i. 1). 7. Hitkr’An, father of Gemariah, who was one | Zedekiah’s envoys to Babylon (Jer. xxix. 3). |‘ HIL/LEL br [rich in praise, Fiirst]: ‘AAMAS Alex. SeAAnu; Joseph. “EAAnAos: Mllel), native of Pirathon in Mount Ephraim, father of BDON, one of the judges of Israel (Judg. xii. 13, 1). ‘HILLS. The structure and characteristics of e hills of Palestine will be most conveniently )ticed in the general description of the features ‘the country. [PALEstrnE.] But it may not | unprofitable to call attention here to the various ebrew terms for which the word “hill” has been ployed in the Auth. Version. 1. Gibeah, 1133, from a root akin to 223, tich seems to have the force of curvature or mpishness. A word involving this idea is pecul- ly applicable to the rounded hills of Palestine, d from it are derived, as has been pointed out der GIBEAH, the names of several places situated hills. Our translators have been consistent in adering gibeah by “hill;** in four passages only alifying it as “little hill,’ doubtless-for the more nplete antithesis to “mountain”’ (Ps. Ixv. 12, ii. 3, exiv. 4, 6). 2. But they have also employed the same Eng- 1 word for the very different term har, 7, ‘ich has a much more extended sense than gibeah, aning a whole district rather than an individual inenee, and to which our word “mountain ” ‘wers with tolerable accuracy. ‘This exchange is “ays undesirable, but it sometimes occurs so as sonfuse the meaning of a passage where it is irable that the topography should be unmistak- » For instance, in Ex. xxiv. 4, the “hill” is same which is elsewhere in the same chapter , 13, 18, &c.) and book, consistently and accu- ay rendered “mount”? and “mountain.” In mM. xiv. 44, 45, the “hill” is the “mountain” er. 40, as also in Deut. i. 41, 43, compared with 44. In Josh. xy. 9, the allusion is to the Mount Jlives, correctly called “ mountain” in the pre- ‘Ng verse; and so also in 2 Sam. xvi. 13. The ntty of the “hills,” in Deut. i. 7; Josh. ix. iP 0, xi. 16, is the elevated district of J udah, Ben- tin, and Ephraim, which is correctly called *“ the ‘mtain” in the earliest descriptions of Palestine MM. xiii. 29), and in many subsequent passages. ' “holy hill”? (Ps. iii. 4), the «hill of Jehovah ” 'v. 8), the “hill of God” (Ixviii. 15), are noth- else than “Mount Zion.” In 2 K. i. 9 and 21, the use of the word “hill” obscures the 310n to Carmel, which in other passages of the of the prophet (e.g. 1 K. xviii. 19; 2K. iv. has the term «“ mount” correctly attached to | Other places in the historical books in which same substitution weakens the force of the nar- '* are as follows: Gen. vii. 19; Deut. viii. 7; | HINNOM, VALLEY OF 1077 in xii. 22, exe. Rom. ’EAkla.j HiLKr’an; one| xxiii. 14; xxv. 20; xxvi. 13; 2 Sam. xiii. 34; 1K. xx. 23, 28, xxii. 17, &c. 3. On one occasion the word Ma'aleh, * Syn, is rendered “ hill,’ namely, 1 Sam. ix. 11, where it would be better to employ “ ascent’ or some sim- ilar term. 4. In the N. T. the word “hill” is employed to render the Greek word Bovyds; but on one occa- sion it is used for Jpos, elsewhere “ mountain,” so’ as to obscure the connection between the two parts of the same narrative. The “hill? from which Jesus was coming down in Luke ix. 37, is the same as “the mountain” into which He had gone for His transfiguration the day before (comp. ver. 28). In Matt. v. 14, and Luke iv. 29, dpos is also ren- dered “hill,” but not with the inconvenience just noticed. In Luke i. 39 [and 65] the « hill country ” (7 Opewh) is the same “mountain of Judah” [sing. collective] to which frequent reference is made in the O. T. G. HIN. [Measures.] HIND (D3 : ZAapos: cervus), the female of the common stag or cervus elaphus. It is fre- quently noticed in the poetical parts of Scripture as emblematic of activity (Gen. xlix. 21; 2 Sam. xxil. 34; Ps. xviii. 33; Hab. iii. 19), gentleness (Prov. vy. 19), feminine modesty (Cant. ii. 7y itis 5); earnest longing (Ps. xlii. 1), and maternal affection (Jer. xiv. 5). Its shyness and remoteness from the haunts of men are also noticed (Job xxxix. 1), and its timidity, causing it to cast its young at the sound of thunder (Ps. xxix. 9). The conclusion which some have drawn from the passage last quoted that the hind produces her young with creat difficulty, is not in reality deducible from the words, and is expressly contradicted by Job xxxix. 3. The LXX. reads TTS in Gen. xlix. 21, rendering it aréAexos avemuévov, “a luxuriant terebinth: ” Lowth has proposed a similar change in Ps. xxix., but in neither case can the emendation be accepted : Naphtali verified the comparison of himself to a “graceful or tall hind’? by the events recorded in Judg. iv. 6-9, v. 18. The inscription of Ps. xxii., “the hind of the morning,” probably refers to a tune of that name. [AIJELETH-SHAHAR.] Mit AG HINGE. 1. yes otpdprye, cardo, with the notion of turning (Ges. p. 1165). 2. 578, Opwua, cardo, with the notion of insertion (Ges. p. 1096). Both ancient Egyptian and modern Oriental doors were and are hung by means of pivots turning in sockets both on the upper and lower sides. In Syria, and especially the Haurén, there are many ancient doors consisting of stone slabs with pivots carved out of the same piece, inserted in sockets above and below, and fixed during the building of the house. The allusion in Proy. xxvi. 14 is thus clearly explained. The hinges mentioned in 1 K. vii. 50 were probably of the Egyptian kind, attached to the upper and lower sides of the door (Bucking- ham, Arab Tribes, p. 177; Porter, Damascus, ii. 22, 192; Maundrell, Karly Travels, pp. 447, 448 (Bohn); Shaw, 7Jravels, p. 210; Lord Lindsay, Letters, p. 292; Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. abridgm. i. 15). 1 OE oo HINNOM, VALLEY [more strictly Ra- VINE] OF, otherwise called “the valley of the + xii. 6, xviii. 18, 14; Judg. xvi. 8; 1 Sam.! son” or “ children [sons] of Hinnom ”’ (DSi1"93, 1078 HINNOM, VALLEY OF "TTAB, or “TIDER, variously ren- dered by LXX, paparyé Evydu [V at. Ovop, Josh. xv. 8], or viov "Evvou [2 K. xxiii. 10, Jer. vii. 29, 30, xxxil. 35], or Talevva, Josh. xviii. 16 [also sda Sovvdu (Alex. vamrn viov Evvou), and Tai Ovvou (Alex. for Tatevva)]; év yé Beverydu [Alex. év yn Beevvou], 2 Chr. xxviii. 3, xxxiii. 6; 7d moAudvdpioy viev Tay Téxvwv avtav, Jer. xix. 2, [woAudy8pioy viod "Evydu (Vat. Alex. FA. Evvou), ver.] 6),% a deep and narrow ravine, with steep, rocky sides to the S. and W. of Jerusalem, separating Mount Zion to the N. from the “ Hill of Evil Counsel,”’ and the sloping rocky plateau of the “plain of Rephaim” to the S., taking its name, according to Professor Stanley, from ‘some ancient hero, the son of Hinnom ”’ having encamped in it (Stanley, S. ¢ P. p. 172). The earliest mention of the Valley of Hinnom in the sacred writings is Josh. xy. 8, xviii. 16, where the bound- ary line between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin is described with minute topographical accuracy, as passing along the bed of the ravine. On the southern brow, overlooking the valley at its eastern extremity, Solomon erected high places for Molech (1 K. xi. 7), whose horrid rites were revived from time to time in the same vicinity by the later idolatrous kings. Ahaz and Manasseh made their children “pass through the fire” in this valley (2 K. xvi. 3; 2 Chr. xxviii. 3, xxxiii. 6), and the fiendish custom of infant sacrifice to the fire-gods seems to have been kept up in Tophet, at its S. E. extremity for a considerable period (Jer. vii. 31; 2 K. xxiii. 10). [Toruxrr.] To put an end to these abominations the place was polluted by Josiah, who rendered it ceremonially unclean by spreading over it human bones, and other corrup- tions (2 K. xxiii. 10, 18, 14; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 4, 5), from which time it appears to have become the common cesspool of the city, into which its sewage was conducted, to be carried off by the waters of the Kidron, as well as a laystall, where all its solid filth was collected. Most commentators follow Buxtorf, Lightfoot, and others, in asserting that perpetual fires were here kept up for the consump- tion of bodies of criminals, carcases of animals, and whatever else was combustible; but the Rabbinical authorities usually brought forward in support of this idea appear insufficient, and Robinson declares (i. 274) that “there is no evidence of any other fires than those of Molech having been kept up in this valley,” referring to Rosenmiiller, Biblisch. Geogr. Il. i. 156, 164. For the more ordinary view, see Hengstenburg, Christol. ii. 454, iv. 41; Keil on Kings ii. 147, Clark’s edit.; and cf. Is. xxx. 33, xvi. 24. From its ceremonial defilement, and from the detested and abominable fire of Molech, if not from the supposed everburning funeral piles, the later Jews applied the name of this valley Ge Hinnom, Gehennn, to denote the ‘place of eternal torment, and some of the Rabbins here fixed the “ door of hell; ’’ a sense in which it is used by our Lord. [GEHENNA.] It is called, Jer. ii. 23, “the val- ley,” nar’ éfoxnhyv, and perhaps “the valley of dead bodies,” xxxi. 40, and “the valley of vision,”’ Is. xxii. 1, 5 (Stanley, Syr. and Pal. pp. 172, 482). vr or a * Some of the variations of the Vatican MS. are not noticed here, being mere corruptions. A. b * The clay used in the pottery at Jerusalem near the churel. of St. Anne is said to be obtained from E/- a. ed: HINNOM,; VALLEY OF The name by which it is now known is (in ign rance of the meaning of the initial syllable) Wé Jehennam, or Wady er Rubéb (Williams, H City, i. 56, suppl.), though in Mohammedan t¢ ditions the name Gehenna is applied to the Val of Kedron (Ibn Batutah, 12, 4; Stanley, ut sup, The valley commences in a broad sloping ba: to the W. of the city, S. of the Jaffa road (exter ing nearly to the brow of the great Wady, on{ W.), in the centre of which, 700 yards from { Jaffa gate, is the large reservoir, supposed te the “upper pool,’”’ or ‘ Gihon ”’ [Gr0y] (Is. 1 3, xxxvi. 2; 2 Chr. xxxii. 30), now known as B ket-el-Mamilla. After running about three qu; ters of a mile E. by S. the valley takes a sudd bend to the S. opposite the Jaffa gate, but in] than another three quarters of a mile it encount) a rocky hill-side which forces it again in an easte direction, sweeping round the precipitous §. 1 corner of Mount Zion almost at a right angle. — this part of its course the valley is from 50 to1 yards broad, the bottom everywhere covered w. small stones, and cultivated. At 290 yards fv the Jaffa gate it is crossed by an aqueduct on ni very low arches, conveying water from the “po of Solomon’’ to the Temple Mount, a short d tance below which is the “ lower pool” (Is. x3 9), Birket-es-Sultan. From this point the ray} narrows and deepens, and descends with great : pidity between broken cliffs, rising in success’ terraces, honeycombed with innumerable sepuleh recesses, forming the northern face of the * Hill Evil Counsel, » to the S., and the steep, shelvir but not precipitous southern slopes of Mount Zic which rise to about the height of 150 feet, tot N. The bed of the valley is planted with oli’ and other fruit trees, and when practicable is ¢| tivated. About 400 yards from the S. W. an; of Mount Zion the valley contracts still more, | comes quite narrow and stony, and descends w. much greater rapidity towards the “ valley of « hoshaphat,’’ or “‘of the brook Kaidron,’’ beft joining which it opens out again, forming an ¢ long plot, the site of Tophet, devoted to gard¢ irrigated by the waters of Siloam. Towards | eastern extremity of the valley is the traditio) site of ‘“ Aceldama,’’ authenticated by a bed white clay still worked by potters (Williams, 1 City, ii. 495),> opposite to which, where the cliff thirty or forty feet high, the tree on which Ju hanged himself was placed during the Frank kingdom (Barclay, City of Great King, p. 20) Not far from Aceldama is a conspicuously situa’ tomb with a Doric pediment, sometimes known the ‘“‘ whited sepulchre,”’ near which a large sep chral recess with a Doric portal hewn in the nat rock is known as the “Latibulum apostolorun where the Twelve are said to have concealed the selves during the time between the Crucifixion 4 the Resurrection. The tombs continue quite do to the corner of the mountain, where it bends to the S. along the valley of Jehoshaphat. N¢ of the sepulchral recesses in the vicinity of Je salem are so well preserved; most of them are Vi old [see infra] — small gloomy caves, with narr\ rock-hewn doorways. Robinson places “the valley gate,” [whieh | ———__— Jib (Gibeon). See Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem 59 (1865). Compare the note under ACELDAMA, 19, and the text to which the note relates. The’ timony at present indicates different opinions. = Bits °:| HINNOM, VALLEY OF | HIRAH 1979 ts name from this ravine], Neh. ii. 13, 15; 2 Chr. }a somewhat prevalent idea that the Valley of Hin- xed 9, at the N. W. corner of Mount Zion in the | nom lies wholly on the south of Jerusalem. This ipper part of this valley (Robinson, i. 220, 239, | name belongs also to the valley on the west of the ‘74, 320, 353; Williams, Holy City, i. suppl. 56, | city, though the latter is often called from the res- i. 495; Barclay, City of Great King, 205, 208). | ervoirs there the V alley of Gihon. They are both But see JERUSALEM. ] E. V. |parts of one and the same valley, which sweeps _ * The group of tombs in the Valley of Hinnom around the city on two sides. Asa topographical nd on the southern hill-side above the ravine are | description, the reader will find Robinson’s concise omewhat fully described in the Ordnance Survey | account of this locality (Phys. Geogr., pp. 97-100) f Jerusilem, pp. 67, 68 (1865). They are re- | very distinct and accurate. H. arded ‘as having been made or modified at a later 4 : ‘riod than those on the north side of the city.” | HIPPOPOT’AMUS. There is hardly a fany of them have an inscription or scattered let- doubt that the Hebrew behemoth (rN) de- he but ee aa = ee aoe rire scribes the hippopotamus: the word itself “bears eee Pceuion the strongest resemblance to the Coptic name pe- vore elaborate than has been generally supposed. hemout, ‘the water-ox,” and at the same time p expresses in its Hebrew form, as the plural of Close to the building of Aceldama the rock is sforated by seven ‘ loculi,’ through one of which in _ chamber containing several more ‘loculi’ is MTR, the idea of a very large beast. Though ached; and one of these again, on the right-hand | now no longer found in the lower Nile, it was for- le, gives access to a second chamber with ‘lo- merly common there (Wilkinson, i. 239). The li;’ from that there is an opening to a third, |assoviation of it with the crocodile in the passage d thence down a flight of steps to a fourth and |in which it is described (Job. xl. 15 ff.), and most ot one, all the chambers having ‘loculi;’ most | of the particulars in that passage are more appro- them are filled with rubbish, and many haye the | priate to the hippopotamus than to any other ani- pearance of leading to other chambers.’ Sketches | mal. Behemoth “ eateth grass as an ox”’ (Job xl. re taken of some of the appurtenances of these |15) —a circumstance which is noticed as peculiar nbs, which accompany the text of the work re- |in an animal of aquatic habits; this is strictly true red to. Tobler states the results of a special | of the hippopotamus, which leaves the water by amination of these rock-sepulchres in Hinnom night, and feeds on vegetables and green crops. vitte Wanderung, p. 348 ff.). Its strength is enormous, vy. 16, 18, and the notice A very noticeable feature of this ravine is the | of the power of the muscles of the belly, “ his -cipitous wall of rocks which overhangs the gorge | force is in the navel of his belly,’ appears to Le its deepest part, on the left, as one goes west- strictly correct. The tail, however, is short, and vd and nearly opposite to Aceldama on the height | it must be conceded that the first part of ver. 17, ve. The rocky ledges here are almost perpen- | “ he moveth his tail like a cedar,”’ seems not alto- ia and are found to be at different points | gether applicable.¢ His mode of attack is with y, thirty-six, thirty-three, thirty, and twenty | his mouth, which is armed with a formidable array high. A few trees still grow along the margin | of teeth, projecting incisors, and enormous curved he overhanging brow, and trees here must an- canines; thus “ his creator offers him a sword,” tly have been still more numerous when the | for so the words in ver. 19 may be rendered. But | was better cultivated. Aside from this pecu- | the use of his sword is mainly for pacific purposes, ty of the valley, regarded as one of its aspects, | “the beasts of the field playing” about him as he 48 some additional interest from its having been | feeds; the hippopotamus being a remarkably inof- ir ay by some with the death of Judas. It fensive animal. His retreat is among the lotuses been thought that he may have hung himself (tzeelim; A. V. “shady trees ”’) which abounded he limb of a tree near the edge of one of these | about the N ile, and amid the reeds of the river. ipices, and that the rope or limb breaking, he Thoroughly at home in the water, “if the river ris- 0 the bottom and was dashed to pieces. This /eth, he doth not take to flight; and he cares not r result would have been the more certain, in |if a Jordan (here an appellative for a “stream a) »vent of his having so fallen, on account of the press on his mouth.” Ordinary means of capture edges projecting from the sides of the cliff, | were ineffectual against. the great strength of this vell as the rocky ground below. Dr. Robinson animal. «“ Will any take him before his eyes?” mony of the Greek Gospels, § 151) supposes (?. €. openly, and without cunning), “ will any bore ‘Some such relation as this may have existed | his nose with a gin?’’ as was usual with large een the traitor's “bursting asunder” and the fish. The method of killing it in Egypt was with le, though he does not assign the occurrence | a spear, the animal being in the first instance 'Y particular place. Tholuck (MS. Notes) is | secured by a lasso, and repeatedly struck until it of those who think of Hinnom as the scene of became exhausted (Wilkinson, i. 240); the very vent. See on this point the Life of our Lord, | same method is pursued by the natives of South ndrews, p. 510 ff. (1867). We cannot indeed | Africa at the present day (Livingstone, p. 73; in- ‘ay much on such minute specifications, be-| stances of its great strength are noticed by the - 80 little being related, so little is really known same writer, pp. 231, 232, 497). W. L. B. eting the manner of Judas’s death. [Jupas.] May not be useless to correct. more distinctly} HI’RAH (II [nobility, noble birth] : ee a ae That depends on the explanation. Dr. Conant | See also Hirzel’s Hiob erklart, p. 240. There are sey- ks on the ‘passage : « Like a cedar; namely, as | eral expressions in this celebrated description of the Tis bent, which is not easily done, The allusion water-ox of the Nile which the present philology rep- the Strength and stiffness of the tail, the small- | resents Somewhat differently from the A. V. See the Weakest of all the members of the animal's | versions of Ewald, De Wette, Umbreit, Conant, Noyes, ' (Book of Job, with a Revised Version, p. 156): and others. 1080 HIRAM HITTITES, THE Eipds: Hiram), an Adullamite, the friend (D7)| ye" father, given to him in 2 Chr. it: ] ae iv. 16, see HurAM, No. 3. W. T.B. of Judah (Gen. xxxviii. 1, 12; and see 20). For Z : a ‘friend? the LXX. and Vulg. have “shepherd,” At the distance of 14 hours on the hill-si j : east of Tyre, is a remarkable tomb known as Ka probably reading WY. Hairdn, i. e. Tomb of Hiram. “It stands” HVRAM or HU’RAM (O30, or OTN alone, apart alike from human habitation and a 2 Sas 4 cient ruin —a solitary, venerable relic of remc [noble born = “1 Ges.]: [Rom. Xipdu, exe. 2| antiquity. In fact it is one of the most singu Sam. v. 11, 1 “hr. xiv. 1, Xeipdu; Vat. Alex. | monuments in the land. It is an immense sarcoy Xeipau: Hiram] on the different forms of the name| agus of limestone hewn out of a single block see HurAM). 1. The King of Tyre who sent 12 feet long, 8 wide, and 6 high; covered by a workmen and materials to Jerusalem, first (2 Sam. slightly pyramidal, and 5 feet in thickness; —t y. 11, 1 Chr. xiv. 1) to build a palace for David whole resting on a massive pedestal, about 10 f whom he ever loved (1 K. vy. 1), and again (1 K. high, composed of three layers of large he y. 10, vii. 13, 2 Chr. ii. 14, 16) to build the Tem- stones, the upper layer projecting a few inches. 1 ple for Solomon, with whom he had a treaty of monument is perfect, though weather-beaten. ‘I peace and commerce (1 K. v. 11, 12). The con-| only entrance to it is an aperture broken throu tempt with which he received Solomon’s present | the eastern end. A tradition, now received by of CABUL (1 K. ix. 12) does not appear to have | classes and sects in the surrounding country, mal caused any breach between the two kings. He ad_| this the tomb of Hiram, Solomon’s friend 2 mitted Solomon’s ships, issuing from Joppa, to a ally; and the tradition may have come down 1 share in the profitable trade of the Mediterranean | broken from the days of Tyre’s grandeur. | (1 K. x. 22); and Jewish sailors, under the guid-| have at least no just ground for rejecting i ance of Tyrians, were taught to bring the gold of | (Porter, Handbook, ii. 895.) India (1 K. ix. 26) to Solomon's two harbors on The people there also connect Hiram’s na the Red Sea (see Ewald, Gesch. Isr. ill. 345—| with a copious fountain over which a massive st 347). structure has been raised, which the traveller pas Eupolemon (ap. Euseb. Prep. Evang. ix. 30)|on the south shortly before coming to the site states that David, after a war with Hiram, reduced Tyre (see Tristram’s Land of Israel, p. 55, 2d e him to the condition of a tributary prince. Dius, Such traditions, whether they cleave rightfully the Phoenician historian, and Menander of Ephesus | not to these particular places, have their inter (ap. Joseph. c. Ap. i. 17, 18) assign to Hiram a They come down to us through Pheenician ch prosperous reign of 34 years; and relate that his| nels, and indirectly authenticate the history father was Abibal, his son and successor Baleazar; | Hiram as recorded by the Hebrew writers. H that he rebuilt various idol-temples, and dedicated HIRCA/’NUS (‘Ypxavds [ Hyrcanian, fi some splendid offerings; that he was successful in ‘Yoxavia, a province on the Caspian Sea]: Hi war; that he enlarged and fortified his city; that | nus), a son of Tobias,” who had a large treas he and Solomon had a contest with riddles or dark placed for security in the treasury of the Templ sayings (compare Samson and his friends, Judg.| the time of the visit of Heliodorus (c. 187 B. xiv. 12), in which Solomon, after winning a large|2 Mace. iii. 11). Josephus also mentions * e¢ sum of money from the king of Tyre, was even-| dren of Tobias” (Ant. xii. 5, § 1, maides Twi tually outwitted by Abdemon, one of his subjects. | who, however, belonged to the faction of Menel: The intercourse of these great and kindred-minded | and notices especially a son of one of them (Jose kings was much celebrated by local historians. | who was named Hyrcanus (Ant. xii. 4, § 2 Josephus (Ant. viii. 2, § 8) states that the corre-| But there is no sufficient reason for identifying spondence between them with respect to the build- | Hyrcanus of 2 Mace. with this grandson of To ing of the Temple was preserved among the Tyrian | either by supposing that the ellipse (rod Twp archives in his days. With the letters in 1 K. v.| is to be so filled up (Grotius, Calmet), or that and 2 Chr. ii. may be compared not only his copies sons of J oseph were popularly named after t of the letters, but also the still less authentic let-| grandfather (Ewald, Gesch. iv. 309), which ec ters between Solomon and Hiram, and between scarcely have been the case in consequence of Solomon and Vaphres (Apries?), which are pre-| great, eminence of their father. served by Eupolemon (ap. Euseb. Prep. Evang. The name appears to be simply a local app ix. 30), and mentioned by Alexander Polyhistor| tive, and became illustrious afterwards in the } (ap.-Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21, p. 332). Some} cabean dynasty, though the circumstances W Pheenician historians (ap. Tatian. cont. Grec. § 37) | led to its adoption are unknown (yet comp. Jos relase that Hiram, besides supplying timber for the| Ant. xiii. 8, § 4). [MaccABEES. ] B. F. W T emple, gave his daughter in marriage to Solomon.) F4TS is used throughout the A. V. instea Jewish writers in less ancient times cannot over- eee ies’ : pat MOU RaL ies ae d its, which does not occur in the original editio 9 re, e mapecrtrs re ae sonata eine S| 1611, though it has been introduced in one } che ig of the Tole, Tel eget relate in ler tons [lt] This ue oma ip. § » LUN. le 1. OC 7a S| os . . * ie / ; : ,, as in Matt. vi. 33, « Seek ye a God-fearing man and built the Temple he was sions ambiguity,.28 1 ) a . ° h SS 9 Ww received alive into Paradise; but that, after he had Enea tae 8 ht (Bile Wordle Dp. been there a thousand years, he sinned by pride, 2 - ’ : erroneously refer the ‘his ”” to “ kingdom ”’ is and was thrust down into hell. J S : : of to “God,” the Greek being thy diucatod! 2. [Xipdu; Vat. Alex. Xespau: Hiram.] Hiram} |» 33 a as hee nO was the ran of a man of tiived race (1 K. vii. ANT Oey, artis: a ae enue? 13, 40, [45]), the principal architect and engineer 8 sent by king Hiram to Solomon; also called Hu- cam: in the Chronicles. On the title of AS = HIT’TITES, THE, the nation desce’ from Cheth (A. V. “Heth ”), the second s0 HITTITES, THE HITTITES, THE 108% Oanaan. (1.) With five exceptions, noticed be- | Ex. xxiii. 28). In the report of the spies, however, dig Wat “4%, Fe we have again a real historical notice of them: low, the word is 0)" = the Be Lo Ker | Hittite, the Jebusite, and the Amorite dwell raios, oi Xerraior: Hetheus, Hethees ; in Ezr. ix. in the mountain” (Num. xiii. 29). Whatever L, 6 E6i, Vat. EGe, Alex. £46], in the singular temporary circumstances may have attracted them number, according mathe hii oi Sache Hebrew idiom. | 56 far to the south as Beer-sheba, a people having [t is occasionally rendered in the A. ys the BiN- | the quiet commercial tastes of Ephron the Hittite gular number, “« the Hittite (Ex. xxiii. 28, xxxiii. and his companions can have had no call for the 2, xxxiv. 11; Josh. ix. 1, xi. 3), but, elsewhere roving, skirmishing life of the country bordering dural (Gen. xv. Bde By a 17, xiii. By Xxill- lon the desert; and thus, during the sojourn of 3; Num. xiii. 29; Deut. vii. 1, xx. 175) Josh. iii. | rrael in Egypt, they had withdrawn themselves 0, xii. 8, xxiv. 11; Judg. iii. 5; 1 K. ix. 20 i 2! from those districts, retiring before Amalek (Num. Jhr. viii, 75 Ezr. ix. ck Neh. ix. 8; 1 Esdr. viii. xiii. 29) to the more secure mountain country in 9, Xerraio.). (2.) The plural form of the word the centre of the land. Perhaps the words of 3 OVI = the Chittim, or Hittites [Xerriy | Ezekiel (xvi. 3, 45) may imply that they helped to Vat. -rev, Alex. Xerrieyu), Xerruy (Vat. -exy), | found the city of Jebus. {Xerraio: Hetthim, Hethei| (Josh. i. 4; Judg. From this time, however, their quiet habits 26; 1 K. x. 29; 2 K. vii. 6; 2 Chr. i. 17 ). | Vanish, and they take their part against the invader, 3.) “A Hittite [woman] ” is AMAT [xerrala: ee ee ean the other Canaanite tribes fetheea} (Ez. xvi. 3,45). In 1 K. xi. 1, the same 3. Henceforward the notices of the Hittites are ord is rendered “ Hittites.” very few and faint. We meet with two individuals, 1. Our first introduction to the Hittites is in the both attached to the person of David. (1.) “ Ahim- me of Abraham, when he bought from the Bene- elech the Hittite,” who was with him in the hill heth, ‘Children of Heth ’” — such was then their | of Hachilah, and with Abishai accompanied him by tle — the field and the cave of Machpelah, be- night to the tent of Saul (1 Sam. xxvi. 6). He is nging to Ephron the Hittite. They were then nowhere else mentioned, and was possibly killed in ttled at the town which was afterwards, under its | one of David’s expeditions, before the list in 2 Sam. wname of Hebron, to become one of the most xxiii. was drawn up. (2.) “Uriah the Hittite,” mous cities of Palestine, then bearing the name one of “ the thirty ” of David's body-guard (2 Sam. Kirjath-arba, and perhaps also of Mamre (Gen. | xxiii. 39; 1 Chr. xi. 41), the deep tragedy of whose lil. 19, xxv. 9). The propensities of the tribe wrongs forms the one blot in the life of his master. pear at that time to have been rather commer- In both these persons, though warriors by profes- i than military. The “money current with sion, we can perhaps detect traces of those qualities @ merchant,” and the process of weighing it, | which we have noticed as characteristic of the tribe. re familiar to them; the peaceful assembly “in |In the case of the first, it was Abishai, the practi- ® gate of the city” was their manner of receiv- cal, unscrupulous “son of Zeruiah,’” who pressed s the stranger who was desirous of having a|David to allow him to kill the sleeping king: ossession ’? ‘secured’? to him among them. Ahimelech is clear from that stain. In the case e dignity and courtesy of their demeanor also of Uriah, the absence from suspicion and the gen- he out strongly in this narrative. As Ewald erous self-denial which he displayed are too well ll says, Abraham chose his allies in warfare from | known to need more than a reference (2 Sam. xi. » Amorites, but he goes to the Hittites for his 11, 12). we. But the tribe was evidently as yet but} 4. The Egyptian annals tell us of a very power- all, not important enough to be noticed beside ful confederacy of Hittites in the valley of the ae Canaanite and the Perizzite ”’ who shared the Orontes, with whom Sether L, or Sethos, waged k of the land between them (Gen. xii. 6, xiii. | war about RB. c. 1340, and whose capital, Ketesh, In the southern part of the country they re- ; : situate near Emesa, he conquered. [Eeyrr, p. ined for a considerable period after this, possibly 511. *nding as far as Gerar and Beer-sheba, a good 4 In the Assyrian inscriptions, as lately deci+ I below Hebron (xxvi..17, xxviii. 10). From | phered, there are frequent references to a nation ir families Esau married his two first wives; of Khatti, who “ formed a great confederacy ruled her fear lest Jacob should take the same course | by a number of petty chiefs,” whose territory also he motive given hy Rebekah for sending Jacob |Jay in the valley of the Orontes, and who were Y to Haran. It was the same feeling that sometimes assisted hy the people of the sea-coast, urged Abram to send to Mesopotamia for a probably the Phcenicians (Rawlinson’s Herodotus, + for Isaac. The descendant of Shem could not i. 463). “ Twelve kings of the Southern Khatti with Hamites — “with the daughters of the |are mentioned in several places.” If the identifi- ‘aanites among whom I dwell. . . wherein I cation of these people with the Hittites should 4 stranger,’ but “go to my country and thy | prove to be correct, it agrees with the name Chat, Ired”’ is his father’s command, “to the house |as noticed under HeErH, and affords a clew to the hy mother’s father, and take thee a wife from | meaning of some passages which are otherwise tee”? (Gen. xxviii. 2, xxiv. 4). puzzling. These are (a) Josh. i. 4, where the ex- - Throughout the book of Exodus the name of oing ‘ pression ‘all the land of the Hittites” appears to Hittites occurs only in the usual formula for mean all the land of Canaan, or at least, the northern (Sccupants of the Promised Land. Changes ) part thereof. (6) Judg. i. 26. Here nearly the rin the mode of stating this formula [CANAAN, same expression recurs. [Luz.] (eyo i, x 29; °4 a], but the Hittites are never omitted (see |2 Chr. i. 17: « All the kings of the Hittites and ee | kings of Aram ” (probably identical with the « kings “Canaanite? has in many places the force of | on this side Euphrates,”’ 1 K. iv. 24) are mentioned rehant ” or * trafficker.” See among others the |as purchasing chariots and horses from Egypt, for ples in vol. i. p. 351 6 the possession of which they were so notorious, that 1082 HIVITES, THE (d) it would seem to have become at a luter date almost proverbial in allusion to an alarm of an attack by chariots (2 K. vii. 6). 6. Nothing is said of the religion or worship of the Hittites. Even in the enumeration of Solomon’s idolatrous worship of the gods of his wives — among whom were Hittite women (1 K. xi. 1) — no Hittite deity is alluded to. (See 1K. xi. 5, 7; 2 K. xxiii. 13.) 7. The names of the individual Hittites men- tioned in the Bible are as follow. They are all susceptible of interpretation as Hebrew words, which would lead to the belief either that the Hittites spoke-a dialect of the Aramaic or Hebrew language, or that the words were Hebraized in their trans- ference to the Bible records. ADAH (woman), Gen. xxxvi. 2. AHIMELECH, 1 Sam. xxvi. 6. BASHEMATH, accur. BAS’MATH (woman); pos- sibly a second name of Adah, Gen. xxvi. 34. BeEERI (father of Judith, below), Gen. xxvi. 34. ELON (father of Basmath), Gen. xxvi. 34. Ernron, Gen. xxiii. 10, 18, 14, &. JUDITH (woman), Gen. xxvi. 34. Urtran, 2 Sam. xi. 3, &e., xxiii. 39, &e. ZOHAR (father of Ephron), Gen. xxiii. 8. In addition to the above, SrsBECHAI, who in the Hebrew text is always denominated a Hushathite, is by Josephus (Ant. vii. 12, § 2) styled a Hittite. G. HI'VITES, THE (“YT [perh. the villager, Ges. ], i. e. the Chivvite: 6 Evatos; [in Josh. ix. 7, Xoppaios, and so Alex. in Gen. xxxiv. 2:] Aeveus). The name is, in the original, uniformly found in the singular number. It never has, like that of the Hittites, a plural, nor does it appear in any other form. Perhaps we may assume from this that it originated in some peculiarity of locality or cireum- stance, as in the case of the Amorites — “ moun- taineers;’’ and not in a progenitor, as did that of the Ammonites, who are also styled Bene-Ammon —children of Ammon—or the Hittites, Bene- Cheth — children of Heth. The name is explained by Ewald (Gesch. i. 818) as Binnenlander, that is, ‘Midlanders;”’ by Gesenius (T’hes. 451) as pagans, “villagers.” In the following passages the name is given in the A. V. in the singular — THE HivirE: — Gen. x. 17; Ex. xxili. 28, xxxill. 2, xxxiv. 11; Josh. ix. 1, xi. 3; 1 Chr. i. 15; also Gen. xxxiv. 2, xxxvi. 2. In all the rest it is plural. 1. In the genealogical tables of Genesis, “ the Hivite”’ is named as one of the descendants — the sixth in order — of Canaan, the son of Ham (Gen. x. 17; 1 Chr. i. 15). In the first enumeration of the nations who, at the time of the call of Abraham, occupied the promised land (Gen. xv. 19-21), the Hivites are omitted from the Hebrew text (though in the Samaritan and LXX. their name is inserted). This has led to the conjecture, amongst others, that they are identical with the KADMONITES, whose name is found there and there only (Reland, Pal. 140; Bochart, Phal. iv. 36; Can. i. 19). But are not the Kadmonites rather, as their name implies, the representatives of the Bene-kedem, or “ children of the East’’? The name constantly occurs in the formula by which the country is designated in the earlier books (Ex. iii. 8, 17, xiii. 5, xxiii. 23, 28, xxxiii. 2, xxxiv. 11; Deut. vii. 1, xx. 17; Josh. iii. 10, ix. 1, xii. 8, xxiv. 11), and also in the later ones (1 K. ix. 20; 2 Chr. viii. 7; but comp. Ezr. HIVITES, THE ix. 1, and Neh. ix. 8). It is, however, absent) the report of the spies (Num. xiii. 29), a docum), which fixes the localities occupied by the Canaan; nations at that time. Perhaps this is owing, the then insignificance of the Hivites, or perh; to the fact that they were indifferent to the spe| locality of their settlements. | 2. We first encounter the actual people of } Hivites at the time of Jacob’s return to Cana, Sheehem was then (according to the current J} brew text) in their possession, Hamor the Hiy; being the “ prince (Sw) of the land” (G, xxxiy. 2). They were at this time, to judge ’ them by their rulers, a warm and impetus people, credulous, and easily deceived by the ere and cruel sons of Jacob. The narrative furt; exhibits them as peaceful and commercial, given) “trade”? (10, 21), and to the acquiring of “y| sessions ’’ of cattle and other ‘“ wealth ’’ (10, 23, | 29). Like the Hittites they held their assemb: or conferences in the gate of their city (20). = may also see a testimony to their peaceful hal: in the absence of any attempt at revenge on Ja‘ for the massacre of the Shechemites. Perhay: similar indication is furnished by the name of ¢ god of the Shechemites some generations after i — Baal-berith — Baal of the league, or the allia: (Judg. viii. 33, ix. 4, 46); by the way in wh: the Shechemites were beaten by Abimelech (4) and by the unmilitary character, both of the wea; which causel Abimelech’s death and of the per, who discharged it (ix. 53). = | The Alex. MS., and several other MSS. of LXX., in the above narrative (Gen. xxxiy. 2) g. stitute “ Horite’’ for “ Hivite.’ The chang: remarkable from the usually close adherence of | Alex. Codex to the Hebrew text, but it is not ; roborated by any other of the ancient versions, | is it recommended by other considerations. instances occur of Horites in this part of Palest? while we know, from a later narrative, that tl was an important colony of Hivites on the highli of Benjamin at Gibeon, etc., no very great disté from Shechem. On the other hand, in Gen. xx! 2, where Aholibamah, one of Esau’s wives, is sail have been the daughter of [Anah] the daughte: Zibeon the Hivite, all considerations are in favo! reading ‘“ Horite”’ for ‘¢ Hivite.” In this ease fortunately possess a detailed genealogy of the f! ily, by comparison of which little doubt is left! the propriety of the change (comp. verses 20, 95, 30, with 2), although no ancient version } suggested it here. | 3. We next meet with the Hivites during conquest of Canaan (Josh. ix. 7, xi. 19). 7) character is now in some respects materially altel They are still evidently averse to fighting, but t have acquired — possibly by long experience traffic —an amount of craft which they did: before possess, and which enables them to turn! tables on the Israelites in a highly successful n} ner (Josh. ix. 83-27). The colony of Hivites,* | made Joshua and the heads of the tribes #! dupes on this. occasion, had. four cities — Gib! Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim — situs if our present knowledge is accurate, at eonsidel distances asunder. It is not certain whethet) three last were destroyed by Joshua or not (xl. } a Here again the LXX. (both MSS.) have Hof for Hivites; but we cannot accept the change wit) further consideration. ght ‘HIZKIAH yibeon certainly was spared. In ver. 11 the Gib- mites speak of the “ elders’? of their city, a word bich does not necessarily point to any special mm of government, as is assumed by Winer Teviter), who uses the ambiguous expression that ey “lived under a republican constitution ” (in publicanischer Verfassung)! See also Ewald -7esch. i. 318, 319). _4. The main body of the Hivites, however, were , this time living on the northern confines of pstern Palestine — “ under Hermon, in the land - Mizpeh” (Josh. xi. 3)— “in Mount Lebanon, om Mount Baal-Hermon to the entering in of math” (Judg. iii. 3). Somewhere in this neigh- ‘rhood they were settled when Joab and the cap- ‘ns of the host, in their tour of numbering, came / “all the cities of the Hivites” near Tyre (2 ‘m. xxiv. 7). In the Jerusalem Targum on Gen. 17, they are called Tripolitans (she 710), tame which points to the same general northern ality. |B. in speaking of the AviM, or Avvites, a sug- stion has been made by the writer that they may ve been identical with the Hivites. This is ap- ‘ently corroborated by the fact that, according’ to } notice in Deut. ii., the Avites seem to have been ypersed before the Hivites appear on the scene of » sacred history. G. AIZKVAH (MIT [strength of Jehovah]: “extas: Ezecias), an ancestor of Zephaniah the | phet (Zeph. i. 1). dIZKIVJAH (TAIN [as above]: 'E¢exta: /zecitt), according to the punctuation of the A. aman who sealed the covenant of reformation vh Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. x. 17). But there 110 doubt that the name should be taken with tb preceding it, as « Ater-Hizkijah,” a name n in the lists of those who returned from Baby- ( with Zerubbabel. It appears also extremely ly that the two names following these in x. 17, (Azzur, Hodijah) are only corrupt repetitions jem. ‘his and the preceding name are identical, and | the same with that given in the A. V. as | ZEKIAH. [0’BAB (2a [love, beloved]: 6 ‘OBAB, i. ONBaB ; in Judg. "IwBdB: Hobab). This 'e is found in two places only (Num. x. 29: \%- Iv. 11), and it seems doubtful whether it \tes the father-in-law of Moses, or his son. | In favor of the latter are (a.) the express state- st that Hobab was «the son of Raguel”” (Num. HOBAH 1023 |(robro yap Fy erlkanua ra ‘PayyounA). From the absence of the article here, it is inferred by Whiston and others that J osephus intends that he had more than one surname, but this seems hardly safe. The Mohammedan traditions are certainly in favor of the identity of Hobab with Jethro. He is known in the Koran and elsewhere, and in the East at the present day, by the name of Sho'eid ( rAR AY ) ; doubtless a corruption of Hobab. According to those traditions he was the prophet of God to the idolaters of Medyen (Midian), who not believing his message were destroyed (Lane’s Koran, 179- 181); he was blind (ib. 180 note); the rod of Moses was his gift, it had once been the rod of Adam, and was of the myrtle of Paradise, ete. (/b. 190; Weil's Bibl. Legends, 107-109). The name of Sho’etb still remains attached to one of the wadies on the east side of the Jordan, opposite Jericho, 9); Raguel or Reuel — the Hebrew word in ( cases is the same — being identified with To, not only in Ex. ii. 18 (comp. iii. 1, &.), also by Josephus, who constantly gives him ‘name. (b.) The fact that Jethro had some / previously left, the Israelite camp to return to ‘Wn country (Ex. xviii. 27). The words “the )tan-law of Moses” in Num. *x. 29, though in | of the ancient versions connected with Hobab, im the original read‘ either way, so that no ment can be founded on them. (2.) In favor /obab’s identity with Jethro are (a.) the words dg. iv. 1k; but it should be remembered that hs (ostensibly ) of later date than the other, and et «ta more casual statement. (b.) Josephus raking of Raguel remarks once (Ant. ii. 12, § 1) he “had lothor, i. e. Jethro) for a surname” through which, according to the tradition of the locality (Seetzen, Reisen, 1854, ii. 319, 376), the children of Israel descended to the Jordan. [Bretu- Nimrau.] According to this tradition, therefore, he accompanied the people as far as the Promised Land, though whatever weight that may possess is, when the statement of Ex. xviii. 27 is taken into account, against his identity with Jethro. Other places bearing his name and those of his two daughters are shown at Sinai and on the Gulf of Akaba (Stanley, S. ¢ P. p. 33). But whether Hobab was the father-in-law of Moses or not, the notice of him in Num.°*x. 29-32, though brief, is full of point and interest. While Jethro is preserved to us as the wise and practiced administrator, Hobab appears as the experienced Bedouin sheikh, to whom Moses looked for the | material safety of his cumbrous caravan in the new and difficult ground before them. The tracks and passes of that ‘+ waste howling wilderness”? were all familiar to him, and his practiced sight would be to them “instead of eyes” in discerning the distant clumps of verdure which betokened the wells or springs for the daily encampment, and in giving timely warning of the approach of Amalekites or other spoilers of the desert. [JETHRO. | G. HO’BAH [or HO’BA, A. V. ed. 1611] (TTIW [concealed, Ges. ; lurking-hole, Fiirst]: XoBa: Hoba), the place to which Abraham pursued the kings who had pillaged Sodom (Gen. xiv. 15). It was situated “to the north of Damascus ”’ (piDT? Orn). Josephus mentions a tra- dition concerning ‘Abraham which he takes from Nicolaus of Damascus: — « Abraham reigned at Damascus, being a foreigner . . . and his name is still famous in the country; and there is shown a village called from him Zhe Habitation of Abra- ham” (Ant. i. 7, § 2). It is remarkable that in the village of Burzeh, three miles north of Damas- cus, there is a wely held in high veneration by the Mohammedans, and called after the name of the patriarch, Masjad Ibrahim, «the prayer-place of Abraham.’ The tradition attached to it is that here Abraham offered thanks to God after the total discomfiture of the eastern kings. Behind the wely is a cleft in the rock, in which another tradition. represents the patriarch as taking refuge on one oceasion from the giant Nimrod. It is remarkable that the word Hobuh signifies “a hiding-place.”’ The Jews of Damascus affirm that the village of 1084 HOD HOLON Jobar, not far from Burzeh, is the Hobah of Scrip-| name with others is omitted in the two first ture. ‘They have a synagogue there dedicated to| these passages in the LXX. Elijah, to which they make frequent pilgrimages} 2. [’QSodmu; Alex. Qdova: Odaia.] Anot (see p. 720 b, note; also Handb. for Sy. and Pal. | Levite at the same time (Neh. x. 13). pp. 491, 492). Ja yhus. oka 3. ['NSovla; Vat. Alex. FA. OdSou1a: Oda : A lay : f the ‘‘ heads” HOD (117 [splendor, ornament]: ’ ad; [Vat.] ayman; one of the * heads” of Sl ia aa Hod) ne A ca the same time (Neh. x. 18). ex. 28: Hod), one of the sons of Zophah, among A the descendants of Asher (1 Chr. vii. 37). “| HOGLAH (a [partridge]: "Ey . | Alex. AvyAa, AvyAau: Hegla), the third of HODA‘TAH [8 syl.] (Chetib, “W1}YIW1, | five daughters of Zelophehad, in whose favor é daha bas F 5 : law of inheritance was altered so that a daugl ria ia . 8 ie in the Kert to A; t. ¢. HOPA-| could inherit her father’s estate when he left via‘uu [splendor of Jehovah]: ’O8oAta; Alex-| sons (Num. xxvi. 38, xxvii. 1, xxxvi. 11, J ONBovia: Oduia), son of Elioénai, one of the last | xyij. 3), ( : : members of the royal liné of Judah; mentioned 1} ‘The name also occurs in BETH-HOGLAR, wl Chr. iii. 24. HODAVI/AH (1177 [as above]: ’OSovla: see. HO/HAM (amin [whom Jehovah ine Odvia). 1. A man of Manasseh, one of the heads of the half-tribe on the east of Jordan (1 Chr. v. Ges.]: ’"EAdu; Alex. AiAau;% Oham), king 54) Hebron at the time of the conquest of Can , Josh. x. 8); one of the five ki h 2. [Vat. OSua: Oduia.| A man of Benjamin, \ wa ve, ea son of Has-senuah (1 Chr. ix. 7). by Joshua down the pass of Beth-horon, and: : were at last captured in the cave at Makkedah 3. [Vat. Sodoua: Odavia.] A Levite, who 2 o seems to have given his name to an important there put to death. As king of Hebron hi frequently referred to in Josh. x., but his n. family in the tribe — the Bene Hodaviah (Ezr. ii. : : eet 40). In Nehemiah the name appears as HODEVAH. occurs in the above passage only. : Lord A. Hervey has called attention to the fact HOLM-TREE (npivos: tlex) occurs onl that this name is closely connected with Judah the apocryphal story of Susanna (ver. 58). (Genealogies, p. 119). This being the case, we passage contains a characteristic play on the na probably find this Hodaviah mentioned again in of the two trees mentioned ‘by the eldessiaim ini. 9, evidence. That on the mastich (¢xivoy . ‘ahh tyyeAos okloe oe) has been noticed under HO’DESH (wT [new moon, or time of’ the| head [MAsTICH-TREE, note]. ‘That on the h new moon}: Add; [Comp. Xddes:] Hodes), a| tree (apivoy) is “ the angel of God waiteth with woman named in the genealogies of Benjamin (1 Chr. viii. 9) as the wife of a certain Shaharaim, sword to cut thee in two”’ (fva mpioa ge): For and mother of seven children. Shaharaim had two historical significance of these puns see SUSAN The mpivos of Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. ii. wives besides Hodesh, or possibly Hodesh was a second name of one of those women (ver. 8). The 3, and 16, § 1, and elsewhere) and Dioscoride 144) denotes, there can be no doubt, the Que LXX. by reading Baara, Baadd, and Hodesh, ’Ada, seem to wish to establish such a connection. coccifera, the Q. pseudo-coccifera, which is per not specifically distinct from the first-menti : oak. The dex of the Roman writers was a HOD/EVAH MIWW, Keri 5117 [perh. | both to the holm-oak ( Quercus ilex) and to brightness, ornament of Jehovah]: Ovdovta: [Vat-| Q. coccifera or kermes oak. See Pliny (H @ovdovia:]| Alex. Ovdoud: Oduia), Bene-Hodevah {sons of H.], a Levite family, returned from Cap- tivity with Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 43). In the xvi. 6). | For the oaks of Palestine, see a paper by parallel lists it is given as Hopavian (No. 8) and SuDIAS. Hooker in the 7’ransactions of the Linneun Soc HODI’AH Coa aa [splendor of Jehovah]: vol. xxiii. pt. ii. pp. 881-387. [Oax.] W.1 HOLOFER’NES, or, more correctly, ( # ISovla; Alex. lovdaa; [Comp. ’Q8ia:] Odaia), one of the two wives of Ezra, a man of Judah, and FERNES (’Ododépyns: [Holofernes]),° was, act ing to the book of Judith, a general of Nebue nezzar, king of the Assyrians (Judg. ii. 4), whe mother to the founders of Keilah and Eshtemoa slain by the Jewish heroine Judith during the | (1 Chr. iv. 19). She is doubtless the same person . Bo [Jup 1rH.] The name oceurs bw) as Jehudijah (in verse 18, that is “ the Jewess’’), Cappadocian history, as borne by the brothe in fact, except the article, which is disregarded in the A. V., the two names are identical [comp. HopaviAn, No. 8]. _ Hodiah is exactly the same Ariarathes I. (c. 8. c. 850), and afterwards pretender to the Cappadocian throne, who We name as Hop1JAH, under which form it is given more than once in the A. V. first supported and afterwards imprisoned by D HODISAH (F757 [as above] : ’A3outa: trius Soter (c. B. Cc. 158). The .termination Odia, Odaia). This is in the original precisely the saphernes, etc.) points to a Persian origin, bu meaning of the word is uncertain. B. F. V same name as the preceding, though spelt differently in the A. V. It occurs — HO’LON (on [abode, halting-place, Si 1. A Levite in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah Xadov xa) Xavvd, Alex. XiAovwyv; H TeAAa, : (Neh. viii. 7; and probably also ix. 5; x. 10). The NAwyv: Olon, Holon). 1. A town in the moun of Judah; one of the first group, of which J was apparently the most considerable. It is between GosHEN and GiLon (Josh. xv. 51); : b *In the A. V. ed. 1611 the name is gen! printed ‘ Olofernes,”? though ‘ Holofernes ” als curs. « In each MS. the same equivalent as the above has Seen given for HoraM. HOMAM HOOK 1085 as allotted with its “suburbs” to the priests xi. 15). In the list of priest’s cities of 1 Chr. . the name appears as HILEN. In the Onomas- xon (“* Helon’’ and “ Olon”’) it is mentioned, but t so as to imply its then existence. Nor has the ume been since recognized by travellers. b Chea [as above]: XeAdy: Helon), a city ‘Moab (Jer. xlviii. 21, only). It was one of the wns of the Mishor, the level downs (A. V. “ plain untry’’) east of Jordan, and is named with thazah, Dibon, and other known places; but no entification of it has yet taken place, nor does it pear in the parallel lists of Num. xxxii. and sh. xiii. G. HOMAM (O97 [eatermination, Ges.] : jydv: Homan), the form under which in 1 Chr. 39 an Edomite name appears, which in Gen. xvi. is given HEMAM. Homam is assumed by ssenius to be the original form (Thes. p. 385 a). ‘ Knobel (Genesis, p. 254), the name is compared answer to the mel acetum of Pliny (xi. 15): the second of these terms approaches neurest to the sense of “ honey comb,’’ inasmuch as it is connected with nopheth in Ps. xix. 10, “the droppings of the comb.’’ (2.) In the second place, the term d’bas/; applies to a decoction of the juice of the grape, which is still called dibs, and which forms an article of commerce in the East; it was this, and not ordinary bee-honey, which Jacob sent to Joseph (Gen. xliii. 11), and which the Tyrians purchased from Palestine (Ez. xxvii. 17). The mode of pre- paring it is described by Pliny (xiv. 11): the must was either boiled down to a half (in which case it was called defrutum), or to a third (when it was called siracum. or sapa, the oipatos oivos, and evnua of the Greeks): it was mixed either with wine or milk (Virg. Georg. i. 296; Ov. Fast. iv. 780): it is still a favorite article of nutriment among the Syrians, and has the appearance of coarse honey (Russell, Aleppo, i. 82). (3.) A third kind has been described by some writers as “ vege- table’? honey, by which is meant the exudations of certain trees and shrubs, such as the Tamariz mannifera, found in the peninsula of Sinai, or the stunted oaks of Luristan and Mesopotamia. The honey which Jonathan ate in the wood (1 Sam. xiv. 25), and the “wild honey”’ which supported St. John (Matt. iii. 4), have been referred to this species. We do not agree to this view: the honey in the wood was in such abundance that Jonathan took it up on the end of a stick; but the vegetable honey is found only in small globules, which must be carefully collected and strained before being used (Wellsted, ii. 50). The use of the term yvar in that passage is decisive against this kind of honey. The wéar &ypiov of Matthew need not mean any- thing else than the honey of the wild bees, which we have already stated to be common in Palestine, and which Josephus (B. J. iv. 8, § 3) specifies among the natural productions of the plain of Jericho: the expression is certainly applied by Diodorus Siculus (xix. 94) to honey exuded from trees; but it may also be applied like the Latin mel silvestre (Plin. xi. 16) to a particular kind of bee-honey. (4.) A fourth kind is described by Josephus (/. c.), as being manufactured from the juice of the date. The prohibition against the use of honey in meat offerings (Lev. ii. 11) appears to have been grounded on the fermentation produced by it, honey soon turning sour, and even forming vinegar (Plin. xxi. 48). This fact is embodied in the Talmudical word hidbish = ‘to ferment,’ derived from d’bash. Other explanations have been offered, as that bees were unclean (Philo de Sacrif. c. 6, App. ii. 255), or that the honey was the artificial dibs (Biihr, Symbol. ii. 323). We... Bs * HONEY-COMB. [Honey.] * HOOD. Is. iii. 23. [Heap-press.] HOOK, HOOKS. Various kinds of hooks are noticed in the Bible, of which the following ara the most important. 1. Fishing-hooks (TD8, pid, TAD IV.) 2s MIT, Job xli. 2; Is. xix. 8; Hab. i. 15). The two first of these Hebrew terms mean primarily thorns, and secondarily jishing-hooks, from the similarity in shape, or perhaps from thorns having been originally used for the purpose; in both cases the LXX. and Vulg. are mistaken in their render- ings, giving SaAos and contis for the first. A€By- th that of Homaima (Xora); a town now ined, though once important, half-way between tra and Ailath, on the ancient road at the back the mountain. See Laborde, Journey, p. 207, neimé ; also the Arabic authorities mentioned by iobel. G. HOMER. [Measvres.] * HONEST. [Honusry.] HONESTY, for ceuvorns (A. als 1 Tim. 2, is more restricted in its idea than the Greek td geuvdrns- The’ latter designates generally nity of character, including of course probity, ; also other qualities allied to self-control and orum. ‘The same word is rendered “ gravity,” ‘im. iii. 4, and Tit. ii. 7. It may be added that onest”” (which in the N. T. usually represents \ds, once geuvds) is often to be taken as equiv- at to “good”’ or “reputable.”” Like the Latin vestus, it describes what is honorable, becoming, (morally beautiful in character and conduct. fonestly ” is used in the A. V. in a similar man- as the rendering of eicynudvws and Karas m. xiii. 13; 1 Thess. iv. 12; Heb. xiii. 18). | i: TONEY. We have already noticed [Foon] extensive use of honey as an article of ordinary {among the Hebrews: we shall therefore in the sent article restrict ourselves to a description of ‘different articles which passed under the Hebrew re of @dash (WIT). In the first place it ap- 3 to the product of the bee, to which we ex- ‘ively apply the name of honey. All travellers ve in describing Palestine as a land « flowing 1 honey ”’ (Ex. iii. 8), bees being abundant even he remote parts of the wilderness, where they »sit their honey in the crevices of the rocks or ollow trees. In some parts of northern Arabia |hills are so well stocked with bees, that no ‘er are hives placed than they are occupied ‘llsted’s Travels, ii. 123). The Hebrews had ia expressions to describe the exuding of the ty from the comb, such as népheth (52), Opping”’ (Cant. iy. 11; Prov. v. 3, xxiv. 13), U (FI), « overflowing’ (Ps. xix. 10; Prov. 24), and y@ar (VY) or ya'dirah (TID) el - xiv. 27; Cant. v. 1) —expressions which 1086 HOPHNI ras and oliis for the second; the third term refers to the contraction of the mouth by the hook. 2 min (A, V. “thorn’’), properly a. ring (WéAAcoy, cir'culus) placed through the mouth of a large fish and attached by a cord (] VARS) to a stake for the purpose of keeping it alive in the water (Job xli. 2); the word. meaning the cord is rendered “hook” in the A. V. and = ¢yotvos. 3. ‘aim and TTT, generally rendered ‘“ hook” in the A. V. after the LXX. &yxierpov, but prop- erly a ring (ctrculus), such as in our country is placed through the nose of a bull, and similarly used in the east for leading about lions (Ez. xix. 4, where the A. V. has “with chains ’’), camels, and other animals. A similar method was adopted for leading prisoners, as in the case of Manasseh who was led with rings (2 Chr. xxxiii. 11;. A. V. “in the thorns’’). An illustration of this practice is found in a bas-relief discovered at Khorsabad (Lay- ard, ii. 376). The expression is used several times in this sense (2 K. xix. 28; Is. xxxvii. 29; Ez. xxix. 4, xxviii 4). The term W/)V is used in a similar sense in Job xl. 24 (A. V. “bore his nose with a gin,’’ margin). Hook. (Layard’s Nineveh.) 4, M9), a term exclusively used in reference to the Tabernacle, rendered * hooks’’ in the A. V. The LXX. varies in its rendering, sometimes giv- ing Keparls, z. €. the capital of the pillars, some- times xpixos and &yxdAn; the expenditure of gold, as given in Ex. xxxviii. 28, has led to this doubt; they were, however, most probably hooks (Ex. xxvi. 32, 37, xxvii. 10 ff, xxxvili. 10 ff); the word seems to have given name to the letter ) in the Hebrew alphabet, possibly from a similarity of the form in which the latter appears in the Greek Digamma, to that of a hook. 5. TTD, a vine-dresser’s pruning-hook (Is. ii. 4, xviii. 5; Mic. iv. 3; Joel iii. 10). 6. pita and Pesta) (kpedypa), a flesh-hook for getting up the joints of meat out of the boiling pot (Ex. xxvii. 3; 1 Sam. ii. 13-14). ss puny (Ez. xl. 43), a term of very doubt- ful meaning, probably meaning ‘ hooks ’’ (as in the A. V.), used for the purpose of hanging up ani- mals to flay them (pawillt bifurci, Ges. Thes. p. 1470): other meanings given are — ledges (labia, Vulg.}, or eaves, as though the word were DVIDw pens for keeping the animals previous to their being slaughtered; hearth-stones, as in the margin of the A. V.; and lastly, gutters to receive and carry off the blood from the slaughtered animals. Wiesel Be HOPH’NI CDOT, a fighter [a pugilist, boxer, Ges. ; one strong, powerful, First]: ’Oovi « *Dean Stanley finds a lesson also for other and later times in that “great and instructive wicked- ness”? which the names vf Phinehas and Hophni recall | pi. 418. HOR, MOUNT [ Vat. -ver; Alex. in 1 Sam. ii. 34, Eovei, iv. 11, 17, Opver: Ophni]) and PuinenAs (OMY diveés [Vat. bewvees]), the two sons of Eli, y fulfilled their hereditary sacerdotal duties at Shil Their brutal rapacity and lust, which seemed acquire fresh violence with their father’s increas’ years (1 Sam. ii. 22, 12-17), filled the people w disgust and indignation, and provoked the eu which was denounced against their father’s ho first by an unknown prophet (vv. 27-36), and tl by Samuel (1 Sam. iii. 11-14). They were bi cut off in one day in the flower of their age, the ark which they had accompanied to bai against the Philistines was lost on the same oe sion (1 Sam. iv. 10, 11). The predicted ruin a ejectment of Eli’s house were fulfilled in the re of Solomon. [Ex1; ZApoK.] The unbrid licentiousness of these young priests gives us a t rible glimpse into the fallen condition of the cho: people (Ewald, Gesch. ii. 5388-638). The Ser ture calls them “sons of Belial”? (1 Sam. ii. 1 and to this our great poet alludes in the words - “To him no temple stood Or altar smoked; yet who more oft than he In temples and at altars, when the priest Turns atheist, as did Eli’s sons, who filled With lust and violence the house of God? ” Par. Lost, i. 492. F. W.F HOR, MOUNT (JN, = Aor mountain, remarkable as the only case in wh the name comes first). 1. (Op 7d dpos: M ffor), the mountain in which Aaron died (Nu xx. 25, 27). The word Hor is regarded by : lexicographers as an archaic form of Har, the us Hebrew term for ‘mountain’? (Gesenius, 7/ p- 391 6; Fiirst, Zandwb. ad voc., ete.), so that’ meaning of the name is simply “the mountain mountains,’’ as the LX X. have it in another c (see below, No. 2) TO dpos Td dpos: Vulg. nu altissimus; and Jerome (Ep. ad Fabiolam) “1 in monte simpliciter sed in montis monte.” The few facts given us in the Bible regardi Mount Hor are soon told. It was “on the bound: line”? (Num. xx. 23) or “at the edge” (xxxill. ; of the land of Edom. It was the next halti place of the people after Kadesh (xx. 22, xxx 37), and they quitted it for Zalmonah (xxxiii. - in the road to the Red Sea (xxi. 4). It was dun the encampment at Kadesh that Aaron was ga ered to his fathers. At the command of Jehov: he, his brother, and his son ascended the mot tain, in the presence of the people, “in the & of all the congregation.”’ The garments, and w the garments the office, of high-priest were tal from Aaron and put upon Eleazar, and Aaron d there in the top of the mountain. In the eireu stances of the ascent of the height to die, and the marked exclusion from the Promised Land, | end of the one brother resembled the end of | other; but in the presence of the two survive and of the gazing crowd below, there is a striki difference between this event and the solitary de: of Moses. Mount Hor “is one of the very few spots ¢ nected with the wanderings of the Israelites wh admit of no reasonable doubt” (Stanley, Syr. 4 Pal. p. 86). It is almost unnecessary to state Chu F to us. See his remarks, History of the Jewish | ra) | *. HOR, MOUNT ig situated on the eastern side of the great valley i the Arabah, the highest and most conspicuous * the whole range of the sandstone mountains of dom, having close beneath it on its eastern side — 1ough strange to say the two are not visible to ich other —the mysterious city of Petra. The adition has existed from the earliest date. Jose- qus does not mention the name of Hor (Ant. iv. §7), but he describes the death of Aaron as king place “on a very high mountain which sur- unded the metropolis of the Arabs,” which latter was formerly called Arke, but now Petra.” In e Onomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome it is Or ons—‘*a mountain in which Aaron died, close the city of Petra.” When it was visited by the cusaders (see the quotations in Rob. 521), the netuary was already on its top, and there is little ubt that it was then what it is now —the Jebel ebi-Harin, “the mountain of the Prophet aron.”” HOR, MOUNT 1087 | Of the geological formation of Mount Hor we ‘have no very trustworthy accounts. The general | structure of the range of Edom, of which it forms the most prominent feature, is new red sandstone, displaying itself to an enormous thickness. Above that is the Jura limestone, and higher still the cretaceous beds, which latter in Mount Seir are reported to be 3,500 feet in thickness (Wilson, Lands, i. 194). Through these deposited strata longitudinal dykes of red granite and porphyry have forced their way, running nearly north and south, and so completely silicifying the neighboring sandstone as often to give it the look of a primitive rock. To these combinations are due the extraor- dinary colors for which Petra is so famous. Mount Hor itself is said to be entirely sandstone, in very horizontal strata (Wilson, i. 290). Its height, according to the latest measurements, is 4,800 feet (Eng.) above the Mediterranean, that is to say about 1,700 feet above the town of Petra, 4,000 ' My AN HA LNG id Nu hl BN iii i ik i tl we the level of the Arabah, and more than 6,000 we the Dead Sea (Roth, in Petermann’s Mit- i, 1858, i. 3). The mountain is marked, far ( near, by its double top, which rises like a huge tellated building from a lower base and is sur- unted by the circular dome of the tomb of ron, a distinct white spot on the dark red sur- 20f the mountain (Stanley, 86; Laborde, 143; phens, /ncidents). This lower base is the « plain Aaron,” beyond which Burckhardt was, after all toils, prevented from ascending. «“ Out of this in, culminating in its two summits, springs the Sandstone mass, from its base upwards rocky \ naked, not a bush or a tree to relieve the rug- and broken corners of the sandstone blocks ‘ch compese it. On ascending this mass a little nis found to lie between the two peaks, marked a white cypress, and not unlike the celebrated n of the cypress under the summit of Jebel 8d, traditionally believed to be the scene of ah’s vision. The southernmost of the two, on roaching, takes a conical form. The northern- it is truncated, and crowned by the chapel of on’s tomb.” The chapel or mosk is a small are buiiding, measuring inside about 28 feet by ‘Wilson, 295), with its door in the S. W. angle. aay iy is View of the summit of Mount Hor. (From Laborde.) [t is built of rude stones, in part broken columns, all of sandstone, but fragments of granite and marble lie about. Steps lead to the flat roof of the chapel, from which rises a white dome as usual over a saint's tomb. ‘The interior of the chapel consists of two chambers, one below the other. The upper one has four large pillars and a stone chest, or tombstone, like one of the ordinary slabs in churehyards, but larger and higher, and rather bigger at the top than the bottom. At its head is a high round stone, on which sacrifices are made, and which retained, when Stephens saw it, the marks of the smoke and blood of recent offerings. “On the slab are Arabic inscriptions, and it is covered with shawls chiefly red. One of the pil- lars is hung with votive offerings of beads, etc., and two ostrich eggs are suspended over the chest. Steps in the N. W. angle lead down to the lower chamber, which is partly in the rock, but plastered. It is perfectly dark. At the end, apparently under the stone chest above, is a recess guarded by a gra- ting. Within this is a rude protuberance, whether of stone or plaster was not ascertainable, resting on wood, and covered by a ragged pall. This lower recess is no doubt the tomb, and possibly ancient. What is above is only the artificial monuiwent and 1088 HOR, MOUNT certainly modern.’’?@ In one of the walls of the upper chamber is a ‘round polished black stone,”’ one of those mysterious stones of which the pro- totype is the Kaaba at Mecca, and which, like that, would appear to be the object of great devotion (Martineau, 419, 420). The impression received on the spot is that Aaron’s death took place in the small basin be- tween the two peaks, and that the people were stationed either on the plain at the base of the peaks, or at that part of the Wady Abu-Kusheybeh from which the top is commanded. Josephus says that the ground was sloping downwards (cardyres jv To xwptov; Ant. iv. 4, § 7). But this may be the mere general expression of 4 man who had never been on the spot. The greater part of the above information has been kindly communicated to the writer by Professor Stanley. The chief interest of Mount Hor will always con- sist in the prospect from its summit — the last view of Aaron— ‘that view which was to him what Pisgah was to his brother.’ It is described at length by Irby (134), Wilson (i. 292-9), Martineau (420), and is well summed up by Stanley in the following words: “‘ We saw all the main points on which his eye must have rested. He looked over the valley of the Arabah countersected by its hun- dred watercourses, and beyond, over the white mountains of the wilderness they had so long trav- ersed; and at the northern edge of it there must have been visible the heights through which the Israelites had vainly attempted to force their way into the Promised Land. This was the western view. Close around him on the east were the rugged mountains of Edom. and far along the horizon the wide downs of Mount Seir, through which the passage had been denied by the wild tribes of Esau who hunted over their long slopes.’’ On the north lay the mysterious Dead Sea gleam- ing from the depths of its profound basin (Stephens, Incidents). “ A dreary moment, and a dreary scene — such it must have seemed to the aged priest. . . . The peculiarity of the view is the com- bination of wide extension with the scarcity of marked features. Petra is shut out by intervening rocks. But the survey of the Desert on one side, and the mountains of Edom on the other, is com- plete; and of these last the great feature is the mass of red bald-headed sandstone rocks, intersected not by valleys but by deep seams” (S. ¢ P. p. 87). Though Petra itself is entirely shut out, one out- lying building —if it may be called a building — is visible, that which goes by the name of the Deir, or Convent. Professor Stanley has thrown out a suggestion on the connection between the two which is well worth further investigation. Owing to the natural difficulties. of the locality and the caprices of the Arabs, Mount Hor and Petra are more difficult of access than any other places which Europeans usually attempt to visit. The records of these attempts —not all of them successes — will be found in the works of Burck- hardt, Irby and Mangles, Stephens, Wilson, Robin- son, Martineau, and Stanley. They are sufficient to invest the place with a secondary interest, hardly inferior to that which attaches to it as the halting- place of the children of Israel, and the burial-place of Aaron. @ If Burckhardt’s informants were correct (Syria, p. 481), there is a considerable difference between what the tomh was even when he sacrificed his kid on the HORAM 2: (7d rif os TO dpos! mons altissimus. ) A mo tain, entirely distinct from the preceding, nam in Num. xxxiv. 7, 8, only, as one of the marks the northern boundary of the land which the ¢! dren of Israel were about to conquer. The ider fication of this mountain has always been one the puzzles of Sacred Geography. The Medit ranean was the western boundary. The north boundary started from the sea; the first point ir was Mount Hor, and the second the entrance Hamath. Since Sidon was subsequently allot to the most northern tribe — Asher — and was, far as we know, the most northern town so allott it would seem probable that the northern bound: would commence at about that point; that opposite to where the great range of Lebanon bree down to the sea. The next landmark, the entrar to Hamath, seems to have been determined by ] Porter as the pass at Kuldt el-Husn, close to Hu the ancient Hamath—at the other end of 1 range of Lebanon. [HAMATH, Amer. ed-] Sur ‘Mount Hor” then can be nothing else than 1 great chain of Lebanon itself. Looking at the m sive character and enormous height of the range, is very difficult to suppose that any individual pe or mountain is intended and not the whole ma which takes nearly a straight course between 1 two points just named, and includes below it ¢ great plain of the Buka’a and the whole of Pal tine properly so called. The Targum Pseudojon. renders Mount Hor Umanos, probably intending Amana. The lat is also the reading of the Talmud (Gittin 8, quot by Fiirst, sub voce), in which it is connected wi the Amana named in Cant. iv. 8. But the situati of this Amana is nowhere indicated by them. cannot have any connection with the Amana Abana river which flowed through Damascus, that is quite away from the position required the passage. By the Jewish geographers Schw: (24, 25) and Parchi (Benj. of Tudela, 413, & for various traditional and linguistic reasons, mountain is fixed upon very far to the north, | tween Tripoli and Hamath, in fact, though they. not say so, very near the Mons Amanus of t classical geographers. But this is some 200 mi north of Sidon, and 150 above Hamath, and surely an unwarranted extension of the limits the Holy Land. The great range of Lebanon is clearly the natural northern boundary of the cou try, that there seems no reason to doubt that t whole range is intended by the term Hor. G. * Dr. Robinson (Phys. Geogr. p. 845) would lin this Hor either to “the northern end of Leban Proper or a Hor connected with it.’? Porter a (Giant Cities of Bashan, ete., p. 316) fixes on t northern peak of Lebanon as the point of departv in tracing the northern boundary, which peak » represents as sufficiently conspicuous to be th singled out. The entire Lebanon range, stretehi so far from north to south, would certainly be vé indefinite if assigned as the starting-point for ru ning the line in that direction. In other respet this description of the Land of Promise (Nw xxxiv. 3-12) may be said to be remarkably spec! in the designation of places. H. HO’/RAM (aaa [elevated, great]: "EAd plain below, and when Irby and Mangles visited six years after. | HOREB HORMAH 1089 ‘Vat.] Avex. AvAqu; [Ald. ‘Qpdu: Horam), king | of the name appears to have been met with zn if GEZER at the time of the conquest of the south- modern times. restern part of Palestine (Josh. x. 33). Hecame| 2. (Xoppi; Alex. Xopper : Horreorum.) In o the assistance of Lachish, but was slaughtered | Gen. xxxvi. 30, the name has in the original the y Joshua with ue rae Bchatles Merace| definite article prefixed — 79MM — the Horite ; which’ he governed was tha commonly mentioned, Be ot dine Sov oaneh that r another place further south, is not determinable. nae ee iene setae yi oe nt 21, is HO’REB [39n, dry: XwphB; Alex. in| rendered in the A. V. “the Horites.” yeut. 1. 19, Soxwd: Horeb], Ex. iii. 1, xvii. A em y ODIs “ Soupl in both MSS. [rather, Rom., xxill. 6; Deut. i. 2, 6, 19, iv. 10, 15, v. 2, ix. 8, Alex.; Vat. Zouper:| Hurt.) A man of Simeon ; viii. 16, xxix. 1; 1 K. viii. 9, xix. 8; 2 Chr. V- 105} father of Shaphat, who represented that tribe s. evi. 19; Mal. iv. 4; Ecclus. xlviii. 7. [SINAI. among the spies sent up into Canaan by Moses HOREM (O7n [consecrated, Ges.: fortress, | (Num. xiii. 5). t iirst]: Meyadaapiu [ Vat. ern], Alex. Mayéa- HO’RITES and HO’RIMS Ort, Gen. xiy. ‘nwpaw, both by inclusion of the preceding name: 6dend penn, Deut. ii. 12: xo ppator: Corrax orem), one of the fortified places in the territory ; ‘ ; 1 } ‘Naphtali; named with Iron and Migdal-el (Josh. | [Horrexi, Horrheei ; also HO’RITE in the a | Gen. xxxvi. 20, Xoppaios: Horreus}), the aborig- x. 38). n de Velde (i. 178-9; Memoir, 329 : . pet Maw as the ng of Hae It ie in inal inhabitants of Mount Seir Gen. xiv. 6), and cient site in the centre of the country, half-way | Probably allied = the Emims and Rephaims. The tween the Ras en-Nakhira and the Lake Merom, | name [orite Onn, a troglodyte, from TW, “a _a Tell at the southern end of the Wady el- Ain, hale! sors cave ”’) appears to have been derived e of the natural features of the country. It is from their habits as « caye-dwellers.” Their ex- 0 in favor of this identification that Hurah is! cavated dwellings are still found in hundreds in the w Farin, probably the representative of the sandstone cliffs and mountains of Edom, and espe- ent TRON, named with Horem. G. cially in Petra. [Epom and Epomirrs.] It may, HOR HAGID’GAD (72730 "nN [moun- perhaps, be to the Horites Job refers in Xxx. 6, 7. the cleft, First): Bo tC Bek 'Mons Cad. They are only three times mentioned in Scripture: nae / it he hg first, when they were smitten by the kings of the 7—both reading “7 for WT), the name of a East (Gen. xiv. 6); then when their genealogy ig ert station where the Israelites encamped (Num. | given in Gen. xxxvi. 20-30 and 1 Chr. i. 38-42 ; ili. 82), probably the same as Gudgodah (Deut. | and lastly when they were exterminated by the ’). In both passages it stands in sequence with | Edomites (Deut. ii. 12, 22). It appears probable 2e others, Moserah or Moseroth, (Beeroth) Bene-| that they were not Canaanites, but an earlier race, kan, and Jotbath or Jotbathah; but the order| who inhabited Mount Seir before the posterity of ot strictly preserved. Hengstenberg (Genwine-| Canaan took possession of Palestine (Ewald, Ges- + Of the Pentateuch, ii. 356) has sought to ac-| chichte, vol. i. 304, 305). Je. bigs P; at for this by supposing that they were in Deut. HOR/MAH (Ma70 [devotement to destrue- going the opposite way to that in Num, XXxili.| i i _ For the consideration of this see WILpErngss | 0”, anathema : Rom. Vat. Alex. commonly ‘Epua or ‘Epud, but Num. xxi. 3 and Judg. i. 17, ’Avdo- { eua, 1 Sam. xxx. 30, ‘Tepiuotd (Vat. -pei-); Rom. Vat. Num. xiy. 45, ‘Epudy, Josh. xii. 14, ‘Epudo; Alex. Josh. xv. 30, Epuad: Horma, Herma, Harma, Sho. 9 Arama (al. Harama)); its earlier name Zephath, (Arab. A>r=> ), which has among other MIDS, is found Judg. i. 17) was the chief town tings that of a well abounding in water. 'The| of a king” of a Canaanitish tribe on the south U of either of these might closely approximate | of Palestine, reduced by Joshua (Josh. xii. 14), and ‘und to Gudigid. It is observable that on the} became a city of the territory of Judah (Josh. xv. ‘side of the Arabah Robinson (vol. i., map) has} 80; 1 Sam. xxx. 30), but apparently belonged to ady Ghitdaghidh, whieh may bear the same | Simeon, whose territory is reckoned as parcel of the ‘ing; but as that meaning might be perhaps | former (Josh. xix. 4; comp. Judg. i. 17; 1 Chr. iv. ad to a great number of localities, it would be} 30). The seeming inconsistency between Num. xxi. erous to infer identity. The junction of this|3 and Judg. i. 17 may be relieved by supposing ‘with the Arabah would not, however, be un-| that the yow made at the former period was ful- ole for a station between Mount Hor, near} filled at the latter, and the name (the root of which, * Moserah lay (comp. Num. xx. 28 Deut. x. ‘ad Ezion-Geber. Robinson also mentions a no Wanprnine. Gedged (Arab. Qh > ) ns a hard and level tract. We have also Gud- DIM, constantly occurs in the sense of to devote > a : i to destruction, or utterly to destroy) given by antici- i '.. in the Arabah itself, which he calls pation. Robinson (ii. 181) identifies the pass /s- ra} 7 id, 1 il. : . j ° . ee udhah (ii 121 comp U9), which may Siifa, slat, with Zephath, in respect both ossibly Suggest a derivation for the name. meee , pty : H. H of the name, which ig sufficiently similar, and of ; ahs. tthe situation, which is a probable one, namely, the Yaa. 1, (9 Blto pot “in’ Chron; 977} gap in the mountain barrier, which, running about vitant of caves, trogl dyte, Ges., Fiirst):| S.-W. and N. E., completes the plateau of Southern il, i. per, iy Ait Xop Revie cy: Palestine, and rises above the less elevated step — a Horite, as his name betokens; son of (ii iel sete the son of Seir, and brother to Hemam or| @ For this 2, representing [7, comp. Hizey, Hui, m (Gen. yxxvi. 22; 1 Chr. i. 39). No trace! Hosan. 69 4F%, 1090 HORN HORN 4 the level of the desert et- Tih — interposed between Grotius (Annot. ad loc.), who cites Aben-Ea it and the Ghor [WILDERNESS OF WANDER- identification of Moses with the horned Mnevis ING. | Hes. | Egypt, and suggests that the phenomenon was tended to remind the Israelites of the golden ¢ Spencer (Leg. Hebr. iii. Diss. i. 4) tries a rec ciliation of renderings upon the ground that cor — radii lucis; but Spanheim (Diss. vii. 1); | content with stigmatizing the efforts of art in direction as “ prepostera industria,” distinetly; tributes to Jerome a belief in the veritable fat Moses. Bishop Taylor, in all good faith, tho of course rhetorically, compares the “sun's go horns” to those of the Hebrew Lawgiver. 9. From similarity of position and use.— | principal applications of this metaphor will be f — strength and honor. Of strength the hort HORN. I. Lirerau. (Josh. vi. 4, 5; comp. Ex. xix. 13; 1 Sam. xvi. 1, 13; 1 K. i. 39; Job xlii. 14). — Two purposes are mentioned in the Scriptures to which the horn seems to have been applied. ‘Trumpets were probably at first merely horns perforated at the tip, such as are still used upon mountain-farms for calling home the laborers at meal-time. If the A. V. of Josh. vi. 4, 5 (+ rams’ horns,”’ boven MN) were correct, this would settle the question: but the fact seems to be that iebab has nothing to do with ram, and that Loe horn, serves to indicate an instrument which orig- inally was made of horn, though afterwards, no doubt, constructed of different materials (comp. Varr. L. L. v. 24, 33, ‘ cornua quod ea quae nunc sunt ex sre tune fiebant bubulo e cornu 98 [Corner.] The horns which were thus made into trumpets were probably those of oxen rather than of rams: the latter would scarcely produce a note sufficiently imposing to suggest its association with the fall of Jericho. The word horn is also applied to a flask, or vessel made of horn, containing oi (1 Sam. xvi. Ly 135 1 K. i. 39), or used as a kind of toilet-bottle, filled with the preparation of antimony with which women tinged their eye-lashes (Keren-happuch = paint- horn, name of one of Job's daughters, Job xlii. 14). So in English, drinking-horn (commonly called a horn). In the same way the Greek képas some- times signifies bugle, trumpet (Xen. An. ii. 2, § 4), and sometimes drinking-horn (vil. 2, § 23). In like manner the Latin cornu means trumpet, and also otl-cruet (Hor. Sat. ii. 2, 61), and funnel (Virg. Georg. iii. 509). IL. Meraproricau. — 1. From similarity of form. — To this use belongs the application of the ‘word horn to a trumpet of metal, as already men- tioned. Horns of ivory, that is, elephants’ teeth, are mentioned in Ez. xxvii. 15; either metaphori- cally from similarity of form; or, as scems more probable, from a vulgar error. The horns of the altar (Ex. xxvii. 2) are not supposed to have been made of horn, but to have been metallic projec- tions from the four corners (ywviat keparoeidets, Joseph. B. J. v. 5, § 6). [ALLAR, p- 74 6.) The peak or summit of a hill was called a horn (Is. v. 1, where hill horn in Heb.; comp. Képas, en. An. vy. 6, § 7, and cornu, Stat. Theb. v. 532; Arab. Kurta Hattin (Horns of Hattin], Robinson, Bidl. hus ji. 870; Germ. Schreckhorn, Wetterhorn, Aurhorn; Celt. cairn). In Hab. iii. 4 (“ he had horns coming out of his hand”) the context im- plies rays of light. representative ® (Deut. xxxiii. 17, &e.), but always; comp. Hair of South Africans ornamented with buffalo-l (Livingstone, Travels, pp. 450, 451.) of iron, worn defiantly and symbolically 0} head, are intended. Expressive of the same or perhaps merely a decoration, is the orienta itary ornament mentioned by Taylor (Ca Frag. exiy.), and the conical cap observed b Livingstone among the natives of S. Africa: not improbably suggested by the horn of th, noceros, so abundant in that country (see L stone’s Travels, pp. 865, 450, 557; Comp. l.c.). Among the Druses upon Mount I the married women wear silver horns 0) heads. The spiral coils of gold wire projec either side from the female head-dress of § the Dutch provinces are evidently an © borrowed from the same original idea. | In the sense of honor, the word horn st The denominative 77"? = to emit rays, is used of Moses’ face (Ex. xxxiv. 29, 30, 85); so all the versions except Aquila and the Vulgate, which have the translations KEpaTwons Av, cornuta erat. This curious idea has not only been perpetuated by paintings, coins, and statues (Zornius, Biblioth. Antig. i. 121), but has at least passed muster with pee es LAE Se a ea ee Sk > *Tn this sense David speaks of God (Ps. as tthe horn of his salvation,” 7. ¢. his migh tual deliverer (comp. Am. vi. 18). Hence we § port of this same figure and language (Képas | jpiv) as applied by Zacharias to the Savie 69). a *So Dr. Noyes translates, Rays stream forth from his hand, and remarks, “ May not this denote that lightnings were in his hands? See Job xxxvi. 32, - He covereth his hands with lightning. Also xxxvii. 8, ti, 16.’ 7 HORNET | the abstract (my horn, fof Israel, Lam. ii. 3), thority (comp. the story of Cippus, Ovid, Met. xv. 665; and the horn of the Indian Sachem men- ‘tioned in Clarkson's Life of Penn). It also stands for concrete, whence it comes to mean king, king- dom (Dan. viii. 3, &c.; Zech. i. 18; comp. Tar- quin’s dream in Accius, ap. Cie. Div. i. 22); hence ‘on coins Alexander and the Seleucide wear horns ‘(see drawings on p. 61), and the former is called in Arab. two horned (Kor. xviii. 85 ff.), not without reference to Dan. viii. Out of either or both of these two last meta- phors sprang the idea of representing gods with horns. Spanheim has discovered such figures on the Roman denarius, and on numerous Egyptian voins of the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, and. the Autonines (Diss. v. p. 353). The Bacchus Tavpo- tépws, or cornulus, is mentioned by Luripides Bacch. 100), and among other pagan absurdities Arnobius ‘enumerates “ Dii cornuti” (c. Gent. vi.). nike manner river-gods are represented with horns ic tauriformis Aufidus,’’ Hor. Qd. iv. 14, 25; rav- Cuoppov dupa Kngicod, Eur. Jon. 1261). For arious opinions on the ground-thought of this jetaphor, see Notes and Queries, i: 419, 456. fanx legends speak of a tarroo-ushtey, 7. e. water- ul (see Cregeen’s Manz Dict.). (See Bochart, Merz. ii. 288; and, for an admirable compen- tum, with references, Zornius, Bibliotheca Antiqua- Ja, ii. 106 ff.). T. E. B. _ HORNET (TW : opnela: crabro). That te Hebrew word tzir’ah describes the hornet, may » taken for granted on the almost unanimous au- sority of the ancient versions. Not only were imudical writers (Lewysohn, & same conclusion. erred to only ryed for the e Zool. § 405) lead to In Scripture the hornet is as the means which Jehovah em- xtirpation of the Canaanites (Ex. ‘lil. 28; Deut. vii. 20; Josh. xxiv. 12; Wisd. 8). Some commentators regard the word as od in its literal sense, and adduce authenticated tances, where armies have been seriously mo- by hornets (Ailian, xi. 28, xvii. 35; Ammian. ‘Tellin. xxiv. 8). But the following arguments m to decide in favor of a metaphorical sense: ) that the word “hornet” in Ex. xxiii. 28 is allel to “fear” in yer. 27; (2) that similar ex- ssions are undoubtedly used metaphorically, e. g. ) chase as the bees do ” (Deut. i. 44; Ps. exviii. 5 @) that a similar transfer from the literal to metaphorical sense may be instanced in the ‘Sical estrus, originally a ‘ gad-fly,” afterwards ‘or and madness; and lastly (4), that no his- val notice of such intervention as hornets occur ” he Bible. We may therefore regard it as ex- in Bees a vivid image the consternation with }1 1B. e@ ovah would inspire the enemies of the as declared in Deut. ii. 25, Josh. ii. 11. elites, WialsoB. {ORON AIM (O25 | Aponety, Alex. Adwyiexu; [in Jer.,] "Npw- ’ [Opwvatu, ete.:] Oronaim), a town of Moab ‘d with Zoar and Luhith (is.xy-" 6: Jer. L 3, but to the position of which no 48 afforded either by the notices of the Bible = two caverns: [in u Job xvi. 15; all the horns | or by mention in other works. and so for the supreme au- sages hereafter quoted; but it is in the poetical parts of Scripture. description of the horse in Job xxx plies solely to the war-horse; the m in the breeze (A. V. “thunder ”) which « his neck;” his lofty bounds « his hoofs “di ment; his terrible snorting — us, and his ardor for the strife He swalloweth the ground with fierceness Neither believeth he that it is the sound o Pharsoh’s chariots prophet Zechariah wishes to perfect peace, he represents mixing in the fray as before ( on his bell (which was inte into the foe) the unto the Lord” (xiv. 20). istic of the horse is not so HORSE 1091 It seems to nave been on an eminence, and approached (like Beth- horon) by a road which is styled the “way” CT, Is. xv. 5), or the “ descent ” (1779, Jer. xlviii. 5). From the occurrence of a similar ex- pression in reference to LUHITH, we might imagine that these two places were sanctuaries, on the high places to which the eastern worship of those days was so addicted. If we accept the name as He- brew, we may believe the dual form of it to arise, either from the presence of two caverns in the neighborhood, or from there having been two towns, possibly an upper and a lower, as in the case of the two Beth-horons, connected by the ascending road. From Horonaim possibly came Sanballat the Horonite. G: HOR ONITE, THE (29070 [patr. from till "Apwvl; [Vat. FA. -yer, exc. xiii. 28, where Rom. § Ovpavirns, Vat. Alex. FA. omit :] Horonites), the designation of Sanballat, who was one of the principal opponents of Nehemiah’s works of restoration (Neh. ii. 10, 19; xiii. 28), It is derived by Gesenius (Thes. 459) from Horo- naim the Moabite town, but by Fiirst (Handwb.) from Horon, 7. e. [Upper-] Beth-horon. Which of these is the more accurate is quite uncertain. The former certainly accords well with the Am- monite and Arabian who were Sanballat’s com- rades; the latter is perhaps more etymologically correct. HORSE. The most striking feature in the Biblical notices of the horse is the exclusive appli- tion of it to warlike operations; in no instance ig at useful animal employed for the purposes of ordinary locomotion or agriculture, if we except Is. Xvili. 28, where we learn that. horses (A. V. “ horse- men ’’) were employed in threshing, not however in that case put in the gears, but simply driven about wildly over the strewed grain. This remark will be found to be borne out by the historical pas- equally striking The animated ix. 19-25, ap- ane streaming clothes as a grasshopper; ”’ gging in the valley’? with excite- are brought before 5 and rage ; f the trum- pet. Ile saith among the trumpets Ha, ha! And he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting. So again the bride advances with her charms to an mmediate conquest “as a company of horses in ”” (Cant. i. 9); and when the convey the idea of the horse, no mote ix. 10), but bearing nded to strike terror peaceable inscription « Holiness Lastly, the character- much his speed or his tility, but his strength (Ps. xxxiii. 17, exlvii. 10), as shown in the special application of the term 1092. HORSE ahbir (TDN), « e. strong, as an equivalent for a horse (Jer. viii. 16, xlvii. 3, 1. 11). The terms under which the horse is described in the Hebrew language are usually sis and parash (DD, WH). The origin of these terms is not satisfactorily made out; Pott (Hiym. F' orsch. 1. 60) connects them respectively with Susa and Pares, or Persia, as the countries whence the horse was derived; and it is worthy of remark that sds was also employed in Egypt for a mare, showing that it was a foreign term there, if not also in Pal- estine. There is a marked distinction between the sts and the parash; the former were horses for driving in the war chariot, of a heavy build, the latter were for riding, and particularly for cavalry. This distinction is not observed in the A. V. from the circumstance that pdrdsh also signifies horse- man; the correct sense is essential in the following passages —1 K. iv. 26, “forty thousand chariot- horses and twelve thousand cavalry-horses;”’ Ez. xxvii. 14, “driving-horses and riding-horses;”’ Joel ii. 4, “as riding-horses, so shall they run;”’ and Is. xxi. 7, “a train of horses in couples.” In addition to these terms we have recesh (W57, of |. undoubted Hebrew origin) to describe a swift horse, used for the royal post (Esth. viii. 10, 14) and sim- ilar purposes (1 K. iv. 28; A. V. “ dromedary ”’ as also in Esth.), or for a rapid journey (Mic. i. 18); rammdae (yD), used once for a mare (Esth. viii. 10); and sdsdéh (TTDND) in Cant. i. 9, where it is regarded in the A. V. as a collective term, company of horses;’’ it rather means, according to the received punctuation, “my mare,” but still better, by a slight alteration in the punctuation, ‘6 mares.” The Hebrews in the patriarchal age, as a pastoral race, did not stand in need of the services of the horse, and for a long period after their settlement in Canaan they dispensed with it, partly in conse- quence of the hilly nature of the country, which only admitted of the use of chariots in certain lo- calities (Judg. i. 19), and partly in consequence of the prohibition in Deut. xvii. 16, which would be held to apply at all periods. Accordingly they hamstrung the horses of the Canaanites (Josh. pat 6,9). David first established a force of cavalry and chariots after the defeat of Hadadezer (2 Sam. viii. 4), when he reserved a hundred chariots, and, as we may infer, all the horses: for the rendering ‘‘houghed all the chariot-horses,”’ is manifestly in- correct. Shortly after this Absalom was possessed of some (2 Sam. xv. 1). But the great supply of horses was subsequently effected by Solomon through his connection with Egypt; he is reported to have had ‘40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 cavalry horses”? (1 K. iv. 26), and it is worthy of notice that these forces are mentioned parenthetically to account for the great security of life and property noticed in the preceding verse. There is probably an error in the former of these numbers: for the number of chariots is given in 1 K. x. 26; 2 Chr. i. 14, as 1,400, and consequently if we allow three horses for each chariot, two in use and one as a reserve, as was usual in some countries (Xen. Cyrop. vi. 1, § 2%), the number required would be 4,200, or, in round numbers, 4,000, which is probably the correct reading. Solo- mon also established a very active trade in horses, yhich were brought by dealers out of Egypt and of the horse was much more frequent. HORSE resold at a profit to the Hittites, who lived betwe Palestine and the Euphrates. The passage in whi this commerce is described (1 K. x. 28, 29), is » fortunately obscure; the tenor of ver. 28 seems be that there was a regularly established traf the Egyptians bringing the horses to a mart in t south of Palestine and handing them over to t Hebrew dealers at a fixed tariff. The price of horse was fixed at 150 shekels of silver, and t] of a chariot at 600; in the latter we must inelt the horses (for an Egyptian war-chariot was of great. value) and conceive, as hefore, that th horses accompanied each chariot, leaving the va of the chariot itself at 150 shekels. this source of supply, Solomon received horses way of tribute (1 K. x. 28). tained by the succeeding kings, occur both of riding horses and chariots (2 K. 21, 33, xi. 16), and particularly of war-chariots K. xxii. 4; 2 K. iii. 7; Is. ii. 7). The foree sec to have failed in the time of Hezekiah (2 K.x 23) in Judah, as it had previously in Israel un Jehoahaz (2 K. xiii. 7). belonging to the Jews on their return from Ba lon is stated at 736 (Neh. vii. 68). In addition [he force was ma and frequent noti The number of ho In the countries adjacent to Palestine, the It was troduced into Egypt probably by the Hyksos, ¢ is not represented on the monuments before 18th dynasty (Wilkinson, i. 386, abridgm.). the period of the Exodus horses were abun¢ there (Gen. xlvii. 17, 1. 9; Ex. ix. 3, xiv. 9, Deut. xvii. 16), and subsequently, as we ] already seen, they were able to supply the nat of Western Asia. The Jewish kings sought assistance of the Egyptians against, the Assyt in this respect (Is. xxxi. 1, xxxvi. 8; Ez. xvii. | The Canaanites were possessed of them (Deut, 1; Josh. xi. 4; Judg. iv. 3, v. 22, 28), and | wise the Syrians (2 Sam. viii. 4; 1 K. xx. 1; 1 vi. 14, vii. 7, 10) —notices which are confirme the pictorial representations on Egyptian m ments (Wilkinson, i. 393, 397, 401), and by Assyrian inscriptions relating to Syrian expedit. But the cavalry of the Assyrians themselves other eastern nations was regarded as most for’ able; the horses themselves were highly bred, a Assyrian sculptures still testify, and fully me the praise bestowed on them by Habakkuk ( «¢swifter than leopards, and more fierce than evening wolves;”’ their riders “ clothed in | captains and rulers, all of them desirable y men”? (Ez. xxiii. 6), armed with “ the bright s and glittering spear’? (Nah. iii. 3), made a jrapression on the Jews, who, plainly clad, we! foot; as also did their regular array as they ceeded in couples, contrasting with the disor troops of asses and camels which followed wit. baggage (Is. xxi. 7, reced in this passage signi rather a train than a single chariot). The nu employed by the eastern potentates was very f Holofernes possessing not less than 12,000 (Jt 15). At a later period we have frequent n of the cavalry of the Greeco-Syrian monart Mace. i. 17, iii. 39, &.). : With regard to the trappings and manag of the horse, we have little information; the (resen) was placed over the horse’s nose (Is. 98), and a bit or curb (metheg) is also noti¢ K. xix. 28; Ps. xxxii. 9; Prov. xxvi. 3; Is. 3 29: in the A. V. it is incorrectly givem “br with the exception of Ps. xxxii.). The harn & 4 HORSE-GATE ‘the Assyrian horses was profusely decorated, the pits being gilt (1 Esdr. iii. 6), and the bridles adorned with tassels; on the neck was a collar ‘terminating in a bell, as described by Zechariah (xiv. 20). Saddles were not used until a late period; ‘only one is represented ou the Assyrian sculptures (Layard, ii. 357). The horses were not shod, and ‘therefore hoofs as hard “as flint” (Is. v. 28) were regarded as a great merit. The chariot-horses were sovered with embroidered trappings — the “pre- sious clothes ’’ manufactured at Dedan (Ez. xxvii. 20): these were fastened by straps and buckles, and ‘o this perhaps reference is made in Prov. xxx. 31, ‘n the term zarzir, ‘one girded about the loins” ‘A. Y. “greyhound’’). Thus adorned, Mordecai “ode in state throngh the streets of Shushan (Esth. ni. 9). White horses were more particularly ap- yropriate to such occasions, as being significant of Mietory (Rev. vi. 2, xix. 11, 14). Horses and hariots were used also in idolatrous processions, '$ noticed in regard to the sun (2 K. xxiii. 11). Wali’ B. Trappings of Assyrian horse. (Layard.) _ \* HORSE-GATE. [J ERUSALEM. ] HORSELEECH (T7979, valanah: geen {3 snguisuga) occurs once only, namely, Prov. x. 15, “The horseleech hath two daughters, cry- %, Give, give.’ ‘There is little if any doubt that ‘tkah denotes some species of leech, or rather is > generic term for any bloodsucking annelid, such Hirwdo (the medicinal leech), Hemopis (the ‘tseleech), Limnatis, Trochetia, and Aulastoma, ‘all these genera are found in the marshes and ols of the Bible-lands. Schultens (Comment. in ‘ov. 1. e.) and Bochart (Hieroz. iii. 785) have Teavored to show that ’dliikah is to be understood ‘signify “ fate,” or « impending misfortune of y kind” (futum unicuique impendens); they er the Hebrew term to the Arabic ’alik, res pensa, affixa homini. The «two daughters ”’ explained by Bochart to signify Hades (Sati) I the grave, which are never satisfied. This éx- nation is certainly very ingenious, but where is necessity to appeal to it, when the important Versions are opposed to any such interpretation ? ® bloodsucking leeches, such as Hirudo and mops, were without a doubt known to the ent Hebrews, and as the leech has been for ‘8 the emblem of rapacity and cruelty, there is HOSANNA 1098 ‘alikah. The Arabs to this day denominate the Limnatis Nilotica, ’alak. As to the expression “two daughters,’’ which has been by some writers absurdly explained to allude to “the double tongue’’ of a leech — this animal having no tongue at all — there can be no doubt that it is figurative, and is intended, in the language of oriental hyperbole, to denote its bloodthirsty propensity, evidenced by the tenacity with which a leech keeps its hold on the skin (if Htrudo), or mucous membrane (if Haemopis). Comp. Horace, Lp. ad Pis. 476; Cicero, Ep. ad Atticum, i. 16; Plautus, pid. act iv. sc. 4. The etymology of the Hebrew word, from an unused root which signifies “ to adhere,” is eminently suited toa “leech.” Gesenius (Zhes. p. 1038) reminds us that the Arabic ’alik is explained in Camus by ghil, “a female monster like a vampire, which sucked human blood.’ The passage in question, however, has simply reference to a “leech.” The valuable use of the leech (Hirudo) in medicine, though undoubtedly known to Pliny and the later toman writers, was in all probability unknown to the ancient Orientals ; still they were doubtless acquainted with the fact that leeches of the above named genus would attach themselves to the skin of persons going barefoot in ponds; and they also probably were cognizant of the propensity horse- leeches (Hemopis) have of entering the mouth and nostrils of cattle, as they drink from the waters frequented by these pests, which are common enough in Palestine and Syria. We HO’/SAH (TOM [place of refuge, pro tection]: [Rom. "lacip, Vat. -ceip;] Alex. Sovga3 [Ald. Swoa; Comp. ’Agd:] Hosa), a city of Asher (Josh. xix. 29), the next landmark on the boundary to Tyre. HO’SAH (TOM [as above]: ‘Ogd; [Vat. Ooca, loooa;] Alex. Qone and Oga: Hosa), a man who was chosen by David to be one of the first doorkeepers (A. V. « porters ’’) to the ark after its arrival in Jerusalem (1 Chr. xvi. 38). He was. a Merarite Levite (xxvi. 10), with “sons and brethren” thirteen, of whom four were certainly sons (10, 11); and his charge was especially the ‘gate Shallecheth,” and the causeway, or raised road which ascended (16, mA M>0n). HOSANNA (card; Heb. S) DWT, “Save, we pray;”? ca@cov dh, as Theophylact cor- rectly interprets it), the ery of the multitudes as they thronged in our Lord’s triumphal procession into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 9, 15; Mar. xi. 9, 10; John xii. 13). The Psalm from which it was taken, the 118th, was one with which they were familiar from being accustomed to recite the 25th and 26th verses at the Feast of Tabernacles. On that occa- sion the Great /Hallel, consisting of Psalms exiii.— exvili., was chanted by one of the priests, and at certain intervals the multitudes joined in the responses, waving their branches of willow and palm, and shouting as they waved them, Hallelujah, or Hosanna, or “ O Lord, I beseech thee, send now prosperity ” (Ps. exviii. 25). This was done at the recitation of the first and last verses of Ps. exviii.; but, according to the school of Hillel, at the words “Save now, we beseech thee” (ver. 25). The school of Shammai, on the contrary, say it was at the words “Send now prosperity *’ cf the same verse. Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua were ob- son to doubt that this annelid is denoted by ' served by R. Akiba to wave their branches only at 1094 HOSEA the words “ Save now, we beseech thee’’ (Mishna, Succah, iii. 9). On each of the seven days during which the feast lasted the people thronged in the court of the Temple, and went in procession about the altar, setting their boughs bending towards it; the trumpets sounding as they shouted Hosanna. But on the seventh day they marched seven times round the altar, shouting meanwhile the great Hosanna to the sound of the trumpets of the Levites (Lightfoot, Temple Service, xvi. 2). The very children who could wave the palm branches were expected to take part in the solemnity (Mishna, Succah, iii. 15; Matt. xxi. 15). From the custom of waving the boughs of myrtle and willow during the service the name Hosanna was ultimately trans- ferred to the boughs themselves, so that according to Elias Levita (Thisbi, s. v.), the bundles of the willows of the brook which they carry at the least of Tabernacles are called Hosannas.’’ The term is frequently applied by Jewish writers to denote the Feast of Tabernacles, the seventh day of the feast being distinguished as the great Hosanna (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s. vy. YW). It was not uncommon for the Jews in later times to employ the observances of this feast, which was preéminently a feast of gladness, to express their feelings on other occasions of rejoicing (1 Mace. xiii. 51; 2 Mace. x. 6,7), and it is not, therefore, matter of surprise that they should have done so under the circumstances recorded in the Gospels. W. A. W. HOSE’A (DWT [help, deliverance, Ges. ; or, God is help, Yiirst]: 'Qoné, UXX.; ‘Qoné, N. T. [in Tisch. ed. 7, but ’Qané, Elz., Lachm.]: Osee), son of Beeri, and first of the Minor Prophets as they appear in the A. V. The name is precisely the same as HosHEA, which is more nearly equiv- alent to the Hebrew. Time. — This question must be settled, as far as it can be settled, partly by reference to the tile, partly by an inquiry into the contents of the book. (a.) As regards the title, an attempt has been made to put it out of court by representing it as a later addition (Calmet, Rosenmiiller, Jahn). But it can easily be shown that this is unnecessary; and Eich- horn, suspicious as he ordinarily is of titles, lets that of Hosea pass without question. It has been most unreasonably inferred from this title that it intends to describe the prophetic life of Hosea as extending over the entire reigns of the monarchs whom it mentions as his contemporaries. Starting with this hypothesis, it is easy to show that these reigns, including as they do upwards of a century, are an impossible period for the duration of a prophet’s ministry. But the title does not neces- sarily imply any such absurdity; and interpreted in the light of the prophecy itself it admits of an obvious and satisfactory limitation. For the begin- ning of Hosea’s ministry the title gives us the reign of Uzziah, king of Judah, but limits this vague definition by reference to Jeroboam II., king of Israel. The ttle therefore gives us Uzziah, and more definitely gives us Uzziah as contemporary with Jeroboam; it therefore yields a date not later than B. C. 783. The question then arises how much further back it is possible to place the first public appearance of Hosea. To this question the title gives no answer; for it seems evident that the only reason for mentioning Jeroboam at all may have been to indicate a certain portion of the reign wf Uzziah. (b.) Accordingly it is necessary to refer HOSEA to the contents of the prophecy; and in doing thi Eichhorn has clearly shown that we cannot alloy Hosea much ground in the reign of Jeroboar (823-783). The book contains descriptions whic are utterly inapplicable to the condition of the king dom of Israel during this reign (2 K. xiv. 25 ff The pictures of social and political life which Hose draws so forcibly are rather applicable to the inte regnum which followed the death of Jeroboar (782-772), and to the reign of the succeeding king: The calling in of Egypt and Assyria to the aid o rival factions (x. 3, xiii. 10) has ncthing to do wit the strong and able government of Jeroboam. N«c is it conceivable that a prophet who had lived lon under Jeroboam should have omitted the mentic of that monarch’s coi.quests in his enumeration o Jehovah’s kindnesses to Israel (ii. 8). It seen then almost certain that very few at least of h prophecies were written until after the death ¢ Jeroboam (783). So much for the beginning; as regards the en of his career the title leaves us in still greater doub It merely assures us that he did not prophesy bi yond the reign of Hezekiah. But here again tl contents of the book help us to reduce the vagu ness of this indication. In the sixth year of Hez kiah the prophecy of Hosea was fulfilled, and it very improbable that he should have permitted th triumphant proof of his Divine mission to pa unnoticed. He could not therefore have lived lon into the reign of Hezekiah; and as it does mn seem necessary to allow more than a year of eat reign to justify his being represented as a conten porary on the one hand of Jeroboam, on the oth of Hezekiah, we may suppose that the life, or rath the prophetic career of Hosea, extended from 7& to 725, a period of fifty-nine years. The Hebrew reckoning of ninety years (Corn. Lap.) was probably limited by the fulfillment of tl prophecy in the sixth of Hezekiah, and by the da of the accession of Uzziah, as apparently indicate by the title: 809-720, or 719 = 90 years. Place. — There seems to be a genera: impressic among commentators that the prophecies containe in this collection were delivered in the kingdom ¢ Israel, for whose warning they were principal intended. Eichhorn does not attempt to deci this question (iv. 284). He thinks it possible th they may have been primarily communicated | Judah, as an indirect appeal to the conscience ¢ that kingdom; but he evidently leans toward tl opposite supposition that having been first pu! lished in Israel they were collected, and a copy sel into Judah. The title is at least an evidence tli at a very early period these prophecies were st posed to concern both Israel and Judah, and, unle we allow them to have been transmitted from tl one to the other, it is difficult to account for the presence in our canon. As a proof of their northei origin Eichhorn professes to discover a Samaritat ism in the use of “JS as masc. suff. of the secon person. e Tribe and Parentage. — Tribe quite unknow The Pseudo-Epiphanius, it is uncertain upon whi round, assigns Hosea to the tribe of Issacha His father, Beeri, has by some writers been ¢0! founded with Beerah, of the tribe of Reuben | Chr. v. 6): this is an anachronism. The Jewis fancy that all prophets whose birth-place is 0 specified are to be referred to Jerusalem (R. Davi Vatab.) is probably nothing more than a fan Fm = HOSEA HOSEA — 1095 Yorn. & Lap.). Of his father Beeri we know uratively representative of something else (Corn. & golutely nothing. Allegorical interpretations of Lap.) At the period of the Reformation the e name, marvelous for their frivolous ingenuity, allegorical interpreters could only boast the Chaldee ave been adduced to prove that he was a prophet | Paraphrase, some few Rabbins, and the Hermeneutic ferome ad Zeph. init.; Basil ad Js. i.); but they | school of Origen. Soon afterwards the theory ob- e as little trustworthy as the Jewish dogma, | tained a vigorous supporter in Junius, and more hich decides that, when the father of a prophet is recently has been adopted by the bulk of modern entioned by name, the individual so specified was |commentators. Both views are embarrassed by mself a prophet. serious inconveniences, though it wouid seem that Order in the Prophetic series. — Most ancient | those which beset the literal theory are the more id medizeval interpretators make Hosea the first | formidable. One question which sprang out of the the prophets; their great argument being an old / literal view was whether the connection between ndering of i. 2, according to which « the begin-| Hosea and Gomer was marriage, or fornication. ng of the word by Hosea” implies that the | Another question which followed immediately upon reams of prophetic inspiration began with him, | the preceding was “an Deus possit dispensare ut distinct from the other prophets. Modern com- | fornicatio sit, licita.”’ This latter question was ntators have rejected this interpretation, and {much discussed by the schoolmen, and by the bstituted the obvious meaning that the particular | Thomists it was avowed in the affirmative. But, ophecy which follows was the first communicated notwithstanding the difliculties besetting the literal God to Hosea. The consensus for some time interpretation, Bishops Horsley and Lowth have ms to have been for the third place. Wall (Crit. | declared in its favor. Kichhorn sees all the weight mt. O. T.) gives Jonah, Joel, Hosea ; Horne’s|on the side of the literal interpretation, and shows ble gives Jonah, Amos, Hosea; Gesenius writes | that marrying a harlot is not necessarily implied by al, Amos, Hosea. rhe order adopted in the E*J3 MWS, which may very well imply a wife brew and the Versions is of little consequence. Bhs is i In short, there is great difficulty in arranging re after Sponge becomes an adulteress, though se prophets: as far as titles go, Amos is Hosea’s . aste before. In favor of the literal theory, he yTival; but 2 K. xiv. 25 goes far to show that | #80 observes the unfitness of a wife unchaste before ymust both yield to Jonah. It is perhaps more | ™4'lage to be a type of Israel. } " ortant to know that Hosea must have been| , “/e7ences m N. af i Matt. ix. 18, xii. 7, Hos. re or less contemporary with Isaiah, Amos, | Y 6; Luke xxiii. 30, Rey. vi. 16, Hos. » ee Fs Matt. ah, Joel, and Nahum. ii. 15, Hos. xi. 1; Rom. ix. 25, 26, 1 Pet. ii. 10, Division of the Book. —It is easy to recognize Hos. 1. 10, ii. 23; 1 Cor. xv. 4, Hos. vi. 2 [?]; ) great divisions, which accordingly have been | Heb- xiii. 15, Hos. xiv. 2. erally adopted: (1.) chap. i. to iii.; (2.) iv. to Style. — “‘Commaticus,” Jerome. “Osea quanto F profundius loquitur, tanto operosius penetratur,”’ the subdivision of these several parts is a work | August. Obscure brevity seems to be the charac- reater difficulty: that of Eichhorn will be found | teristic quality of Hosea; and all commentators be based upon a highly subtle, though by no | agree that “of all the prophets he is, in point of ms precarious criticism. language, the most obscure and hard to be under- 1.) According to him the first division should | stood ”’ (Henderson, Minor Prophets, p- 2). Eich- subdivided into three separate poems, each | horn is of opinion that he has never been adequately inating in a distinct aim, and each after its | translated, and in fact could not be translated into fashion attempting to express the idolatry of |any European language. He compares him to a el by imagery borrowed from the matrimonial | bee flying from flower to flower, to a painter revel- tion. The first, and therefore the least elaborate |ing in strong and glaring colors, to a tree that hese is contained in chap. iii., the second in i. | wants pruning. Horsley detects another important l, the third in i. 2-9, and ii. 1-23. These three specialty in pointing out the excessively local and orogressively elaborate developments of the same | individual tone of these prophecies, which above all rated idea. Chap. i. 2-9 is common to the | others he declares to be intensely Jewish. ad and third poems, but not repeated with each| Hosea’s obscurity has been variously accounted rally (iv. 273 ff.). (2.) Attempts have been | for. Lowth attributes it to the fact that the extant e by Wells, Eichhorn, etc., to subdivide the poems are but a sparse collection of compositions nd part of the book. ‘These divisions are made | scattered over a great number of years (Prel. xxi ) t according to reigns of contemporary kings, | Horsley (Pref.) makes this obscurity individual ceording to the subject-matter of the poem. | and peculiar; and certainly the heart of the prophet former course has been adopted by Wells, who | seems to have been so full and fiery that it might Jive, the latter by Eichhorn, who gets sixteen | well burst through all restraints of diction (Eich- 18 Out of this part of the book. horn). Ls" Ba Bs &e Prophecies — so scattered, so unconnected| * That Hosea exercised the prophetic office in Bishop Lowth has compared them with the | Israel, and in all probability was born there and 8 of the Sibyl — were probably collected by |not in Judah, is the general view of scholars at ‘a himself towards the end of his career. present. The almost exclusive reference of his mes- evs marriage with Gomer. — This passage | sages to that kingdom is a sufficient ground for foll.) is the vexata questio of the book. Of] this opinion: for the prophets very seldom after the i@ it has its literal and its allegorical interpre- | separation of the ten tribes left their own part of or the literal view we have the majority of |the country for another, as appears the more athers, and of the ancient and medizval com- | strongly from the exceptional character which the ators. There is some little doubt about Jerome, | mission, for example, of Elijah and Amos to both speaks of a figurutive and typical interpreta- | kingdoms is represented as having in their respec- but he evidently means the word typical in| tive histories. But though we are to rely on this ‘Oper sense as applied to a factual reality fig-|as the main argument, we may concede sometl ing ae. 1096 HOSEA to other considerations. Hosea shows, undeniably, a special familiarity with localities in the territory of Ephraim, as Gilead, Mizpah, Tabor, Gibeah, Gilgal, Beth-Aven, Samaria, and others (see iv. 15, v. 18, vi. 8, x. 5, 7, xii. 11, &c.). His diction also partakes of the roughness, and here and there of the Aramezan coloring, of the north-Palestine writers. For a list of words or forms of words more or less peculiar to Hosea see Keil’s Linleitung in das A. T. p. 276. Hiivernick has shown that the grounds for ascribing to him a south-Palestine extraction are wholly untenable (Handb. der Kinl. in das A. Test. ii. 277 ff.). It may excite surprise, it is true, that Hosea mentions in the title of his book (the genuineness of which there is no reason for doubting) four kings of Judah, and only one of Israel. It is a possible explanation of this that the prophet after the termination of his more public ministry may have withdrawn from Ephraim to Judah, and there collected and published his writings (see Bleek, Kinl. in das A. Test. p. 523). Dr. Pusey finds a deeper reason for this preéminence given to the Judean dynasty. ‘The kingdom of Judah was the kingdom of the theocracy, the line of David to which the promises of God were made. As Elisha... . turned away from Jehoram (2 K. iii. 13, 14) saying ‘Get thee to the prophets of thy father and to the prophets of thy mother,’ and owned Jehoshaphat king of Judah only, so in the title of his prophecy Hosea at once expresses that the kingdom of Judah was legitimate ”’ (/osea, p. 7). The book at all events was soon known among the people of Judah; for the kingdom of Israel did not continue long after the time of Hosea, and Jeremiah certainly had a knowledge of Hosea, as is evident from various expressions and illus- trations common to him and that prophet. (On this latter point see especially Kueper, Jeremias Libr. Sacr. Interpres atque Vindex, pp. 67-71). No portion of this difficult writer has occasioned so much discussion as that relating to Hosea’s marriage with Gomer, “a wife of whoredoms’’ and the names of the children Jezreel and Lo-ruhamah, the fruit of that marriage (i. 2 ff). From the earliest period some have maintained the literal and others the figurative interpretation of this nar- rative. For a history of the different opinions, the student may consult Marck’s Diatribe de Uxore Fornicationum qua exponitur fere integrum cap. i. Hosee (Leyden, 1696), and reprinted in his Comm. in XII. Prophetas Minores (Tiibing. 1734). It is difficult to see how the transaction can be defended on grounds of morality, if it be understood as an outward one. It has been said that when «‘ Scripture relates that a thing was done, and that with the names of persons,’’ we must conclude that it is “to be taken as literally true.’’ The principle thus stated is not a correct one: for in the parable acts are related and names often applied to the actors, and yet the Jiteral sense is not the true one. The question in reality is not whether we are to accept the prophet’s meaning in this instance, but what the meaning is which the prophet intended to convey, and which he would have us accept as the intended meaning. Further, aside from this question of the morality or immorality of the pro- ceeding, it is impossible to see in it any adaptation to the prophet’s object above that of the parabolic representation of a case assumed for the purpose of illustration. The circumstances, if they occurred in a literal sense, must extend over a series of years; they could have been known to the people only by HOSEA the prophet’s own rehearsal of them, and her could haye had the force only of his own persor testimony and explanation of their import. Hen stenberg (Christology, i. 177, Edinburgh, 185 has stated very forcibly the manifold difficulti exegetical and moral, which lie against our supp ing that Hosea was instructed to form a marria so disreputable and repulsive, and at variance wi explicit promulgations of the Mosaic code (e. Lev. xxi. 7). At the same time this writer, wh he denies that the marriage, the wife's adulte and the birth of the “children of whoredoms” | 4) took place outwardly and literally, maintai that they took place inwardly and actually as a s of vision; thus serving to impress the facts m¢ strongly on the mind and enabling him to deser them with greater effect. He is very earnest make something of the difference between this vi and that of a symbolic or parabolic use of marria as a type both in the sacredness of its relations a the criminality of its violations of the coyene between Jehovah and his people; but the line distinction is not a very palpable one. To reg: the acts as mentally performed in a sense differe from that of their being objects of thought simp would be going altogether too far. The idea oft ingenious writer may be that the vision, which subjective as distinguished from an outward occ rence, is at the same time oljective to the prop! as that which he inwardly beholds. Prof. Cow offers two or three suggestions to relieve this di cult question of some of its embarrassment ( cording to the literal theory) in his Minor Proph pp. 3, 4, 4138-415. Dr. Pusey assigns 70 years to the period Hosea’s ministry. He draws a fearful picture of | corruption of the times in which the prophet liv derived partly from Hosea’s own declarations, a partly from those of his contemporary, Amos. “1 course of iniquity had been run. The stream I become darker and darker in its downward flow. . Every commandment of God was broken, and th habitually. All was falsehood, adultery, blo: shedding; deceit to God produced faithlessness man; excess and luxury were supplied by secret open robbery, oppression, false dealing, pervers' of justice, grinding of the poor. Blood was sh like water, until one stream met another, and ov spread the land with one defiling deluge. Adult was consecrated as an act of religion. Those ¥ were first in rank were first in excess. People a king vied in debauchery, and the sottish king joi and encouraged the free-thinkers and blasphem of his court. The idolatrous priest loved and sha in the sins of the people; nay, they seem to hi set themselves to intercept those on either side Jordan, who would go to.worship at Jerusale laying wait to murder them. Corruption h spread throughout the whole land; even the pla once sacred through God’s revelations or ot} mercies to their forefathers, Bethel, Gilgal, Gile Mizpah, Shechem, were especial scenes of corrupt! or of sin. Every holy memory was effaced present corruption. Could things be worse? Th was one aggravation more. Remonstrance was U less; the knowledge of God was willfully reject the people hated rebuke; the more they were eall the more they refused; they forbade their proph to prophesy; and their false prophets hated G greatly. All attempts to heal all this disease 0 showed its incurableness *’ (Hosea, p. 3). The same writer traces the obscurity which m i, ial ap 2) . f ae ~ = HOSEA HOSHEA 1097 rave found in Hosea, to the «solemn pathos” for | the last century of the northern kingdom” (Jewish vhich he is distinguished. The expression of St. | Church, ii. 409 fi); Jerome has often been repeated; “ Hosea is concise,} The Christology of Hosea is not without diffi- md speaketh, as it were, in detached sayings.”’ | culties. One passage only, namely, that foretelling Che words of upbraiding, of judgment, of woe,/the conversion of the heathen (ii. 23 and comp. i. wurst out, as it were, one by one, slowly, heavily, / 10) is cited in the N. T. as explicitly Messianic ondensed, abrupt, from the prophet’s heavy and | (Rom. ix. 25; 1 Pet. ii. 10). But it Gs a false brinking soul, as God commanded and constrained principle of interpretation that only those portions im, and put His words, like fire, in the prophet’s | of the O. T. refer to Christ which are expressly iouth. An image of Him who said, ‘O Jerusalem, recognized as having that character in the New erusalem, thou that killest the prophets and| Testament. The N. T. writers represent the Re- nest them which are sent unto thee, how often | deemer as the great subject of the ancient economy ; ould I have gathered thy children together, even | and if only those types and predictions relate to sa hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and | him which are cited and applied in that manner, »would not,’ he delivers his message, as though | it is difficult to see how the Hebrew Scriptures can id he had anew to take breath, before he uttered predominant reference to the Christian economy. ch renewed woe. Each verse forms a whole for /In regard to such Gospel prophecies in Hosea, the self, like one heavy toll in a funeral knell. The | reader may consult (in addition to the Com- ophet has not been careful about order and sym- | mentaries) Hengstenberg’s Christology of the O. stry, so that each sentence went home to the soul. | 7. i. 158-285 (Edinb. ed.) ; Hofmann’s Weis. id yet the unity of the prophecy is so evident sagung u. Erfillung, i. 206 £.; Tholuck’s Die the main, that we cannot doubt that it is not | Propheten wu. ihre Weissagungen, pp. 193, 197, dken, even when the connection is not apparent | 206; and Stiihelin’s Die Messianischen Weissa- the surface. The great difficulty consequently gungen des A. T. p. 35 fF. Hosea is to ascertain that connection in places} All these writers do not recognize the same pas- ere it evidently exists, yet where the Prophet | sages as significant, nor the same as significant in ) not explained it. The easiest and simplest | the same degree. H tences are sometimes, in this respect, the most| HOSEN (plural of hose) Dan. iii. 21 (A. V.), teult.”” is the translation of a Chaldee word which signifies Literature. — Some of the helps have been inci- tunics [DrEss, p. 624 a]. Hosen formerly denoted tally noticed in the addition which precedes. See s, short trowsers or trunk- , : : any covering for the leg ler AMos and HABAKKUK for the more im- Bie: hose as well as stockings. See examples of this vant general works which include Hosea. Of usage in Eastwood and Wright's Bible Word-Book, “separate works on this prophet the following T , .- © |p. 257. ‘be mentioned: Pocock, the celebrated orien- *. 3st and traveller, Comment. on Hosea, 1685; HOSHATAH [3 syl.] (MPD IT [whom ager, Comment. in Hoseam, 1782, perhaps un- | Jehovah saved]: Osaias). 1. (Qeata.) A man who wed for the tact and discrimination with | assisted in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem th he unfolds the spirit and religious teachings | after it had been rebuilt by Nehemiah (Neh. xii. he prophet; Kuinoel, Hosee Oracula Hebr. et | . . S727) of Jud hin th | Annotatione illustravit, 1792; Bishop Horsley, 2), He led the princes ( i Y) yl Tea a, translated from the Hebrew, with Notes cartes ig but whether himself one of them we are inatory and critical, 2d ed., Lond. 1804; J. C. oe Fh poe Al ety kK, Hoseas Propheta : Introductionem premisit, Macens-] The Serene E Tae spe ° a . ¢ 1c 9 eects el in 7p idle Me Azariah, who was a man of note after the destruc- te he Bee he) And ili. as rea eg he tion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xlii. 1 § Simson, Der Prophet Hosea erklirt u, lik 2 : jet@t, with a copious history of the interpreta- | *"1 ) a 1851; Drake, Notes on Hosea, Cambr. (Eng.),| HOSH’ AMA (DOW IM [whom Jehovah 3 and August Wiinsche, Der Prophet Hosea hears]: ‘Noaudd; [Vat. -uw;] Alex. lwoocauea; elat u. erklirt, 1868 (erste Hiilfte, as far as [Comp. ‘Qoaud:] Sama), one of the sons of Je- Vi. 6, pp. i-xxxii. and 1-288), in which he coniah, or Jehoiachin, the last king of Judah but nade special use of the Targums, and of the | one (1 Chr. iii. 18). It is worthy of notice that, h Interpreters Rashi, Aben Ezra, and David |in the narrative of the capture of Jeconiah by Ai. Dr. Pusey's Commentary on this prophet | x ebuchadnezzar, though the mother and the wives te 1. of his Minor Prophets) deserves to be of the king are mentioned, nothing is said about terized as learned, devout, and practical. It his sons (2 K. xxiv. 12,15). In agreement with ‘NS passages of great beauty and suggestive- this is the denunciation of him as a childless man In his pages Hosea stil] lives, and his teach-| jn J er. xxii. 80. There is good reason for suspect- Te for our times as well as for his own. All ing some confusion in the present state of the 8 Jewish is not found in Judaism, nor all genealogy of the royal family in 1 Chr. iii.; and ‘ heathenish found in heathendom. these facts would seem to confirm it. dkert (Symbolische Handlung Hosea’s in the +s Stud. w. Krit., 1835, pp. 627-656) main-| HOSHE’A (DWT [help, or God is help: the parabolic view of the Gomer-marriage | see First]: ‘Qoné: Osee), the nineteenth, last, and mn. Umbreit’s article Hosea (Herzog’s Real- | best king of Israel. He succeeded Pekah, whom + Vi. 267-275) is to some extent exegetical as | he slew in a successful conspiracy, thereby fulfilling 3 biographical. Stanley's interesting sketch | a prophecy of Isaiah (Is. vii. 16). Although °8 Hosea ag « the Jeremiah of Israel” and Josephus calls Hoshea a Jriend of Pekah (pidron only individual character that stands out | rivds emiBovredoayros avrg, Ant. ix. 13, § 1), the darkness of . . , nearly the whole of | we have no ground for calling this “a treacherous i. an ts 1098 HOSHEA HOSPITALITY at, I captured; 27,280 men (families?) who dw in it I carried away. I constructed fifty chark in their country . . . I appointed a governor oy them, and continued upon them the tribute of t former people” (Botta, 145, 11, quoted by I Hincks, Journ. of Sacr. Lit. Oct. 1858; Layai Nin. and Bab. i. 148). This was probably B. 721 or 720. For the future history of the unhap Ephraimites, the places to which they were trai planted by the policy of their conqueror and | officer, ‘ the great and. noble Asnapper ”’ (Ezr. 10), and the nations by which they were supersed see SAMARIA. Of the subsequent fortunes Hoshea we know nothing. He came to the thr too late, and governed a kingdom torn to pieces foreign invasion and intestine broils. Soverei after sovereign had fallen by the dagger of | assassin; and we see from the dark and. terri delineations of the contemporary prophets [Hos Mican, [satan], that murder and idolatry, dru enness and lust, had eaten like “an ineura wound’? (Mic. i. 9) into the inmost heart of national morality. Ephraim was dogged to its r by the apostate policy of the renegade who | asserted its independence (2 K. xvii.; Joseph. 4 ix. 14; Prideaux, i. 15 ff.; Keil, On Kings, ii. 50 Engl. ed.; Jahn, Hebr. Com. § xl.; Ewald, Ge: iii. 607-613; Rosenmiiller, Bibl. Geogr. chap. Engl. transl.; Rawlinson, Herod. i. 149). F. W. F HOSHEF’A (DW WT = help [see above]). ' name is precisely the same as that of the proj known to us as HosEA. 1. The son of Nua, i Joshua (Deut. xxxii. 44; and also in Num. xiii though there the A. V. has OsHEA). It was p ably his original name, to which the Divine n of Jah was afterwards added — Jehoshua, Joshu “ Jehovah’s help.” The LXX. in this pas: miss the distinction, and have ’Inqods: V Josue. . 2. (Ooh: Osee.) Son of Azaziah (1 Chr. x 20); like his great namesake, a man of Ephr ruler (nagid) of his tribe in the time of David. 3. (Oondé; [Vat. FA. Qonba:] Osee-) of the heads of the “ people ’’ —?. e. the layme who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Ne! 23). | HOSPITALITY. The rites of hospitalit to be distinguished from the customs prevailir the entertainment of guests [Foop; MEALS], from the laws and practices relating to che almsgiving, etce.; and they are thus separ murder’ (Prideaux, i. 16). It took place B. C. 737, ‘in the 20th year of Jotham”’ (2 K. xv. 30), i. e. “in the 20th year after Jotham became sole king,” for he only reigned 16 years (2 K. xv. 33). But there must have been an interregnum of at least eight years before Hoshea came to the throne, which was not till B. c. 729, in the 12th year of Ahaz (2 K. xvii. 1: we cannot, with Clericus [Le Clerc], read 4th for 12th in this verse, because of 2 K. xviii. 9). This is the simplest way of recon- ciling the apparent discrepancy between the pas- sages, and has been adopted by Ussher, Des Vig- noles, ‘Tiele, etc. (Winer, s. v. Hoseas). The other methods suggested by Hitzig, Lightfoot, etc., are mostly untenable (Keil on 2 K. xv. 30). It is expressly stated (2 K. xvii. 2) that. Hoshea was not so sinful as his predecessors. According to the Rabbis this superiority consisted in his re- moving from the frontier cities the guards placed there by his predecessors to prevent their subjects from worshipping at Jerusalem (Seder Olam Rabba, cap. 22, quoted by Prideaux, i. 16), and in his not hindering the Israelites from accepting the invita- tion of Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxx. 10), nor checking their zeal against idolatry (i. xxxi. 1). This en- comium, however, is founded on the untenable sup- position that Hezekiah’s passover preceded the fall of Samaria [HezeK1Au], and we must be content with the general fact that Hoshea showed a more theocratic spirit than the former kings of Israel. The compulsory cessation of the calf-worship may have removed his greatest temptation, for Tiglath- Pileser had carried off the golden calf from Dan some years before (Sed. Ol. Rab. 22), and that at Bethel was taken away by Shalmaneser in his first invasion (2 K. xvii. 3; Hos. x. 14; Prideaux, Lee) But, whatever may have been his excellences, he still “did evil in the sight of the Lord,” and it was too late to avert retribution by any improve- ments. In the third year of his reign (B. C. 726) Shal- maneser, impeHed probably by mere thirst of con- quest, came against him, cruelly stormed the strong caves of Beth-arbel (Hos. x. 14), and made Israel tributary (2 K. xvii. 38) for three years. At the end of this period, encouraged perhaps by the revolt of Hezekiah, Hoshea entered into a secret alliance with So, king of Egypt (who was either the Sevexos of Manetho, and son of SaBards, Herod. ii. 137; Keil, Vitringa, Gesenius, etc.; Jahn, Hebr. Com. § xl.; or else Sabaco himself, Wilkinson, Anc. Eq. i. 139; Ewald, Gesch. iii. 610), to throw off the Assyrian yoke. The alliance did him no good; it was revealed to the court of Nineveh by the Assyr- ian party in Ephraim, and Hoshea was immediately | treated, as far as possible, in this article. seized as a rebellious vassal, shut up in prison, and Hospitality was regarded by most nations 0! apparently treated with the utmost indignity (Mic. | ancient world as one of the chief Mal y. 1). If this happened before the siege (2 K. | especially by peoples of the Semitic stock; but xvii. 4), we must account for it either by supposing | it was not characteristic of the latter alone Isa that Hoshea, hoping to dissemble and gain time, | shown by the usages of the Greeks, and evel had gone to Shalmaneser to account for his con-| Romans. Race undoubtedly influences its exe duct, or that he had been defeated and taken pris-| and it must also be ascribed in no small degi oner in some unrecorded battle. That he disap-| the social state of anation. ‘Thus the desert t peared very suddenly, like ‘foam upon the water,” | have always placed the virtue higher in their es we may infer from Hos. xiii. 11, x. 7. The siege | than the townsfolk of the same descent as t of Samaria lasted three years; for that ‘ glorious | selves; and in our own day, though an Arab t and beautiful” city was strongly situated like “a| man is hospitable, he entertains different notio: crown of pride” among her hills (Is. xxviii. 1-5). During the course of the siege Shalmaneser must have died, for it is certain that Samaria was taken by his successor Sargon, who thus laconically de- veribes the event in his annals: “ Samaria I looked awee). The former has fewer opportunitl showing his hospitality; and when he does Hl does it not as much with the feeling of discha an obligatory act as a social and civilized HOSPITALITY th the advance of civilization the calls of hos- | whence comest thou ? lity become less and less urgent. The dweller | howsoever she wilderness, however, finds the entertainment wayfarers to be a part of his daily life, and that refuse it is to deny a common humanity. Viewed this light, the notions of the Greeks and the nans must be appreciated as the recognition of virtue where its necessity was not of the urgent racter that it possesses in the more primitive ls of the Kast. ‘The ancient Egyptians resembled Greeks; but, with a greater exclusiveness, they ted their entertainments to their own country- i, being constrained by the national and priestly orrence and dread of foreigners. This exclusion ‘ws some obscurity on their practices in the dis- ‘ge of hospitality; but otherwise their customs he entertainment of guests resembled those well wn to classical scholars — customs probably de- 1in a great measure from [Evypt. Vhile hospitality is acknowledged to have been de-spread virtue in ancient times, we must con- that it flourished chiefly among the race of n. The O. T. abounds with illustrations of the HOSPITALITY 1099 Peace be with thee; [let] all thy wants [lie] upon me; only lodge not in the street. So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses; and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink?’ (Judg. xix. 17, 20, 21). In the N. T. hospitality is yet more markedly enjoined; and in the more civilized state of society which then prevailed, its exercise became more a social virtue than a necessity of patriarchal life. The good Samaritan stands for all ages as an ex- ample of Christian hospitality, embodying the com- mand to love one’s neighbor as himself; and our Lord’s charge to the disciples strengthened that command: “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. . . . And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water [only], in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in nowise lose his reward” (Matt. x. 42). The neglect of Christ is symbolized by inhospitality to our neighbors, in the words, “I was a stranger and ye took me not in’ (Matt. xxv. 43). The ie command to use hospitality, and of the ig national belief in its importance; so too vritings of the N. T.; and though the Eastern } of modern times dare not entertain a stranger he be an enemy, and the long oppression they endured has begotten that greed of gain that nade their name a proverb, the ancient hospi- 7 still lives in their hearts. The desert, how- is yet free; it is as of old a howling wilder- _ and hospitality is as necessary and as freely (as in patriarchal times. Among the Arabs nd the best illustrations of the old Bible nar- *s, and among them see traits that might ‘m their ancestor Abraham. 1e laws respecting strangers (Lev. xix. 33, 34) the poor (Lev. xxv. 14 ff.; Deut. xv. 7), and rning redemption (Lev. xxv. 23 ff.), etc., are od in accordance with the spirit of hospitality ; ‘he strength of the national feeling regarding shown in the incidental mentions of its prac- : In the Law, compassion to strangers is con- y enforced by the words, « for ye were stran- in the land of Ezypt” (as Lev. xix. 34). And » the Law, Abraham’s entertainment of the s (Gen. xviii. 1 ff.), and Lot’s (xix. 1), are in /agreement with its precepts and with modern So Moses was received by Jethro, the priest dian, who reproached his daughters, though jeved him to be an Egyptian, saying, “ And 1s he? why is it [that] ye have left the call him, that he may eat bread’? (Ex. ii. The story of: Joseph’s hospitality to his en, although he knew them to be such, ap- to be narrated as an ordinary occurrence; and #manner Pharaoh received Jacob with a lib- /not merely dictated by his relationship to Wwior of Egypt. Like Abraham, ‘“ Manoah nto the angel of the Lord, I pray thee let us _ thee until we shall have made ready a kid ee” (Judg. xiii. 15); and like Lot, the old vf Gibeah sheltered the Levite when he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city: te old man said, Whither goest thou? and a We see here why the inhospitality of the Sa- 1S excited such fierce indignation in the two 8, James and John (Luke ix. 52 ff.). Jesus Mm at the close of the day into one of the Sa- 1 villages to procure a night’s lodging for him ; Apostles urged the church to «follow after hospi tality,” using the forcible words thy piroteviay dtmkovres (Rom. xii. 13; ef. 1 Tim. vy. 10); to remember Abraham’s example, “ Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have enter- tained angels unawares” (Heb. xiii. 2); to “use hospitality one to another without grudging ’’ (1 Pet. iv. 9); while a bishop must be a “lover of hospitality’ (Tit. i. 8, cf. 1 Tim. iii. 2), The practice of the early Christians was in accord with these precepts. They had all things in common, and their hospitality was a characteristic of their belief. If such has been the usage of Biblical times, it is in the next place important to remark how hos- pitality was shown. In the patriarchal ages we may take Abraham’s example as the most fitting, as we have of it the fullest account; and by the light of Arab custom we may see, without obscu- rity, his hasting to the tent door to meet his guests, with the words, “My lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and com- fort ye your hearts.’ “And,” to continue the narrative in the vigorous language of the A. V., ‘‘ Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead [it], and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave [it] unto a young man, and he hasted to dress it. And he took but- ter and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set [it] before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.’ A traveller in the eastern desert may see, through the vista of ages, this far-off example in its living traces. Mr. Lane’s remarks on this narrative and the general subject of this article are too apposite to be omitted: he says, ‘ Hospitality is a virtue for which the na- tives of the East in general are highly and de- servedly admired; and the people of Egypt are ee es but the people refused to receive him, because he was journeying to Jerusalem. This act was not an in- civility merely, or an inhumanity; it was an outrage against one of the most sacred of the recognized laws of oriental society. H 1100 HOSPITALITY well entitled to commendation on this account. A word which signifies literally ‘a person on a jour- ney’ (muséfir) is the term most commonly em- ployed in this country in the sense of a visitor or guest. There are very few persons here who would think. of sitting down to a meal, if there was a stranger in the house, without inviting him to par- take of it, unless the latter were a menial, in which case he would be invited to eat with the servants. It would be considered a shameful violation of good manners if a Muslim abstained from ordering the table to be prepared at the usual time because a visitor happened to be present. Persons of the middle classes in this country [Egypt], if living in a retired situation, sometimes take their supper before the door of their house, and invite every passenger of respectable appearance to eat with them.¢ This is very commonly done among the lower orders. In cities and large towns claims on hospitality are unfrequent, as there are many we- kdlehs or khans, where strangers may obtain lodg- ing; and food is very easily procured: but in the villages travellers are often lodged and entertained by the Sheykh or some other inhabitant; and if the guest be a person of the middle or higher classes, or even not very poor, he gives a present to the host’s servants, or to the host himself. In the desert, however, a present is seldom received from a guest. By a Sunneh law a traveller may claim entertainment, of any person able to afford it to him, for three days. The account of Abraham’s entertaining the three angels, related in the Bible, presents a perfect picture of the manner in which a modern Bedawee sheykh receives travellers arriving at his encampment. He immediately orders his wife or women to make bread, slaughters a sheep or some other animal, and dresses it in haste, and bringing milk and any other provisions that he may have ready at hand, with the bread and the meat which he has dressed, sets them before his guests. If these be persons of high rank, he stands by them while they eat, as Abraham did in the case above alluded to. Most Bedawees will suffer al- most any injury to themselves or their families rather than allow their guests to be ill-treated while under their protection. There are Arabs who even regard the chastity of their wives as not too pre- cious to be sacrificed for the gratification of their guests (see Burckhardt’s Notes on the Bedouins, etc., 8vo ed. i. 179, 180); and at an encampment of the Bishareen, I ascertained that there are many persons in this great tribe (which inhabits a large portion of the desert between the Nile and the Red Sea) who offer their unmarried daughters (cf. Gen. xix. 8; Judg. xix. 24) to their guests, merely from motives of hospitality, and not for hire’? (Mod. Egypt. ch. xiii.). Mr. Lane adds that there used to be a very numerous class of persons, called Tu- feylees, who lived by spunging, presuming on the well-known hospitality of their countrymen, and going from house to house where entertainments were being given. The Arabs along the Syrian a “Tt is said to have been a custom of some of the Barmekees (the family so renowned for their gene- rosity) to keep open house during the hours of meals, and to allow no one who applied at such times for ad- mission to be repulsed” (Lane’s Thousand and One Nights, ch. v. note 97) b The time of entertainment, according to the pre- cept of Mohammed, is three days, and he permitted a guest to take this right by force; although one day pnd cone night is the period of the host’s being “ kind ” HOSPITALITY ; frontier usually pitch the sheykh’s tent toward west, that is, towards the inhabited country, t vite passengers and lodge them on their way (Bi hardt’s Notes on the Bedouins, etc., 8vo ed. i. it is held to be disgraceful to encamp in a plac of the way of travellers; and it is a custom o Bedawees to light fires in their encampmen attract. travellers, and to keep dogs who, be watching against robbers, may in the night guide wayfarers to their tents. Hence a hospi man is proverbially called ‘one whose dogs loudly.’ ® Approaching an encampment, the eller often sees several horsemen coming to\ him, and striving who shall be first to claim as a guest. The favorite national game 0 Arabs before El-Islim illustrates their hospit It was called * Meysir,’’ and was played with ar some notched and others without marks. a period signalized, especially during the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah, by constant and growing in- tercourse with foreign nations, thus involving continually new influences for the corruption of public morals and new dangers to the state. and making it incumbent upon him who had been di- vinely constituted at once the political adviser of the nation and its religious guide, to be habitually and intimately conversant among the people, so as to descry upon the instant every additional step taken in their downward course and the first approaches of each new peril from abroad, and to be able to meet each successive phase of their necessities with forms of instruction, admonition, and warning, not only in their general purport, but in their very style and diction, accommodated to conditions hitherto unknown, and that were still perpetually changing, Now when we take all this into the account, and then imagine to ourselves the prophet, toward the close of this long period, entering upon what was in some respects a novel kind of labor, and writing out, with a special view ¢ to the benefit of a remote posterity, the suggestions of that mysterious Te- opneustia to which his lips had been for so many years the channel of communication with his con- temporaries, far from finding any difficulty in the diversities of style perceptible in the different por- tions of his prophecy, we shall only see fresh ocea- sion to admire that native strength and grandeur of intellect, which have still left upon productions so widely remote from each other in the time and circumstances of their composition, so plain an im- press of one and the same overmastering individual- ity. Probably there is not one of all the languages of the globe, whether living or dead, possessing any considerable literature, which does not exhibit in- stances of greater change in the style of an author, writing at different periods of his life, than appears upon a comparison of the later prophecies of Isaiah with the earlier. DSS. 30s (see Bertholdt, Hind. pp. 1884, 1385) that Isaiah and other prophets often transfer themselves in spirit into future times, lay great stress upon the alleged fact that the writer here deals exclusively with a period which in the age of Isaiah was yet future. But in addition to the considerations in relation to this point pre- sented in the preceding article, p. 1158 b, the passage lvii. 11 may be adduced as plainly implying that at the time the prophet wrote, Jehovah had as yet for- borne to punish his rebellious people, and that his for- bearance had only been abused. The last clause of the first verse is also most naturally explained as con- taining an intimation of coming judgment. Still fur ther, the only explanation of ver. 9 which satisfies all the demands of the passage makes it to refer to the attempts of the people, in the age preceding the Cap- tivity, to strengthen themselves by foreign alliances, and these attempts are spoken of as being made by the contemporaries of the prophet. It is also strongly implied in lvi. 5, 7, and still more strongly in lxvi. 3 6, 20 (last clause), that the Temple was yet standing D. S, @. 1166 ISAIAH * Additional Literature. —Cahen’s Bible (He- brew), tom. ix. Paris, 1838, containing a French translation and notes, also a translation of the Preface of Abarbanel to his commentary on Isaiah, and of his commentary on ch. xxxiv., with a full critical notice by Munk of the Arabic version by Saadias Gaon, and of a Persian MS. version in the Royal Libr. at Paris; Hendewerk, Des Proph. Jesya Weissagunyen, chron. geordnet, tibers. w. erklért, 2 Bde. Konigsh. 1838-43; J. Heinemann, Der Proph. Jesaias, Berl. 1840, original text, zomm. of Rashi, Chaldee paraphrase, German translation (in the Hebrew character), notes, and Masora; F. Beck, Die cyro-jesujanischen Weissa- gungen (Is. xl.-Ixvi.) krit. u. exeget. bearbeitet, Leipz. 1844; Umbreit, Prakt. Comm. tib. d. Proph. d. Alten Bundes, Bd. i., Jesaja, 2e Aufl. Hamb. 1846; KK. Meier, Der Proph. Jescga erklart, le Halfte, Pforzh. 1850; Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, Theil ii. le Halfte, Leipz. 1860, translation, with popular notes; G. K. Mayer (Rom. Cath.), Die Messian- ischen Prophezieen d. Jesaias, Wien, 1860, new title-ed. 1863; J. Steeg, “sate xl.—Ixvi., in the Nouvelle Rev. de Theol. (Strasb.) 1862, x. 121- 180, translation, with brief introduction and notes; F. Delitzsch, Bibl. Comm. tib. d. Proph. Jesaia, Leipz. 1866 (Theil iii. Bd. i. of Keil and Delitzsch’s Bibl. Comm. iib. d. A. T.), Eng. trans. in 2 vols. Edinb. 1867 (Clark’s Foreign Theol. Libr.); S. D. Luzzatto, the eminent Italian Hebraist, Z/ profeta Isaia tradotta . . . coi commenti ebraici, 2 tom. Padova, 1865-67. In this country we have Albert Barnes, The Book of Isaiah with a New Trans. and Notes, 3 vols. Boston, 1840, 8vo, abridged ed. New York, 1848, in 2 vols. 12mo; J. A. Alexan- der, The Karlie Prophecies of Isaiah, New York, 1846; Later Prophecies, ibid. 1847; both re- printed in Glasgow under the editorship of Dr. Eadie, 1848; new edition with the title, The Prophecies of Isaiah translated and explained, 2 vols. New York, 1865, 8vo; abridged ed., aid. 1851, 2 vols. 12mo. This may be regarded as the most valuable commentary on the book in English. See also Dr. Noyes’s New Translation of the Hebrew Prophets, with Notes, vol. i., 83d ed., Boston, 1867. Dr. Cowles promises a volume on Isaiah in contin- uation of his labors on the Hebrew Prophets. A translation of ch. xiii., xiv., with explanatory notes, by Prof. B. B. Edwards, may be found in the Biol. Sacra for 1849, vi. 765-785. Gesenius’s Com- mentary on Is. xv., xvi. is translated in the Bibl. Repos. for Jan. 1836, and on Is. xvii. 12-14, xviil. 1-7, ibid. July, 1836. For summaries of the results of recent investi- gation respecting the book, one may consult par- ticularly Bleek’s Hinl. in das A. T. (1860), pp. 448-466; Keil’s inl. in das A. T., pp. 205-248, and Dayidson’s Jntrod. to the O. T. (1868), iii. 2-86. Umbreit’s art. Jesaja in Herzog’s Real- Encykl. vi. 507-521 is valuable as a critique and a biography. The elaborate art. on /saiah in Kitto’s Cycl. of Bibl. Lit. is by Hengstenberg, and that in Fairbairn’s /mperial Bible “Dict. i. 801-814, by Delitzsch. See also on the critical questions con- nected with the book, besides the various Introduc- tions and Commentaries, A. F. Kleinert, Ueber d. Echtheit sdmmtl. in d. Buch Jesaia enthaltenen Weissagungen, Theil i. Berl. 1829, called by Heng- ptenberg “‘the standard work on the subject’; C. P. Caspari, Beitrdge zur Einl. in das Buch Jesaia, Berl. 1848, apologetic; Riietschi, Plan u. Gang von Is. 40-66, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1854, ISCARIOT pp. 261-296; Ensfelder, Chronol. des d’ Esaie, in ike Strasb. Rev. de Théol. 18 3, 16-42; and F. Hosse, Die Weissagungen Pi coph. Jesaia, Berl. 1865 (a pamphlet), defen the unity of authorship. On the “Servant of God’’ in Is. sea sides the works already referred to, and ge) treatises like Hengstenberg’s Christologie, Stith Die messianischen Weissagungen des A. T. (1i and Hivernick’s Vorlesungen iib. d. Theol. T. (2° Aufi. 1863), one may consult Umbreit, | Knecht Goties, Beitrag zur Christologie des A Hamb. 1840; Bleek, Lrklarung von Jeane 18—53, 12, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861) 177-218; P. Kleinert, Ueber das Subject| Weissagung Jes. 52, 13 — 53, 12, ibid. 1862) 699-752, and V. F. Oehler, Der Knecht Took im Deuterojesajah, 2 The. Stuttg. 1865; ¢) G. F. Oehler, art. Messias in Herzog’s i Encykl. ix. 420 f. The Introduction to vol. Dr. Noyes’s New Trans. of the Hebrew Prop 3d ed. (1867), contains a discussion of thei ject of Jewish prophecy in general and oli] Messianic prophecies in particular. Heng: berg’s remarks on the genuineness of Is. xl. i and his interpretation of Is. lii. 12-liii. are { lated from the first edition of his Christolo; the O. T. in the Bibl. Repos. for Oct. 18311 April 1832. Stanley’s description of Isaiah (Jewish Chi ii. 494-504) presents him to us as one ofl grandest figures on the page of history. Af sentences may be quoted, showing the univerli of Isaiah’s ideas and sympathies and the of his prophetic vision. ‘ First of the pro® he and those who followed him seized with i served confidence the mighty thought, that 1 the chosen people, so much as in the nations obi of it, was to be found the ultimate well-bei' | man, the surest favor of God. ‘Truly migl't Apostle say that Isaiah was “ very bold,” — 0 beyond ’ u (amoToAua, Rom. x. 20) all at gone before him —in enlarging the boundar the church; bold with that boldness, and larg i that largeness of view which, so far from we ing the hold on things divine, strengthens ‘to degree unknown in less comprehensive minds. I to him also, with a distinctness which mal . other anticipations look pale in comparison, @ tinctness which grew with his advancing yeat\W revealed the coming of a Son of David, who restore the royal house of Judah and gatl nations under its sceptre. . . . Lineamen lineament of that Divine Ruler was gradually ™ by Isaiah or his scholars, until at last a | stands forth, so marvelously combined of )™ and gentleness and suffering as to present | t united proportions of his descriptions the mo fe tures of an historical Person, such as has be, universal confession, known once, and once)? in the subsequent annals of the world.” H. anc. IS’CAH (TIED" [one who looks about, or j|"* Teoxa: Jescha), daughter of Haran the pth of Abram, and sister of Mileah and of Lotyé xi. 29). Tn the Jewish traditions as prese | Josephus (Ant. i. 6, § 5), Jerome ( Quest. ie estm), and the Targum Pseudo-jonathan —)t —_—_—- mention later writers — she is identifie i SARAL. ISCAR/IOT. [Jupas Iscartor.] ~ ; “a t ISDAEL ‘ ISH-BOSHETH 1167 SDABL (Cicdafa: Gaddahel), 1 Esdr. v. 33. | ISH’ BLBE/NOB (292 yaw, Keri ‘aU DDEL, 2. | SHBAH (M3U% [praising]: 5 ‘tecBds t. MapeO;] Alex. IecaBa: /esba), a man in line of Judah, commemorated as the * father Ishtemoa’’ (1 Chr. iv. 17); but from whom he immediately descended is, in the very confused eof this part of the genealogy, not to be ascer- ed. The most feasible conjecture is that he one of the sons of Mered by his Egyptian wife nian. (See Bertheau, Chronik, ad loc.) SHBAK (PAW [leaving behind, Ges.]. “Bor, ZoBax; [Alex. in Chr., leaBor:] Jesboc), om of Abraham and Keturah (Gen. xxv. 2; 1 . i. 82), and the progenitor of a tribe of north- Arabia. The settlements of this people are + obscure, and we can only suggest as possible 4 they may be recovered in the name of the ay called Sabsik, or, it is suid, Sibik (, slaw), ! OG -ow8 the Dabna (slat OS} and Lioodl Hf ardsid, s. v.). The Heb. root Dav’ corre- ads to the Arabic (_GAw | jification: therefore identifications with names in etymology and ‘yed from the root Shas are improbable. ‘re are many places of the latter derivation, as a (hac), Shibik (SLs), and Esh- bak (2G gil f ): the last having been sup- 1d (as by Bunsen, Bibélwerk, i. pt. ii. 53) to serve ‘a trace of Ishbak. It is a fortress in bia Petrzea; and is near the well-known fortress ‘he Crusader’s times called “/-Karak. Che Dahna, in which is situate Sabak, is a fer- ‘and extensive tract, belonging to the Benee- eem, in Nejd, or the highland, of Arabia, on ‘northeast of it, and the borders of the great wrt, reaching from the rugged tract (“hazn’’) ensoo’ah to the sands of Yebreen. It contains th pasturage, with comparatively few wells, and ireatly frequented by the Arabs when the veg- ion is plentiful (Mushtarak and Marasid, s. v.). re is, however, another Dahna, nearer to the Iyhrates (b.), and some confusion may exist re- ling the true position of Sabak; but either }ina is suitable for the settlements of Ishbak. 4 first-mentioned Dahna, lies in a favorable por- _ of the widely-stretching country known to t2 been peopled by the Keturahites. They €nded from the borders of Palestine even to the 43ian Gulf, and traces of their settlements must looked for all along the edge of the Arabian (insula, where the desert merges into the culti- ‘e land, or (itself a rocky undulating plateau) 3 to the wild, mountainous country of Nejd. 4yak seems from his name to have preceded or fe before his brethren: the place suggested for ‘dwelling is far away towards the Persian Gulf, penetrates also into the peninsula. On these, vell as mere etymological grounds, the identifi- ise Is sufficiertly probable, and every way better ‘1 that which connects the patriarch with Esh- le ete. E. 8. P. i [dwelling in rest]: "ler Bl; (Alex. leoB: ev NoB:] Jesbi-benvb), son of Rapha, one of the race of Philistine giants, who attacked David in Lattla but was slain by Abishai (2 Sam. xxi. 16, 17). H. W. P. ISH-BO’SHETH (MW2 WS [see infra]: "IeBoodé; [in 2 Sam. ii., Alex. leBoo@a: or ExeB., Comp. ’I¢Bdce6; in 2 Sam. iii., iv., Vat. Meugi- Booda, Alex. MeudiBoobar:]| Jsboseth), the young - est of Saul’s four sons, and his legitimate successor. His name appears (1 Chr. viii. 33, ix. 39) to hay been originally EsH-BAAL, Dyan, the man of Baal. Whether this indicates that Baal wes used as equivalent to Jehovah, or that the reverence for Baal still lingered in Israelitish families, is un- certain; but it can hardly be doubted that the name (Ish-hosheth, ‘the man of shame’’) by which he is commonly known, must have been substituted for the original word, with a view of removing the scandalous sound of Baal from the name of an Israelitish king, and superseding it by the con- temptuous word (Bosheth — “ shame”) which was sometimes used as its equivalent in later times (Jer. iii. 24, xi. 13; Hos. ix. 10). A similar pro- cess appears in the alteration of Jerubbaal (Judg. viii. 35) into Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. xi. 21); Meri- baal (2 Sam. iv. 4) into Mephi-bosheth (1 Chr. viii. 34, ix. 40). The three last cases all occur in Saul’s family. He was 35 years of age at the time of the battle of Gilboa, in which his father and three oldest brothers perished; and therefore, ac- cording to the law of Oriental, though not of European succession, ascended the throne, as the oldest of the royal family, rather than Mephi- bosheth, son of his elder brother Jonathan, who was a child of five years old. He was immediately taken under the care of Abner, his powerful kins- man, who brought him to the ancient sanctuary of Mahanaim on the east of the Jordan, beyond the reach of the victorious Philistines (2 Sam. ii. 8). There was a momentary doubt even in those remote tribes whether they should not close with the offer of David to be their king (2 Sam. ii. 7, iii. 17). But this was overruled in favor of Ish- bosheth by Abner (2 Sam. iii. 17), who then for five years slowly but effectually restored the domin- ion of the house of Saul over the Transjordanic territory, the plain of Esdraelon, the central moun- tains of Ephraim, the frontier tribe of Benjamin, and eventually “over all Israel’’ (except the tribe of Judah, 2 Sam. ii. 9). Ish-bosheth was then ‘© 40 years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned two years’? (2 Sam. ii. 10). This form of expression is used only for the accession of a fully recognized sovereign (comp. in the case of David, 2 Sam. ii. 4, and v. 4). During these two years he reigned at Mahanaim, though only in name. The wars and negotiations with David were entirely carried on by Abner (2 Sam. ii. 12, iii. 6, 12). At length Ish-bosheth accused Abner (whether rightly or wrongly does not appear) of an attempt on his father’s concu- bine, Rizpah; which, according to oriental usage, amounted to treason (2 Sam. iii. 7; comp. 1 K. ii. 13; 2 Sam. xvi. 21, xx. 3). Abner resented this suspicion in a burst of passion, which vented itself in a solemn vow to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul to the house of David. Ish 1168 ISHI bosheth was too much cowed to answer; and when, shortly afterwards, through Abner’s negotiation, David demanded the restoration of his former wife, Michal, he at once tore his sister from her reluctant husband, and committed her to Abner’s charge (2 Sam. iii. 14, 15). The death of Abner deprived the house of Saul of their last remaining support. When Ish-bosheth heard of it, “his hands were feeble and all the Israelites were troubled’ (2 Sam. iv. 1). In this extremity of weakness he fell a victim, probably, to a revenge for a crime of his father. The guard of Ish-bosheth, as of Saul, was taken from their own royal tribe of Benjamin (1 Chr. xii. 23). But amongst the sons of Benjamin were reckoned the descendants of the old Canaanitish inhabitants of Beeroth, one of the cities in league with Gibeon (2 Sam. iv. 2, 3). Two of those Bee- rothites, Baana and Rechab, in remembrance, it has been conjectured, of Saul’s slaughter of their kinsmen the Gibeonites, determined to take advan- tage of the helplessness of the royal house to de- stroy the only representative that was left, except- ing the child Mephi-bosheth (2 Sam. iv. 4). They were “ chiefs of the marauding troops”? which used from time to time to attack the territory of Judah (comp. 2 Sam. iv. 2, iii. 22, where the same word TTA is used; Vulg. principes latronum). [BEN- JAMIN, vol. i. p. 278 a; Girraim, vol. ii. p. 930.] They knew the habits of the king and court, and acted accordingly. In the stillness of an eastern noon they entered the palace, as if to carry off the wheat which was piled up near the entrance. The female slave, who, as usual in eastern houses, kept the door, and was herself sifting the wheat, had, in the heat of the day, fallen asleep at her task (2 Sam. iv. 5, 6, in LXX. and Vulg.). They stole in, and passed into the royal bedchamber, where Ish-bosheth was asleep on his couch. They stabbed him in the stomach, cut off his head, made their escape, all that afternoon, all that night, down the valley of the Jordan (Arabah, A. V. “plain;"’ 2 Sam. iv. 7), and presented the head to David as a welcome present. They met with a stern recep- tion. David rebuked them for the cold-blooded murder of an innocent man, and ordered them to be executed; their hands and feet were cut off, and their bodies suspended over [prob. by or near] the tank at Hebron. The head of Ish-bosheth@ was carefully buried in the sepulchre of his great kins- man Abner, at the same place (2 Sam. iv. 9-12).> Av tPaSs VSHI QYW [saving, salutary]: Jesi). 1. CIoeuina; Alex. Iece:.) A man of the descend- ants of Judah, son of Appaim (1 Chr. ii. 81); one of the great house of Hezron, and therefore a near connection of the family of Jesse (comp. 9-13). The only son here attributed to Ishi is Sheshan. 2. (Set; [Vat. Seer;] Alex. Es; [Comp. ’Iect.]) In a subsequent genealogy of Judah we find another Ishi, with a son Zoheth (1 Chr. iv. 20). There does not appear to be any connection between the two. 3. (Ieoi; [Vat. lec@ev;] Alex. Ieves.) Four men of the Bene-Ishi [sons of I.], of the tribe of Simeon, are named in 1 Chr. iy. 42 as having @ In Dryden’s Absalom and Ahithophel, “ foolish Ishbosheth”’ is ingeniously taken to represent Richard Cromwell. b *The Jews at Hebron claim that they know the exact place of this sepulchre. They are accustomed re, aa ISHMAEL | headed an expedition of 500 of their bret who took Mount Seir from the Amalekites, | made it their own abode. 4. (Set; [Vat. Beers] Alex. Ieges.) Ont the heads of the tribe of Manasseh on the eas) Jordan (1 Chr. v. 24). | VSHI (WS: 6 avhp wou: Vir meus). word has no connection whatever with the for ing. It occurs in Hos. ii. 16, and signifies \, man,’ “my husband.” It is the Israelite th in opposition to BAavt [Amer. ed.] the Cana it term, with the same meaning, though with a nificance of its own. See pp. 207-8, 210 a, v1 the difference between the two appellations is\ ticed more at length. ISHVAH (7759, i. e. Isshiyah Ke a hovah lends, perh. with the idea of children | trust]: "Iecia; [Vat. corrupt: Jesia]), the i of the five sons of Izrahiah; one of the head) the tribe of Issachar in the time of David (1 0 vii. 3). The name is identical with that elsewhere ;¢ as IsHIJAH, ISSHIAH, JESIAH. ISH’ JAH (775W) [as above]: "Ieata; [at VA. Tecoera;] Alex. leroua: Josue), a lay Isriit of the Bene-Harim [sons of H.], who had marl foreign wife, and was compelled to relinquish). (Ezr. x. 31). In Esdras the name is ASEAS. | This name appears in the A. V. under thei ous forms of IsHIAH, IssHIAH, JESIAH. ISH’MA (sow) [waste, desert, Ges.]: ¢ pay; [Vat. Payua;] Alex. Ieoua: Jesemi | name in the genealogy of Judah (1 Chr. x3 The passage is very obscure, and in the caso! many of the names it is difficult to know whie they are of persons or places. Ishma and his m panions appear to be closely connected with Jih lehem (see ver. 4). ISHMAEL (NDS, whom God his "Iowaha: Ismael), the son of Abraham by Har his concubine, the Egyptian; born when "156 ed was fourscore and six years old (Gen. xvi. 15,6) Ishmael was the first-born of his father; in elkv we read that he was then childless, and there nt apparent interval for the birth of any other cld nor does the teaching of the narrative, beside(ht precise enumeration of the sons of Abraham ath father of the faithful, admit of the suppos)n The saying of Sarah, also, when she gave itt Hagar, supports the inference that until the he was without children. When he “added and)oh a wife’? (A. V. “Then again Abraham took a v2,’ xxv. 1), Keturah, is uncertain, but it is not ely to have been until after the birth of Isaae,nd perhaps the death of Sarah. The on Ishmael occasioned the flight of Hagar [HAG]: \ and it was during her wandering in the hs that the angel of the Lord appeared to her, 2 manding her to return to her mistress, and 908 her the promise, “I will multiply thy seed a ingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitu}’ and, “ Behold, thou [art] with child, and shalteat a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, becaustht to offer prayers there on every new moon-day (PP; Jerusalem u. das heilige Land, i. 499). The com shows a trace of the old superstition in regard (#° observance of such days (Is. i. 18, 14; Col. ii. 16, a ISHMAEL ISHMAEL 1169 rd hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a ld man; his hand [will be] against every man, d every man’s hand against him; and he shall rell in the presence of all his brethren’’ (xvi. -12). Ishmael was born in Abraham’s house, when he elt in the plain of Mamre; and on the institu- nof the covenant of circumcision, was circum- ed, he being then thirteen years old (xvii. 25). ith the institution of the covenant, God renewed | promise respecting Ishmael. In answer to raham’s entreaty, when he cried, “ O that Ish- el might live before thee! ’’ God assured, him of : birth of Isaac, and said, “As for Ishmael, I re heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and I make him fruitful, and will multiply him ex- dingly ; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will ke him a great nation ’’ (xvii. 18, 20). Before 3 time, Abraham seems to have regarded his t-born child as the heir of the promise, his ‘ef in which was counted unto him for right- sness (xv. 6); and although that faith shone more brightly after his passing weakness when x was first promised, his love for Ishmael is orded in the narrative of Sarah’s expulsion of ‘latter: ““ And the thing was very grievous in vaham’s sight because of his son” (xxi. 11). shmael does not again appear in the narrative lil the weaning of Isaac. The latter was born nm Abraham was a hundred years old (xxi. 5), as the weaning, according to eastern usage, dably took place when the child was between \ and three years old, Ishmael himself must have 1 then between fifteen and sixteen years old. age of the latter at the period of his circum- m, and at that of his expulsion (which we have ‘reached), has given occasion for some literary ulation. A careful consideration of the pas- $ referring to it fails, however, to show any repancy between them. In Gen. xvii. 25, it is bd that he was thirteen years old when he was /ameised; and in xxi. 14 (probably two or three 8 later), “Abraham . . . took bread, and a )le of water, and gave [it] unto Hagar, putting ‘ion her shoulder, and the child, and sent her 7." Here it is at least unnecessary to assume \ the child was put on her shoulder, the con- tetion of the Hebrew (mistranslated by the The Heb. rendered * prince” in this case, is ‘72, which signifies both a “ prince” and the “ler.” or “ captain ” of a tribe, or even of a family ‘n.), It here seems to mean the leader of a tribe, 1 Ishmael’s twelve sons are enumerated in Gen. ‘16 “according to their nations,” more correctly Dies,” SVAN, _*The ambiguity lies in the A. V., rather than riginal. According to the Hebrew construction tl gh a little peculiar), the expression ‘ putting on < houlder * should be taken as parenthetic, and of “the child”? be made the object of the first +2 verbs which precede. He Mes, allusion to “the shrubs” of the desert ) ‘3 Out a picturesque trait of the narrative. The 80 rendered (mt) is still used in Arabic, un- ed. It is used, however, with some latitude, “general designation for the shrubby or bushy “These shrubby plants, which are of various LXX., with whom seems to rest the origin of the question) not requiring it; and the sense of the passage renders it highly improbable: Hagar cer- tainly carried the bottle on her shoulder, and per- haps the bread: she could hardly have also thus carried a child. Again, these passages are quite reconcilable with ver. 20 of the last quoted chapter, where Ishmael is termed TYDi7, A. V. “lad” (comp., for use of this word, Gen. xxxiv. 19, XXxvii. 2, xli. 12). At the “great feast ’’ made in celebration of the weaning, “ Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyp- tian, which she had borne unto Abraham, mocking,” and urged Abraham to cast out him and his mother. The patriarch, comforted by God’s renewed promise that of Ishmael he would make a nation, sent them both away, and they departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. Here the water being spent in the bottle, Hagar cast her son under one of the desert shrubs,¢ and went away a little dis- tance, “for she said, Let me not see the death of the child,’ and wept. “ And God heard the voice of the lad, and the angel of the Lord called to Hagar out of heaven,’’ renewed the promise al- ready thrice given, “I will make him a great nation,”’ and ‘“ opened her eyes and she saw a well of water.’’ Thus miraculously saved from perish- ing by thirst, “God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness; and became an archer.” It is doubtful whether the wanderers halted by the well, or at once continued their way to the “ wilder- ness of Paran,’”’ where, we are told in the next verse to that just quoted, he dwelt, and where “his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt” (Gen. xxi. 9-21). This wife of Ishmael is not elsewhere mentioned; she was, we must infer, an Egyptian; and this second infusion of Hamitic blood into the progenitors of the Arab nation, Ishmael’s sons, is a fact that has been generally overlooked. No record is made of any other wife of Ishmael, and failing such record, the Egyptian was the mother of his twelve sons, and daughter. This daughter, however, is called the “sister of Nebajoth *’ (Gen. xxviii. 9), and this limitation of the parentage of the brother and sister certainly seems to point to a different mother for Ishmael’s other sons.4 than any other specifically designated, is the Spartium junceum. This is a tall shrub, growing to the height of eight or ten feet, of a close ramification, but mak- ing a light shade, owing to the small size and lance- olate shape of its leaves. Its flowers are yellow, and its seeds edible. It grows in stony places, usually where there is little moisture, and is widely diffused. We should expect to find it, of course, in a ‘ wilder- ness” like that of Beer-sheba. But whether we un- derstand by my this particular plant, whose light and insufficient shade would prove the only mitigation of the heat of the sun, or, in general, a bush or shrub, the allusion to it in Gen. xxi. 15 is locally exact, and explains why the mother sought such a shelter for the child. It might also be understood of Genista mono- sperma, the Retem of the Arabs, which furnished a Shade to the prophet Elijah (1 K. xix. 4, 5), and is spoken of in Ps. exx. 4, and Job xxx. 4. This species is said to abound in the desert of Sinai, and is kin- dred to the A~_ 4%, being, in fact, mentioned with it "| St@ called generally Au, a8 we speak of in Job xxx. 4. G. E. P. b d d According to Rabbinical traditior, Ishmael put 1e8.” The kind, however, most in use,and more! away his wife and took a second; and the Arahs, 7 J 74 1170 ISHMAEL Of the tater life of Ishmael we know little. He was present with Isaac at the burial of Abraham; and Esau contracted an alliance with him when he “took unto the wives which he had Mahalath [or BASHEMATH or BASMATH, Gen. xxxvi. 3] the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife;”’ and this did Esau be- cause the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob in obedience to their wishes had gone to Laban to obtain of his daughters. a wife (xxviii. 6-9). The death of Ishmael is re- corded in a previous chapter, after the enumeration of his sons, as haying taken place at the age of a hundred and thirty-seven years; and, it is added, “he died in the, presence of all his brethren’ 4 (xxy. 17, 18). The alliance with Esau occurred before this event (although it is mentioned ina previous passage), for he “went... unto Ish- mael;’’ but it cannot have been long before, if the chronological data be correctly preserved.° It remains for us to consider, (1), the place of Ishmael’s dwelling ; and, (2), the names of his children, with their settlements, and the nation sprung from them. 1. From the narrative of his expulsion, we learn that Ishmael first went into the wilderness of Beer- sheba, and thence, but at what interval of time is uncertain, removed to that of Paran. His con- tinuance in these or the neighboring places seems to be proved by his having been present at the burial of Abraham; for it must be remembered that in the East, sepulture follows death after a few hours’ space; and by Esau’s marrying his daughter at a time when he (Esau) dwelt at Beer-sheba: the tenor of the narrative of both these events favoring the inference that Ishmael did not settle far from the neighborhood of Abraham and Isaac. There are, however, other passages which must be taken into account. It is prophesied of him, that ‘he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren,” and thus too he “died in the presence of all his brethren”? (xxv. 18).0 The meaning of these passages is confessedly obscure; but it seems only to signify that he dwelt near them. He was the first Abrahamic settler in the east country. In ch. xxv. 6 it is said, ‘But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.”’ The “east country’ perhaps was re- stricted in early times to the wildernesses of Beer- sheba and Paran, and it afterwards seems to have included those districts (though neither supposition necessarily follows from the above passage); or, Ishmael removed to that east country, northwards, without being distant from his father and _ his brethren ; each case being agreeable with Gen. xxv. 6. The appellation of the “east country ”’ became afterwards applied to the whole desert ex- probably borrowing from the above, assert that he twice married ; the first wife being an Amalekite, by whom he had no issue; and the second, a Joktanite, of the tribe of Jurhum (Mir-at ez-Zeman, MS., quot- ing a tradition of Mohammad Ibn-Is-hak). a * The meaning is different in the Hebrew. The verb there is D3, and means not “died” but * settled? or “dwelt? (= reise Gen. xvi. 12). The statement is really made not of Ishmael, but of his descendants. Ishmael’s death is mentioned in ver. 17, aut not in ver. 18. H. ‘referred to in the allegory, Gal. iv. 25 ff. See ad \ ISHMAEL tending from the frontier of Palestine east t Euphrates, and south probably to the borde Egypt and the Arabian peninsula. This que; is discussed in art. BENE-KEDEM; and it ig ij woven, though obscurely, with the next sul: that of the names and settlements of the son| Ishmael. See also Kueruran, etc. ; for “brethren ’’ of Ishmael, in whose presence he é and died, included the sons of Keturah.¢ 2. The sons of Ishmael were, Nebajoth (expr, stated to be his first-born), Kedar, Adbeel, Mib; Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadar, Tema, J; Naphish, Kedemah (Gen. xxv. 138-15); and he a daughter named Mahalath (xxviii. 9), elsey written Bashemath (or Basmath, Gen. xxx the sister of Nebajoth, before mentioned. The} are enumerated with the particular statement; “these are their names, by their towns, and a castles; twelve princes according to their nati); or ‘“ peoples ’’ (xxv. 16). In seeking to identify) mael’s sons, this passage requires close atten it bears the interpretation of their being fathe\ tribes. having towns and castles called after t4 and identifications of the latter become thei) more than usually satisfactory. ‘“ They dwelt): Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as \ goest unto Assyria’’ (xxv. 18), and it is cell in accordance with this statement of their ]ji [see HAVILAH, SHuR], that they stretched ira early times across the désert to the Persian 11 peopled the north and west of the Arabian pi sula, and eventually formed the chief element i Arab nation. Their language, which is genil acknowledged to have been the Arabic com so called, has been adopted with et ceptions throughout Arabia. It has been saic the Bible requires the whole of that nation. sprung from Ishmael, and the fact of a larg mixture of Joktanite and even Cushite peop) } the south and southeast has been regarded suggestion of skepticism. Yet not only dot Bible contain no warrant for the assumptiorh: all Arabs are Ishmaelites; but the characteitit of the Ishmaelites, strongly marked in all the/a northern tribes of Arabia, and exactly fulfillir(tl prophecy “he will be a wild man; his handwi be] against every man, and every man’s hand aj him,’’ become weaker in the south, and can sevel be predicated of all the peoples of Joktanita other descent. The true Ishmaelites, howeveit even tribes of very mixed race, are thorolll “‘ wild men,” living by warlike forays and aah dreaded by their neighbors; dwelling in tents/it hardly any household chattels, but rich in : iy ‘ c I and herds, migratory, and recognizing no labu the authority of the chiefs of their tribes. ve the religion of Mohammad is held in light by many of the more remote tribes, among /0 the ancient usages of their people obtain in : > Abraham at the birth of Ishmael was 86 yea and at Isaaec’s about 100. Isaac took Rebekah tif when he was 40 years old, when Ishmael wou } vbont 54. Esau was born when his father w:(60 and Esau was more than 40 when he marriec!s) mael’s daughter. Therefore Ishmael was then a 114 (54 + 20+ 40 = 114), leavirg 28 years befo death for Esau’s coming to him. c * Ishmael is not named in the N. T., butis 101 under Isaac. | " VE ISHMAEL ISHMAEL 1171 . old simplicity, besides idolatrous practices | Mekkeh, the last holy place visited by pilg.ims, it gether repugnant to Mohammadanism as they being necessary to the completion of pilgrimage to to the faith of the patriarchs; practices which | be present at a sermon delivered there on the 9th y be ascribed to the influence of the Canaanites, | of the Mohammedan month Zu-l-Hejjeh, in com foab, Ammon, and Edom, with whom, by inter- | memoration of the offering, and to sacrifice a victin, Tiages, commerce, and war, the tribes of Ishmael | on the following evening after sunset, in the valley st haye had long and intimate relations. of Mine. The sacrifice last mentioned is observed : : throughout the Muslim world, and the day on which ‘he term IsuMAELITE (WPNPW?) Copurerot' jit datemade) iarealled The Great Festival ” (Mr. e occasions, Gen. xxxvii. 25, 27, 28, xxxix. 1;|Lane’s Mod. Egypt. ch. iii.). Ishmael, say the g. viii. 24; Ps. Ixxxiii. 6. From the context | Arabs, dwelt with his mother at Mekkeh, and both he first two instances, it seems to have been a|are buried in the place called the “ Hejr,” on the ral name for the Abrahamic peoples of the east | northwest (termed by the Arabs the north) side itry, the Bene-Kedem; but the second admits | of the Kaabeh, and inclosed by a curved wall called ofa closer meaning. In the third instance the | the “Hateem.” Ishmael was visited at Mekkeh e is applied in its strict sense to the Ishmaelites. by Abraham, and they together rebuilt the temple, also applied to Jether, the father of Amasa, by | which had been destroyed by a flood. At Mekkeh, id’s sister Abigail (1 Chr. ii. 17). [Irnra; | Ishmael married a daughter of Mudad or El-Mudad, HER. | chief of the Joktanite tribe Jurhum [ALMoDAD; . Eine ARABIA], and had thirteen children (Mir-dt-ez- See) the Arabs ici naiae amazing Zeman, MS.), thus agreeing with the Biblical num- ber, including the daughter. Mohammad’s descent from Ishmael is totally lost, for an unknown number of generations to y from the Jewish Rabbins, and partly from |’Adnéan, of the twenty-first generation before the e traditions. The origin of many of these prophet: from him downwards the latter’s descent tions is obscure, but a great number may be | is, if we may believe the genealogists, fairly proved. ved to the fact of Mohammad’s having for | But we have evidence far more trustworth eal reasons claimed Ishmael for his ancestor, ‘triven to make out an impossible pedigree ; | both he and his followers have, as a conse- ’e of accepting this assumed descent, sought “Oo nel! ) are partly derived from the Bible, at =e y than that of the genealogists; for while most of the natives of Arabia are unable to trace up their pedi- grees, it is scarcely possible to find one who is ignorant of his race, seeing that his very life often ‘alt that ancestor. Another reason may be| depends upon it. The law of blood-revenge neces- ‘found in Ishmael’s acknowledged headship | sitates his knowing the names of his ancestors for 2 naturalized Arabs, and this cause existed | four generations, but no more; and this law extend- the very period of his settlement. [ARABrIA.] |ing from time immemorial has made any confusion he rivalry of the Joktanite kingdom of south- | of race almost impossible. This law, it should be ‘rabia, and its intercourse with classical and | remembered, is not a law of Mohammad, but an rval Europe, the wandering and unsettled | old pagan law that he endeavored to suppress, but | of the Ishmaelites, their having no literature, | could not. In casting doubt on the prophet’s pedi- sfar as we know, only a meagre oral tradition, | gree, we must add that this cannot affect the proofs \tributed, till the importance it acquired with | of the chief element of the Arab nation being Ish- ‘omulgation of El-Islim, to render our knowl. | maelite (and so too the tribe of Kureysh of whom if the Ishmaelitic portion of the people of | was Mohammad). Although partly mixed with ‘ty before Mohammad, lamentably defective. | Joktanites, they are more mixed with Keturahites, they maintained, and still maintain, a patri-|etc.; the characteristics of the Joktanites, as before ‘and primitive form of life is known to us. | remarked, are widely different from those of the ‘Teligion, at least in the period immediately | Ishmaelites; and whatever theories may be adduced ‘ng Mohammad, was in central Arabia chiefly | to the contrary, we believe that the Arabs, from issest fetishism, probably learnt from aborig- | physical characteristics, language, the concurrence | rabitants of the land; southwards it diverged | of native traditions (before Mohammadanism made ‘cosmic worship of the Joktanite Himyerites | them untrustworthy), and the testimony of the 41 these were far from being exempt from Bible, are mainly and essentially Ishmaelite. [Is m), and northwards (so at least in ancient MAEL, 1.] Bo: :P: to an approach to that true faith which! 2. One of the sons of Azel, a descendant of Saul carried with him, and his descendants thus | through Merib-baal, or Mephi-bosheth (1 Chr. viii. ‘ly lost. This last point is curiously illus- | 38, ix. 44). See the genealogy, under SAuL. & by the numbers who, in Arabia, became 3. [ Vat. omits: Ismahel.| A man of Judah, « Jews (Caraites) or Christians (though of a|whose son or descendant ZEBADIAH was ruler y ‘rupt form of Christianity), and by the move- search of the faith of the patriarchs which k Hid 3 ‘n put forward, not long before the birth of hoshap oH oe oer af) i / r mad, by men not satisfied with J udaism or| 4: [Vat. M. Iopana: Legian ‘| sent toe (-upt form of Christianity, with which alone of Judah, son of Jehohanan; one of the captains ye acquainted. This movement first aroused (st) of hundreds” who assisted Jehoiada in nad, and was afterward a s the main cause of restoring Joash to the throne (2 Chr. xxiii. 1). ile 1 5. [Vat. SauandA; FA. Zauamr-| A priest, ‘fetes believe that Ishmael was the first of the Bene-Pashur [sons of P.], who was forced Abraham, and the majority of their doctors ft bent is in dispute) assert that this son, | @ With this and some other exceptions, the Mus a Saac, was offered by Abraham in sacrifice.@ | jims have adopted the chief facts of the history of Ish ? re of this sacrifice is Mount "Arafat, near | mael recorded in the Bible. ih Gare) of the house of Judah in the time of Je- 1172 ISHMAEL ISHMAEL py Ezra to relinquish his foreign wife (Ezr. x. 22). | whole residence was probably, a relic of the mil tIsMAEL, 2.] works of Asa king of Judah. | 6. [Vat.l in 2 K. xxv. 25, Mavana: Ismahel.]| Ishmael made no secret of his intention t The son of Nethaniah; a perfect marvel of craft | the superintendent, and usurp his position. and villainy, whose treachery forms one of the chief |this Gedaliah was warned in express terms by episodes of the history of the period immediately | hanan and his companions; and Johanan, succeeding the first fall of Jerusalem. His exploits | secret. interview, foreseeing how irreparable a are related in Jer.-xl. 7-xli. 15, with a short sum- | fortune Gedaliah’s death would be at this jun mary in 2 K. xxv. 23-25, and they read almost | (xl. 15), offered to remove the danger by k like a page from the annals of the late Indian |Ishmael. This, however, Gedaliah, a man mutiny. dently of a high and unsuspecting nature, 5 His full description is “Ishmael, the son of |not hear of (xl. 16, and see the amplificatic Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal’? 4 | Joseph. Ant. x. 9, § 8). They all accordingly of Judah (Jer. xli. 1; 2 K. xxv. 25). Whether by |leave. Thirty days after (Ant. x. 9, § 4), in this is intended that he was actually a son of Zede- seventh month (xli. 1), on the third day ¢ kiah, or one of the later kings, or, more generally, | month — so says the tradition — Ishmael ; that he had royal blood in his veins — perhaps a appeared at Mizpah, this time accompanied i descendant of ELISHAMA, the son of David (2 Sam. | men, who. were, according to the Hebrew: y. 16) — we cannot tell. During the siege of the}... «gy (ep lgeaet 8s | city he had, like many others of his countrymen aims of abe (2877 a 4 (Jer. xl. 11), fled across the Jordan, where he found |this is omitted by the LXX. and by Josi ‘a refuge at the court of Baalis, the then king of the | Gedaliah entertained them at a feast (xli. 1). Bene-Ammon (Jos. Ant. x. 9, § 2). Ammonite | cording to the statement of Josephus this | women were sometimes found in the harems of the |very lavish entertainment, and Gedaliah b kings of Jerusalem (1 K. xi. 1), and Ishmael may | much intoxicated. It must have been a }) have been thus related to the Ammonite court on | Oe, for before its close Ishmael and hig fol) his mother’s side. At any rate he was instigated had murdered Gedaliah and all his attendant) by Baalis to the designs which he accomplished but such secrecy that no alarm was given outsi too successfully (Jer. xl. 14; Ant. x. 9, § 3). Several | room. The same night he killed all Ged: bodies of Jews appear to have been lying under establishment, including some Chaldean sl arms in the plains on the S. E. of the J ordan,> | who were there. Jeremiah appeams fortuna) during the last days of Jerusalem, watching the have been absent, and, incredible as it sees progress of affairs in Western Palestine, commanded well had Ishmael taken his precautions that / : i days the massacre remained perfectly unkn by “princes” ¢ (17), the chief of whom were he people of the town. On ihe ee day In Ishmael, and two brothers, Johanan and Jonathan, | perceived from his elevated position a largé) sons of Kareah. Immediately after the departure | coming southward along the main road froi$ of the Chaldean army these men moved across the |chem and Samaria. He went out to meet Jordan to pay their respects to GEDALIAH, whom | They proved to be eighty devotees, who wi! the king of Babylon had Jeft as superintendent | clothes, and with shaven beards, muiilated f (78D) of the province. Gedaliah had taken up and other marks of heathen devotion, and weil : Z ‘ as they went, were bringing incense and offer his residence at Mizpan, a few miles north of |the ruins of the Temple. At his invitatic | Jerusalem, on the main road, where J eremiah the | tyrned aside to the residence of the superint prophet resided with him (xl. 6). The house would | And here Ishmael put into practice the samit appear to have been isolated from the rest of the|aoem, which on a larger scale was emplod town. We can discern a high inclosed court-yard Mehomet Ali in the massacre of the Mail and a deep well within its precincts. The well was |} a+ Cairo in 1806. As the unsuspecting P certainly (Jer. xli. 9; comp. 1 K. xv. 22), and the | passed into the court-yard ¢ he closed the era eee ce It is a pity that some different word is it ployed to render this Hebrew term from that‘ xli. 1 to translate one totally distinct. d This is the LXX. version of the matter) érropevovro kai éxdosov. The statement of thee Text and A. V. that Ishmael wept is unintelli)! e The Hebrew has a il — the city” (ey . a spoon yar, Jerome (Qu. Hebr. on 2 Chron. xxviii. 7) interprets this expression as meaning « of the seed of Molech.”” He gives the same meaning to the words * the King’s son” applied to Maaseiah in the above passage. The question is an interesting one, and has been recently revived by Geiger ( Urschrift, etc. p. 807), who extends it to other passages and per- sons. [Morecu.] Jerome (as above) further says — perhaps on the strength of a tradition — that Ishmael was the son of an Egyptian slave, Gera: as a reason why the “seed royal’? should bear the meaning he | face- gives it. This the writer has not hitherto succeeded | sorets (Keri) in 2 K. xx. 4. in elucidating. * It is safer to follow the text, with Hitzig, 2! b So perhaps, taking it with the express statement | De Wette, and others. It is to be noted thi} of xl. 11, we may interpret the words * the forces ‘ 5 . ra which were in the field” (Jer. xl. 7, 18), where the Hebrew pare hs precedes 7] oy, ‘a ‘ into the midst of the city,” so that they ™ Ng ” uy SS 3 term rendered “ the field (IW 2) is one used tu pletely in Ishmael’s power before the massi'@ denote the pasture grounds of Moab— the modern | place. It was natural to mention that cirerst Belka -— oftener than any other district. See Gen. | but there is no obvious reason for speaking xxxvi. 85; Num. xxi. 20; Ruth i. 1, and passim ; | cisely of “the midst of the court-yard.” i 7). This has been read by Josephus Ps —|c yard.” The alteration carries its genuinen i The same change has been made by» 1 Chr. viii. 8; and Stanley’s S. § P. App. § 15. The | cation also seems to require the article b persistent use of the word in the semi-Moabite book »f Ruth is alone enough to fix its meaning. genitive. The ‘ pit” (or “cistern,” the word i ISHMAELITE ISLE 1173 ind them, and there he and his band butchered |of Elpaal, and named as a chief man in the tribe ‘whole number: ten ouly escaped by the offer |(1 Chr. vii. 18). heavy ransom for their lives. The seventy pses were then thrown into the well, which, as Cawnpore, was within the precincts of the se, and which was completely filled with the lies. It was the same thing that had been done Jehu —a man in some respects a prototype of mael — with the bodies of the forty-two relatives Ahaziah (2 K. x. 14). This done he descended the town, surprised and carried off the daughters king Zedekiah, who had been sent there by buchadnezzar for safety, with their eunuchs and ir Chaldean guard (xli. 10, 16), and all the ple of the town, and made off with his prisoners the country of the Ammonites. Which road he k is not quite clear; the Hebrew text and LXX. by Gibeon, that is north; but Josephus, by bron, round the southern end of the Dead Sea. e news of the massacre had by this time got oad, and Ishmael was quickly pursued by Jo- an and his companions. Whether north or th, they soon tracked him and his unwieldy booty, | found them reposing by some copious waters 129 DOYS). He was attacked, two of his bra- s slain, the whole of the prey recovered, and mael himself, with the remaining eight of his ple, escaped to the Ammonites, and thencefor- rd passes into the obscurity from which it would e been well if he had never emerged. Johanan’s foreboding was fulfilled. The result his tragedy was an immediate panic. The sinall nants of the Jewish commonwealth — the cap- as of the forces, the king’s daughters, the two phets Jeremiah and Baruch, and all the men, nen, and children—at once took flight into ypt (Jer. xli. 17; xliii. 5-7); and all hopes of attlement were for the time at an end. The re- mbrance of the calamity was perpetuated by a i —the fast of the seventh month (Zech. vii. 5; - 19), which is to this day strictly kept by the 7 on the third of Tishri. (See Reland, Antig. 10; Kimchi on Zech. vii. 5.) The part taken Baalis in this transaction apparently brought in his nation the denunciations both of Jeremiah x. 1-6), and the more distant Ezekiel (xxv. 1-7), we have no record how these predictions were omplished. G. ‘SHMAELITE. [Isumaet, p. 1171.] SHMATAH [3 syl.] (7MYAW, i. «. maya‘hu [Jehovah hears]: Sapatas: Jesmaias), ‘of Obadiah: the ruler of the tribe of Zebulun che time of king David (1 Chr. xxvii. 19). SHMEELITE axp ISH’MEMLITES e . NOW and DYONyrt respectively: [’I¢- Alrns (Vat. -Ae-), "Itwandtra: [smahelithes, vaélite]), the form — in agreement with the ‘dds of the Hebrew —in which the descendants ‘shmael are given in a few places in the A. V.; - former in 1 Chr. ii. 17; the latter in Gen. Vil, 25, 27, 28, xxxix. 1. ‘SH/MERAI [3 syl.] Cats [whom Jeho- { keeps]: "Ioopapi; [Vat. Zauaper;| Alex. leo- pe: Jesamari), a Benjamite; one of the family es , Which the bodies were thrown may have been in ere orelsewhere. In eastern towns there are fvoirs for public use as well as private. H. | | ISH’OD (TYTN, i. ¢. Ish-hod [man of re- nown]|: 6 Iavvd; [Vat. Ioadex;] Alex. Sovd: vi- rum decorum), one of the tribe of Manasseh on the east of Jordan, son of Hammoleketh, 7. e. the (Queen, and, from his near connection with Gilead, evidently an important person (1 Chr. vii. 18). ISH’PAN (]5W) [perh. bald, Ges.; one strong, Fiirst]: Lleapdy; [ Vat. Iopay;] Alex. Eo- gay: Jespham), a Benjamite, one of the family of Shashak; named as a chief man in his tribe (1 Chr. viii. 22). ISH’TOB (2YW"WN [see infra]: "lord B; [Vat. ExcrwB;] Joseph. ”*IgrwBos: Istob), appar- ently one of the small kingdoms or states which formed part of the general country of Aram, named with Zobah, Rehob, and Maacah (2 Sam. x. 6, 8). In the parallel account of 1 Chr. xix. Ishtob is omit- ted. By Josephus (Aut. vii. 6, § 1) the name is given as that of a king. But though in the ancient ver- sions the name is given as one word, it is probable that the real. signification is “the men of Tos,” a district mentioned also in connection with Ammon in the records of Jephthah, and again perhaps, under the shape of Tosre or TUBIENI, in the his- tory of the Maccabees. G. ISH/UAH (TW [even, level, Ges.; resting peaceful, Dietr.]: "leocoud, Alex. leroa: J esuc), the second son of Asher (Gen. xlvi. 17). In the genealogies of Asher in 1 Chr. vii. 30 the name, though identical in the original, is in the A. V. given as IsuAH. In the lists of Num. xxvi., however, Ishuah is entirely omitted. * The word is properly Ishvah, and was probably intended by the translators of the A. V. to be so read, « being used in the edition of 1611 for v. A. ISH’UAL [3 syl.] (WY, i. e. Ishvi [see above]: *Ioovi; Alex. Iecou: Jessui), the third son of Asher (1 Chr. vii. 30), founder of a family bearing his name (Num. xxvi. 44; A. V. “Je suites ’’). His descendants, however, are not men- tioned in the genealogy in Chronicles. His name is elsewhere given in the A. V. as Isut, JEsuI, and (another person) IsHut. ISH’UI (WW, «. & Ishvi [peaceful, quiet, Dietr.]: "leaood; [Vat. lexoiovA;] Alex. Ioover; Joseph. "Ilevovs: Jessut), the second son of Saul by his wife Ahinoam (1 Sam. xiv. 49, comp. 50): his place in the family was between Jonathan and Melchishua. In the list of Saul’s genealogy in 1 Chr. viii. and ix., however, the name of Ishui is entirely omitted; and in the sad narrative of the battle of Gilboa his place is occupied by Abinadab (1 Sam. xxxi. 2). We can only conclude that he died young. The same name is elsewhere given in the A. V. as Isur, and IsHuat. [In all these names wu may have been intended by the translators of the A. V. to be read as v. See IsHuan. — A.] G. ISLE (\S: pfcos). The radical sense of the Hebrew word seems to be “habitable places,’’ as opposed to water, and in this sense it occurs in Is. xlii. 15. Hence it means secondarily any maritime district, whether belonging to a continent or to an island: thus it is used of the shore of the Medé 1174 ISMACHIAH verranean (Is. xx. 6, xxiii. 2, 6), and of the coasts of Elishah (Kz. xxvii. 7), 2. e. of Greece and Asia Minor. In. this sense it is more particularly re- stricted to the shores of the Mediterranean, some- times in the fuller expression “islands of the sea” (Is. xi. 11), or “isles of the Gentiles” (Gen. x. 5; comp. Zeph. ii. 11), and sometimes simply as “isles” (Ps. xxii. 10; Ez. xxvi. 15, 18, xxvii. 3, 30, xxxix. 6; Dan. xi. 18): an exception to this, however, occurs in Ez. xxvii. 15, where the shores of the Persian gulf are intended. Occasionally the word is specifically used of an island, as of Caphtor or Crete (Jer. xlvii. 4), and Chittim or Cyprus (Ez. xxvil. 6; Jer. ii. 10), or of islands as opposed to the mainland (Esth. x. 1). But more generally it is applied to any region separated from Palestine by water, as fully described in Jer. xxv. 22, “the isles which are beyond the sea,’’ which were hence regarded as the most remote regions of the earth (Is. xxiv. 15, xlii. 10, lix. 18: compare the ex- pression in Is. Ixvi. 19, “the isles afar off’’), and also as large and numerous (Is. xl. 15; Ps. xevii. 1): the word is more particularly used by the prophets. (See J. D. Michaelis, Spicilegium, i. 131-142.) W. eB; ISMACHI’AH Ep ale alee 7. e. Ismac- ya’hu [whom Jehovah supports]: 6 Sauaxta [ Vat. -xei-]: Jesmachias), a Levite who was one of the overseers (OY T°5) of offerings, during the revival under king Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxxi. 18). ISMAEL. 1. (Iowaha: Ismaél), Jud. ii. 23. Another form for the name ISHMAEL, son of Abraham. 2. (Iouwandos: Hismaenis), 1 Esdr. ix. 22. [IsHMAEL, 5.] ISMAVAH [3 syl.] (TYYOWY [Sehovah hears]: Sauatas: Samaias), a Gibeonite, one of the chiefs of those warriors who relinquished the cause of Saul, the head of their tribe, and joined themselves to David, when he was at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 4). He is described as “a hero (Gibbor) among the thirty and over the thirty » —7. e. Da- vid’s body-guard: but his name does not appear in the lists of the guard in 2 Sam. xxiii. and 1 Chr. xi. Possibly he was killed in some encounter be- fore David reached the throne. IV’ PAH (TIED, zi. e. Ishpah [perh. bald, Ges.]: *Iecpd; Alex. Ecpay: Jespha), a Benja- mite, of the family of Beriah; one of the heads of his tribe (1 Chr. viii. 16). IVRAEL (ONTWY [see infra]: "Ilopana). 1. The name given (Gen. xxxii. 28) to Jacob after his wrestling with the Angel (Hos. xii. 4) at Peniel. In the time of Jerome ( Quest. Hebr. in Gen. Opp. ili. 357) the signification of the name was com- monly believed to be ‘the man (07 the mind) see- ing God.” But he prefers another interpretation, and paraphrases the verse after this manner: “Thy name shall not be called Jacob, Supplanter, but Israel, Prince with God. For as I am a Prince, so thou who hast been able to wrestle with Me shalt be called a Prince. But if with Me who am God (or an Angel) thou hast been able to contend, how much more [shalt thou be able to contend] with men, 7. €. with Esau, whom thou oughtest not to dread? ”? The A. V., apparently following Jerome, trasslates Py Ww, ‘as a prince thou hast power; ”’ out Rosenmiiller and Gesenius give it the simpler ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF — meaning, “thou hast contended.” prets Israel “soldier of God.” 2. It became the national name of the tw tribes collectively. They are so called in Ex.| 16 and afterwards. 3. It is used in a narrower sense, exclu Judah, in 1 Sam. xi. 8. It is so used in the fan: cry of the rebels against David (2 Sam. xx. 1), against his grandson (1 K. xii. 16). Thencef, it was assumed and accepted as the name of; Northern Kingdom, in which the tribes of Ju| Benjamin, Levi, Dan, and Simeon had no shar, 4. After the Babylonian Captivity, the retu) exiles, although they were mainly of the king, of Judah, resumed the name Israel as the dis tion of their nation; but as individuals they: almost always described as Jews in the Apocr) and N.T. Instances occur in the Books of Ch; icles of the application of the name Israel to Ju (e. g. 2 Chr. xi. 3, xii. 6); and in Esther of) name Jews to the whole people. The name Iv is also used to denote laymen, as distinguished t priests, levites, and other ministers (Ezr. vi. 6 ix. 1, x. 25; Neh. xi. 3, &e.). Wee) ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF. 1. sThe prog Ahijah of Shiloh, who was commissioned in) latter days of Solomon to announce the diyisio ) the kingdom, left one tribe (Judah) to the hs of David, and assigned ten to Jeroboam (1 Ki 35, 31). These were probably Joseph (= Ephin and Manasseh ), Issachar, Zebulun, Asher, Naplii Benjamin, Dan, Simeon, Gad, and Reuben; + being intentionally omitted. Eventually, the gre part of Benjamin, and probably the whole of Sint and Dan, were included as if by common corn in the kingdom of Judah. With respect toh conquests of David, Moab appears to have 2 attached to the kingdom of Israel (2 K. iii. 4) much of Syria as remained subject to Solomon 1 K. xi. 24) would probably be claimed by his cessor in the northern kingdom; and Amin though connected with Rehoboam as his moti”: native land (2 Chr. xii. 13), and though afterwd tributary to Judah (2 Chr. xxvii. 5), was atone time allied (2 Chr. xx. 1), we know not y closely, or how early, with Moab. ‘The ae between Accho and Japho remained in the pors sion of Israel. 2. The population of the kingdom is a pressly stated, and in drawing any inference om the numbers of fighting-men, we must bear in 14 that the numbers in the Hebrew text of the CT’ are strongly suspected to have been subjecte(te extensive, perhaps systematic, corruption. [ty years before the disruption, the census taker)y direction of David gave 800,000 according to 2 £m. xxiv. 9, or 1,100,000 according to 1 Chr. xx5, as the number of fighting-men in Israel. Jerob: B. C. 957, brought into the field an army of $),- 000 men (2 Chr. xiii 3). The small number oe army of Jehoahaz (2 K. xiii. 7) is-to be attrib to his compact with Hazael; for in the next 1 Israel could spare a mercenary host ten times numerous for the wars of Amaziah (2 Chr. ay Ewald is scarcely correct in his remark tha'vé know not what time of life is reckoned as the i+ tary age (Gesch. Isr. ili. 185); for it is defingin Gesenius it a Bp. Patrick proposes to reconcile these two 1)” bers, by adding to the former 288,0/10 on acco David’s standing legions. * ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF um. i. 3, and again 2 Chr. xxv. 5, as “ twenty ars old and above.” If in B. c. 957 there were tually under arms 800,000 men of that age in rael, the whole population may perhaps have 1ounted to at least three millions and a half.¢ ter observers have echoed the disappointment th which Jerome from his cell at Bethlehem con- mplated the small extent of this celebrated country p. 129, ad Dardan. § 4). ‘ihe area of Palestine, it is laid down in Kiepert’s ABibel-Atlis (ed. onnet, 1859), is calculated at 13,620 English uare miles. Deducting from this 810 miles for 2 strip of coast S. of Japho, belonging to the lilistines, we get 12,810 miles as the area of the id occupied by the 12 tribes at the death of lomon: the area of the two kingdoms being — ael, 9,375, Judah, 3,435. Hence it appears that : whole area of Palestine was nearly equal to that the kingdom of Holland (13,610 square miles) ; or her more than that of the six northern counties England (13,136 square miles). The kingdom Judah was rather less than Northumberland, tham, and Westmoreland (3,683 square miles, h 752,852 population in 1851); the kingdom Israel was very nearly as large as Yorkshire, aeashire, and Cumberland (9,453 square miles, h 4,023,713 population in 1851). }, SHECHEM was the first capital of the new edom (1 K. xii. 25), venerable for its traditions, _ beautiful in its situation. Subsequently Tirzah, sse loveliness had fixed the wandering gaze of omon (Cant. vi. 4), became the royal residence, iot the capital, of Jeroboam (1 K. xiv. 17) and ‘is successors (xv. 33, xvi. 8, 17, 23). Samaria, ing in itself the qualities of beauty and fertility, a commanding position, was chosen by Omri K. xvi. 24), and remained the capital of the sdom until it had given the last proof of its ngth by sustaining for three years the onset of hosts of Assyria. Jezreel was probably only a 1 residence of some of the Israelitish kings. It ‘have been in awe of the ancient holiness of ‘oh, that Jeroboam forbore to pollute the secluded ‘of the Tabernacle with the golden calves. He ¢ for the religious capitals of his kingdom Dan, ‘old home of northern schism, and Bethel,? a amite city not far from Shiloh, and marked out istory and situation as the rival of Jerusalem. The disaffection of Ephraim and the northern 8, having grown in secret under the prosperous ourdensome reign of Solomon, broke out at the val moment of that great monarch’s death. It ‘just then that Ephraim, the centre of the ‘ment, found in Jeroboam an instrument pre- 1| to give expression to the rivalry of centuries, ' sufficient ability and application to raise him gh station, with the stain of treason on his '', and with the bitter recollections of an exile } mind. Judah and J oseph were rivals from the that they occupied the two prominent places, Neceived the amplest promises in the blessing /@ dying patriarch (Gen. xlix. 8, 22). When welve tribes issued from Egypt, only Judah igs a could muster each above 70,000 war- | In the desert and in the conquest, Caleb and — ree ey ie ee ee : Mr. Rickman noticed that in 1821 and in 1831 tmber of males under 20 years of age, and the wr of males of 20 years of age and upwards, were , equal ; and this proportion has been since re- . 48 Invariable: or, it has been assumed, that Mes of the age of 20 and upwards are equal in : a ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF 1175 | Joshua, the representatives of the two tribes, stanc out side by side eminent among the leaders of the people. The blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 13) and the divine selection of Joshua inaugurate the greater prominence of Joseph for the next three centuries. Othniel, the successor of Joshua, was from Judah; the last, Samuel, was born among the Ephraimites. Within that period Ephraim sup- plied at Shiloh (Judg. xxi. 19) a resting-place for the ark, the centre of divine worship; and a ren- dezvous, or capital at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 1; Judg. ix. 2) for the whole people. Ephraim arro- gantly claimed (Judg. viii. 1, xii. 1) the exclusive right of taking the lead against invaders. Royal authority was offered to one dweller in Ephraim (viii. 22), and actually exercised for three years by another (ix. 22). After a silent, perhaps sullen, acquiescence in the transfer of Samuel’s authority with additional dignity to a Benjamite, they resisted for seven years (2 Sam. ii. 9-11) its passing into the hands of the popular Jewish leader, and yielded reluctantly to the conviction that the sceptre which seemed almost within their grasp was reserved at last for Judah. Even in David's reign their jealousy did not always slumber (2 Sam. xix. 43); and though Solomon’s alliance and intercourse with Tyre must have tended to increase the loyalty of the northern tribes, they took the first opportunity to emancipate themselves from the rule of his son. Doubtless the length of Solomon's reign, and the clouds that gathered round the close of it (1 K. xi. 14-25), and possibly his increasing despotism (Ewald, Gesch. Jsi. iii. 395), tended to diminish the general popularity of the house of David; and the idolatry of the king alienated the affection of religious Israelites. But none of these was the immediate cause of the disruption. No aspiration after greater liberty, political privileges, or aggran- dizement at the expense of other powers, no spirit of commercial enterprise, no breaking forth of pent- up energy seems to have instigated the movement. Ephraim proudly longed for independence, without considering whether or at what cost he could main- tain it. Shechem was built as a capital, and Tirzah as a residence, for an Ephraimite king, by the people who murmured under the burden imposed upon them by the royal state of Solomon. Ephraim felt no patriotic pride in a national splendor of which Judah was the centre. The dwelling-place of God when fixed in Jerusalem ceased to be so honorable to him as of old. It was ancient jealousy rather than recent provocation, the opportune death of Solomon rather than unwillingness to incur taxation, the opportune return of a persecuted Ephraimite rather than any commanding genius for rule which Jeroboam possessed, that finally broke up the brotherhood of the children of Jacob. It was an outburst of human feeling so soon ag that divine influence which restrained the spirit of disunion was withdrawn in consequence of the idolatry of Solomon, so soon as that stern prophetic voice which had called Saul to the throne under a protest, and David to the throne in repentance, was heard in anger summoning Jeroboam to divide the kingdom, number to a fourth part of the whole population.” — Census of Great Britain, 1851, Population Tables, II. Ages, etc., p. vi. 5 On these seven places see Stanley’s S. § P , chaps iv. v. and xi. 1176 ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF 5. Disruption where there can be no expansion, or dismemberment without growth, is fatal to a state If England and America have prospered since 1783 it is because each found space for in- crease, and had vital energy to fill it. If the sep- aration of east and west was but a step in the decline of the Roman empire, it was so because each portion was hemmed in by obstacles which it wanted yigor to surmount. The sources of life and strength begin to dry up; the state shrinks within itself, withers, and falls before some blast which once it might have braved. The kingdom of Israel developed no new power. It was but a portion of David’s kingdom deprived of many elements of strength. Its frontier was as open and as widely extended as before; but it wanted a capital for the seat of organized power. Its ter- ritory was as fertile and as tempting to the spoiler, but its people were less united and patriotic. A corrupt religion poisoned the source of national life. When less reverence attended on a new and un- consecrated king, and less respect was felt for an aristocracy reduced by the retirement of the Levites, the army which David found hard to control rose up unchecked in the exercise of its willful strength ; and thus eight houses, each ushered in by a revolu- tion, occupied the throne in quick succession. Tyre ceased to be an ally when the alliance was no longer profitable to the merchant-city. Moab and Ammon yielded tribute only while under compulsion. A powerful neighbor, Damascus, sat armed at the gate of Israel; and, beyond Damascus, might be discerned the rising strength of the first great monarchy of the world. These causes tended to increase the misfortunes, and to accelerate the early end of the kingdom of Israel. It lasted 254 years, from B. C. 975 to B. C. 721, about two thirds of the duration of its more compact neighbor Judah. But it may be doubted whether the division into two kingdoms greatly shortened the independent existence of the Hebrew race, or interfered with the purposes which, it is thought, may be traced in the establishment of David's monarchy. If among those purposes were the preservation of the true religion in the world, and the preparation of an agency adapted for the diffusion of Christianity in due season, then it must be observed — first, that as a bulwark providentially raised against the cor- rupting influence of idolatrous Tyre and Damascus, Israel kept back that contagion from Judah, and partly exhausted it before its arrival in the south; next, that the purity of divine worship was not impaired Ly the excision of those tribes which were remote from the influence of the Temple, and by the concentration of priests and religious Israelites within the southern kingdom; and lastly, that to the worshippers at Jerusalem the early decline and fall of Israel was a solemn and impressive spectacle of judgment — the working out of the great problem of God’s toleration of idolatry. This prepared the heart of Judah for the revivals under Hezekiah and Josiah, softened them into repentance during the Captivity, and strengthened them for their absolute renunciation of idolatry, when after seventy years they returned to Palestine, to teach the world that there is a spiritual bond more efficacious than the occupancy of a certain soil for keeping up national existence, and to become the channel through which God’s greatest gift was conveyed to mankind. [Capriviry. ] 6. The detailed history of the kingdom of Israel ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF will be found under the names of its nine{ kings. [See also EpHRAIM.] ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF sdum lasted, the people never rose superior to debasing form of religion established by Jero- m. Hazael, the successor of the two Benha- 3, the ablest king of Damascus, reduced Jeho- ; to the condition of a vassal, and triumphed a time over both the disunited Hebrew king- . Almost the first sign of the restoration of r strength was a war between them; and Jeho- the grandson of Jehu, entered Jerusalem as conqueror of Amaziah. Jehoash also turned tide of war against the Syrians; and Jeroboam the most powerful of all the kings of Israel, ured Damascus, and recovered the whole an- t frontier from Hamath to the Dead Sea. In midst of his long and seemingly glorious reign prophets Hosea and Amos uttered their warn- more clearly than any of their predecessors. short-lived greatness expired with the last king ehu’s line. .) B.C. 772-721. Military violence, it would , broke off the hereditary succession after the ure and probably convulsed reign of Zachariah. unsuccessful usurper, Shallum, is followed by cruel Menahem, who, being unable to make against the first attack of Assyria under Pul, me the agent of that monarch for the oppres- taxation of his subjects. Yet his power at 2 was sufficient to insure for his son and suc- ) 6, t r of | Dura- MEEHORCOUICT : Dura- | Year of ding} tion arcs of Reign. Rings tion | preceding | Queen Mother gof| of ‘ ta 45a eaPewel oo of King of | in Judah. ah. |Reign. ABRAEL. A. V. |Clinton| Winer. + le rca Reign.| Israel. 22 | Jeroboam . 975 976 975 | Rehoboam 17 Naamah, 958 959 957 Abijah . 8 18th Michaiah (?). 955 956 955 Asia iat 41 | 20th Maachah (?). : 2 Nadab . 954 955 954 A 24 Baasha 9538 954 953 : 2 | Klah 980 930 930 ; 0 | Zimri 929 930 928 12 | Omri 929 930 928 hs 22 | Ahab 918 919 918 914 915 914 Jehoshaphat. 25 4th . | Azubah. 3 2 | Ahaziah 893 896 897 12 Jehoram . 896 895 896 892 891 889 Jehoram . 8 5th . 885 884 885 Ahaziah . 1 12th . | Athaliah. 2seu Jehu’. . 884 883 884 Athaliah . . 6 878 877 87. Jehoash . . 40 7th . | Zibiah, 1. 17 | Jehoahaz . 856 855 856 je 16 | Jehoash 841 839 840 839 837 838 Amaziah , 29 2d. . | Jehoaddan. . 41 | Jeroboam II. 825 823 825 | 810 808 809 | Uzsiah or Aza-| 52 | 27th . | Jecholiah 11 |} Interregnum. ~ ; riah . 0 | Zachariah 773 771 772 0 | Shallum 772 770 771 10 | Menahem. . 772 770 771 2 | Pekahiah. . 761 759 760 ' 20 | Pekah . 759 757 758 - | 758 756 758 | Jotham 16 Qd. Jerusha. [ 742 741 741 Ahaz 16 17th 9 | 2d Interreg- | num. 9 | Hoshea . 730 730 726 726 Hezekiah . 8rd Abi. | Samaria taken | -721 721 | 698 697 Manasseh. . Hephzibah. 648 642 Amon... 2 Meshulle- meth. j 641 640 ¢ Josiah . Jedidah. | 610 609 609 Jehoahaz. . 0 Hamutal. 610 609 609 Jehoiachim 11 Zebudah. 599 598 598 Jehoiachin or 0 Nehushta. Coniah. 599 598 598 Zedekiah . 11 Hamutza'!, 588 586 Jerusalem de- ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF 1177 cessor Pekahiah a ten years’ reign, cut short by ¢ bold usurper, Pekah. Abandoning the northern and transjordanic regions to the encroaching power of Assyria under Tiglath-pileser, he was very near subjugating Judah, with the help of Damascus, now the coequal ally of Israel. But Assyiia inter- posing summarily put an end to the independence of Damascus, and perhaps was the indirect cause of the assassination of the baffled Pekah. The irresolute Hoshea, the next and last usurper, be- came tributary to his invader, Shalmaneser, betrayed the Assyrian to the rival monarchy of Egypt, and was punished by the loss of his liberty, and by the capture, after a three years’ siege, of his strong capital, Samaria. Some gleanings of the ten tribes yet remained in the land after so many years of religious decline, moral debasement, national degra- dation, anarchy, bloodshed, and deportation. Even these were gathered up by the conqueror and car- ried to Assyria, never again, as a distinct people, to occupy their portion of that goodly and pleasant land which their forefathers won under Joshua from the heathen. 7. The following table shows at one view the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah. Columns 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 are taken from the Bible. Columns 4, 5, 6 are the computations of eminent modern chronologists: column 4 being the stroyed. pen his hs cit 1178 ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF scheme adopted in the margin of the English Ver- sion, which is founded on the calculations of Arch- bishop Ussher: column 5 being the computation of Clinton (Fasti Hellenici, iii. App. § 5); and column 6 being the computation of Winer (Real- worterbuch). The numerous dates given in the Bible as the limits of the duration of the king’s reigns act as a continued check on each other. ‘The apparent dis- crepancies between them have been unduly exag- gerated by some writers. To meet such difficulties various hypotheses have been put forward ; — that an interregnum occurred; that two kings (father and son) reigned conjointly; that certain reigns were dated not from their real commencement, but from some arbitrary period in that Jewish year in which they commenced; that the Hebrew copyists have transcribed the numbers incorrectly, either by accident or design; that the original writers have made mistakes in their reckoning. All these are mere suppositions, and even the most probable of them must not be insisted on as if it were a histor- ical fact. But in truth most of the discrepancies may be accounted for by the simple fact that the Hebrew annalists reckon in round numbers, never specifying the months in addition to the years of the duration of a king’s reign. Consequently some of these writers seem to set down a fragment of a year as an entire year, and others omit such frag- ments altogether. Hence in computing the date of the commencement of each reign, without attrib- uting any error to the writer or transcribers, it is necessary to allow for a possible mistake amounting to something less than two years in our interpreta- tion of the indefinite phraseology of the Hebrew writers. But there are a few statements in the Hebrew text which cannot thus be reconciled. (a.) There are in the Second Book of Kings three statements as to the beginning of the reign of Jehoram king of Israel, which in the view of some writers involve a great error, and not a mere numerical one. His accession is dated (1) in the second year of Jehoram king of Judah (2 K. i. 17); (2) in the fifth year before Jehoram king of Judah (2 K. viii. 16); (3) ) in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat (2 K. iii. 1). But these state- ments may be reconciled by the fact that Jehoram king of Judah had two accessions which are re- corded in Scripture, and by the probable supposi- tion of Archbishop Ussher that he had a third and earlier accession which is not recorded. These three accessions are, (1) when Jehoshaphat left his kingdom to go to the battle of Ramoth-Gilead, in his 17th year; (2) when Jehoshaphat (2 K. viii. 16) either retired from the administration of affairs, or made his son joint king, in his 23d year; (8) when Jehoshaphat died, in his 25th year. So that, if the supposition of Ussher be allowed, the acces- sion of Jehoram king of Israel in Jehoshaphat’s 18th year synchronized with (1) the second year of the first accession, and (2) the fifth year before the second accession of Jehoram king of Judah. (b.) The date of the beginning of Uzziah’s reign (2 K. xv. 1) in the 27th year of Jeroboam II. can- not be reconciled with the statement that Uzziah’s father, Amaziah, whose whole reign was 29 years only, came to the throne in the second year of Joash (2 K. xiv. 1), and so reigned 14. years con- temporaneously with Joash and 27 with Jeroboam. Ussher and others suggest a reconciliation of these statements by the supposition that Jeroboam’s eign had two commencements, the first not men- | eal ISRAELTLISH tioned in Scripture, on his association wit father Joash, B. C. 837. But Keil, after Ca and Grotius, supposes that TA is an error ¢ Hebrew copyists for 1%, and that instead of of Jeroboam we ought to read 15th. (c.) The statements that Jeroboam II. re 41 years (2 K. xiv. 28) after the 1dth ye Amaziah, who reigned 29 years, and that boam’s son Zachariah came to the throne | 38th year of Uzziah (2 K. xv. 8), cannot be 1 ciled without supposing that there was an. regnum of 11 years between Jeroboam and h Zachariah. And almost all chronologists ; this as a fact, although it is not mentioned | Bible. Some chronologists, who regard an regnum as intrinsically improbable after the perous reign of Jeroboam, prefer the suppc that the number 41 in 2 K. xiy. 23 ought changed to 51, and that the number 27 in should be changed to 14, and that a few oth responding alterations should be made. (d.) In order to bring down the date of P, murder to the date of Hoshea’s accession, chronologists propose to read 29 years for 2 K. xv. 27. Others prefer to let the dates, as at present in the text, and suppose that terregnum, not expressly mentioned in the | occurred between those two usurpers. ‘The of Isaiah (ix. 20, 21) seem to indicate a t) anarchy in Israel. The Chronology of the Kings has been m1 investigated by Abp. Ussher, Chronologia } Pars Posterior, De Annis Regum, Work 95-144; by Lightfoot, Order of the oH O. T., Works, i. 77-130; by Hales, New 4) of Chronology, ii. 872-447; by Clinton, J. ¢ by H. Browne, Ordo Scclorwm. [See ? Wolff, Versuch, die Widerspriiche in den reihen der Kénige Juda’s u. Isr. u. andei i ferenzen in d. bibl. Chronol. auszugleichen, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1858, pp. 625-688, a references under CHRONOLOGY, Amer. ed. ; ISRAELITE (MONT): ‘Tedpant [Vat. IopanAe:rys 3 Ald. Lopanalrns +. Iouanrertys: de Jesraéli). In 2 Sam, 3. Ithra, the father of Amasa, is called “ an Istli or more correctly “the Israelite,’ while in| ii. 17 he appears as “ Jether the Ishmaelite. latter is undoubtedly the true reading, foi} Ithra had been a foreigner there would ha’ no need to express his nationality. The L2). Vulg. appear to have read SOND TN, “ Jezili Ww. AM * «JTsraelite’’ also occurs in the A. Vis rendering of Ost ws, «man of | él Num. xxv. 14; and of ’ Iapanalens or "Iopa'é (Tisch. Treg.), John i. 47, Rom. xi. 1, «Isr is the translation of Ss st", used collect} Ex. ix. 7; Lev. xxiii. 42; Josh. iii. 17, # Judg. xx. 21; 1 Sam. ii. 14, xiii. 20, xiv. 1, xxix. 1; 2 Sam. iv. 1; 2 K. iii. 24, oe Chron ix. 2; —of "Topar, Bar. iii. 4; 1 43, 53, 58, iii. 46, vi. 18; of viol “Iopar ‘ vi. L4; 1 Mace. vii. 23 ; ; —and of *Japanr? -Ae?rau, Rom. ix. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 22. \4 *ISRAELI’TISH (MYON W): ‘ i ISSACHAR ‘ Vat. -Aci-; Alex. once Ie(pandutis: Isrcelitis). designation of a certain woman (Lev. xxiv. 10, whose son was stoned for blasphemy. A. YSACHAR (TDIWW, [see infra], i. e. ar—such is the invariable spelling of the » in the Hebrew, the Samaritan Codex and jon, the Targums of Onkelos and Pseudo- than, but the Masorets have pointed it so as persede the second S, TOWt, Issa [s] car: Axa § Rec. Text of N. T. ‘Ioacxap, but Cod. oaxdp [Cod. A, and Sin. I¢gaxap]; Joseph. dxapis: Issach). the ninth son of Jacob and ifth of Leah; the firstborn to Leah after the val which occurred in the births of her children . xxx. 17; comp. xxix. 35). As is the case each of the sons the name is recorded as be- sd on account of a circumstance connected with irth. But, as may be also noticed in more one of the others, two explanations seem to mbined in the narrative, which even then is mm exact accordance with the requirements of ame. ‘God hath given me my hire (TDW, *). . . and she called his name Issichar,”’ is ecord; but in verse 18 that “hire” is for the oder of her maid to her husband — while in 14-17 it is for the discovery and bestowal of nandrakes. Besides, as indicated above, the in its original form — Isascar — rebels against ‘nterpretation, an interpretation which, to be stent, requires the form subsequently imposed ie word Is-sachar.* The allusion is not again “ht forward as it is with Dan, Asher, etc., in lessings of Jacob and Moses. In the former t is perhaps allowable to discern a faint echo + sound of “Issachar’’ in the word shicmo — alder” (Gen. xlix. 15). Issachar the individual we know nothing. In jis he is not mentioned after his birth, and *w verses in Chronicles devoted to the tribe ‘m merely a brief list of its chief men and sin the reign of David (1 Chr. vii. 1-5). the descent into Egypt four sons are ascribed 4, who founded the four chief families of the (Gen. xlvi. 13; Num. xxvi. 23, 25: 1 Chr. ). Issachar’s place during the journey to ‘Iwas on the east of the Tabernacle with his ts Judah and Zebulun (Num. ii. 5), the ‘Moving foremost in the march (x. 15), and $4 common standard, which, according to the nical tradition, was of the three colors of he topaz, and carbuncle, inscribed with the of the three tribes, and bearing the figure te Whelp (see Targum Pseudojon. on Num. At this time the captain of the tribe was |neel ben-Zuar (Num. i. 8, ii. 5, vii. 18, x. 15). S$ sueceeded by Igal ben-Joseph, who went as i ntative of his tribe among the spies (xiii. 7), ° again by Paltiel ben-Azzan, who assisted in apportioning the land of Canaan (xxxiv. Issachar was one of the six tribes who were sid on Mount Gerizim during the ceremony sing and cursing (Deut. xxvii. 12). He was ‘company with Judah, Zebulun being opposite Al. The number of the fighting men of A ie Words occur again almost identically in 2 Chr. md Jer. xxxi. 16: a) ws there is a ' for,” A. V. “ shall be rewarded.” /*Pansion of the story of the mandrakes, with v ak ISSAUHAR 1172 Issachar when taken in the census at Sinai was 54,400. During the journey they seem to have steadily increased, and after the mortality at Peor they amounted to 64,300, being inferior to nona but Judah and Dan— to the latter by 100 souls only. The numbers given in 1 Chr. vii. 2, 4, 5, probably the census of Joab, amount in all to 145,600. The Promised Land once reached, the connection between Issachar and Judah seems to have closed, to be renewed only on two brief occasions, which will be noticed in their turn. The intimate rela- tion with Zebulun was however maintained. ‘The two brother-tribes had their portions close together, and more than once they are mentioned in com- pany. ‘The allotment of Issachar lay above that of Manasseh. ‘The specification of its boundaries and contents is contained in Josh. xix. 17-23. But to the towns there named must be added Daberath, given in the catalogue of Levitical cities (xxi. 28: Jarmuth here is probably the Remeth of xix. 21), and five others — Beth-shean, Ibleam, En-dor, Taa- nach, and Megiddo. These last, though the prop- erty of Manasseh, remained within the limits of Issachar (Josh. xvii. 11; Judg. i. 27), and they assist us materially in determining his boundary. In the words of Josephus (Ant. v. 1, § 22), “it extended in length from Carmel to the Jordan, in breadth to Mount Tabor.’’ In fact it exactly con- sisted of the plain of Esdraelon or Jezreel. The south boundary we can trace by En-gannim, the modern Jenin, on the heights which form the southern inclosure to the Plain; and then, further westward, by Taanach and Megiddo, the authentic * fragments of which still stand on the same heights as they trend away to the hump of Carmel. On the north the territory also ceased with the plain, which is there bounded by Tabor, the outpost of the hills of Zebulun. East of Tabor the hill-country continued so as to screen the tribe from the Sea of Galilee, but a continuous tract of level on the S. E. led to Beth-shean and the upper part of the Jordan valley. West of Tabor, again, a little to the south, is Chesulloth, the modern Jksal, close to the tra- ditional « Mount of Precipitation; and over this the boundary probably ran in a slanting course till it joined Mount Carmel, where the Kishon (Josh. xix. 20) worked its way below the eastern bluff of that mountain —and thus completed the triangle at its western apex. Nazareth lies among the hills, a few [about two] miles north of the so-called Mount of Precipitation, and therefore escaped being in Issachar. Almost exactly in the centre of this plain stood Jezreel, on a low swell, attended on the one hand by the eminence of Mount Gilboa, on the other by that now called ed-Duhy, or ‘little Hermon,”’ the latter having Shunem, Nain, and En-dor on its slopes, names which recall some of the most interesting and important events in the his- tory of Israel. This territory was, as it still is, among the richest land in Palestine. Westward was the famous plain which derived its name, the “ seed-plot of God’? — such is the signification of Jezreel—from its fer- tility, and the very weeds of which at this day curious details, will be found in the Testamentum Isachar, Fabricius, Cod. Pseudepigr. i. 620-623. They were ultimately deposited “in the house of the Lord,” whatever that expression may mean. 1180 ISSACHAR cestify to its enormous powers of production (Stan- ley, S. f P. p. 348). [EspraELON: JEZREEL.] On the north is Tabor, which even under the burn- ing sun of that climate is said to retain the glades and dells of an English wood (ibid. p. 350). On the east, behind Jezreel, is the opening which conducts to the plain of the Jordan —to that Beth-shean which was proverbially among the Rabbis the gate of Paradise for its fruitfulness. It is this aspect of the territory of Issachar which appears to be alluded to in the Blessing of Jacob. The image of the * strong-boned he-ass ”’ (O72 sar) — the large animal used for burdens and field work, not the lighter and swifter she-ass for riding — “ couching down between the two hedge-rows,’’ 4 chewing the cud of stolid ease and quiet —is very applicable, not only to the tendencies and habits, but to the very size and air of a rural agrarian people, while the sequel of the verse is no less suggestive of the certain result of such tendencies when unrelieved by any higher aspirations: “He saw that rest was good and the land pleasant, and he bowed his back to bear, and became a slave? to tribute”? — the tribute imposed on him by the various maraud- ing tribes who were attracted to his territory by the richness of the crops. The Blessing of Moses completes the picture. He is not only “in tents”’ —in nomad or semi-nomad life — but “ rejoicing ”’ in them, and it is perhaps not straining a point to observe that he has by this time begun to lose his individuality. He and Zebulun are mentioned together as having part possession in the holy mountain of Tabor, which was on the frontier line of each (Deut. xxxiii. 18, 19). We pass from this to the time of Deborah: the chief struggle in the great victory over Sisera took place on the territory of Issachar, “‘ by Taanach at the waters of Megiddo ”’ (Judg. v. 19); but the allusion to the tribe in the song of triumph is of the most cursory nature, not consistent with its having taken any prominent part in the action. One among the Judges of Israel was from Issa- char — Toa (Judg. x. 1) — but beyond the length of his sway we haye only the fact recorded that he resided out of the limits of his own tribe — at Shamir in Mount Ephraim. By Josephus he is omitted entirely (see Ant. v. 7,§ 6). The census of the tribe taken in the reign of David has already been alluded to. It is contained in 1 Chr. vii. 1-5, and an expression occurs in it which testifies to the nomadic tendencies above noticed. Out of the whole number of the tribe no less than 36,000 were marauding mercenary troops — “ bands” (7772) —a term applied to no other tribe in this enumer- ation, though elsewhere to Gad, and uniformly to the irregular bodies of the Bedouin nations round Israel.¢ This was probably at the close of David’s reign. Thirty years before, when two hundred of the head men of the tribe had gone to Hebron to @ The word here rendered * hedge-rows” is one which only occurs in Judg. v. 16. The sense there is evidently similar to that in this passage. But as to what that sense is all the authorities differ. See Gesenius, Ben Zev, etc. The rendering given seems to be nearer the real force than any. b WY oD. By the LXX. rendered daviyp yewpyos. Comp. their similar rendering of may ‘a. V. “servants,” and “husbandry ”) in Gen. xxvi. ht. ISSACHAR assist in making David king over the cutire | different qualifications are noted in them- ‘had understanding of the times to know; Israel ought to do . . . and all their brethre at their commandment.”’ To what this “yj standing of the times’’ was we have no clew the later Jewish interpreters it is explained aj in ascertaining the periods of the sun and the intercalation of months, and dates of s: feasts, and the interpretation of the signs | heavens (Targum, ad loc. ; Jerome, Quest. h Josephus (Ant. vii. 2, § 2) gives it as “ kny the things that were to happen;”’ and he ad¢j the armed men who came with these bam i 20,000. One of the wise men of Issachar, ap ing to an old Jewish tradition preserved by Jo ( Quest. Hebr. on 2 Chr. xvii. 16), was Ais son of Zichri, who with 200,000 men otfeel self to Jehovah in the service of Jehoshaphat (J xvii. 16): but this is very questionable, movement appears to have been confined to \ and Benjamin. ‘The ruler of the tribe at thiti was Omri, of the great family of Michael (0 xxvii. 18; comp. vii. 3). May he not ati the forefather of the king of Israel of thé name — the founder of the “ house of Omzri z of the “ house of Ahab,’’ the builder of Sea possibly on the same hill of Shamir on wh) Issacharite judge, Tola, had formerly held his But whether this was so or not, at any re) dynasty of the Israelite kings was Issaar BAASHA, the son of Ahijah, of the house ol char, a member of the army with which Nad < all Israel were besieging Gibbethon, apparen) of any standing in the tribe (comp. 1 K. L slew the king, and himself mounted the jr (1 K. xv. 27, &c.). He was evidently a ni warlike man (xv. 29; 2 Chr. xvi. 1), and an }jla like Jeroboam. The Issacharite dynastyas during the 24 years of his reign and the it son Elah. At the end of that time it was es from him by the same means that his fat) | acquired it, and Zimri, the new king, ae his reign by a massacre of the whole kind! connections of Baasha— he left him “not en much as a dog”’ (xvi. 11). One more notice of Issachar remains to bid to the meagre information already collected) I fortunately a favorable one. ‘There may be rir in the tradition just quoted that the tribe/as any way connected with the reforms of Jos! phat, but we are fortunately certain that, st as Jezreel was from Jerusalem, they took the passover with which Hezekiah sanetiil | opening of his reign. On that memorable «a8 a multitude of the people from the northerrtil and amongst them from Issachar, although) !¢ estranged from the worship of Jehovah as) hi forgotten how to make the necessary purif{tie yet by the enlightened wisdom of Hezeki) W ¢ The word “ bands,” which is commonly ¢Pl0, in the A. V. to render Gedfidim, as above, tunately used in 1 Chr. xii. 28 for a very fe term, by which the orderly assembly of the ght men of the tribes is denoted when they visite¢ eb to make David king. This term is WSN7=' We may almost suspect a mere misprint, es)” the Vulgate has principes. [The marginal shower *hat it is not a misprint.] il ISSHIAH ed to keep the feast; and they did keep it days with great gladness —with such tu- uous joy as had not been known since the time jlomon, when the whole land was one. Nor hey separate till the occasion had been sig- od by an immense destruction of idolatrous ; and symbols, ‘“insJudah and Benjamin, in aim and Manasseh,”’ up to the very confines sachar’s own land — and then “ all the children rael returned every man to his possession into own cities” (2 Chr. xxxi. 1). It is a satis- ry farewell to take of the tribe. Within five from this date Shalmaneser king of Assyria ‘nyaded the north of Palestine, and after three ‘siege had taken Samaria, and with the rest rael had carried Issachar away to his distant nions. There we must be content to leave until, with the rest of their brethren of all tibes of the children of Israel (Dan only ex- d), the twelve thousand of the tribe of Issa- ‘shall be sealed-in their foreheads (Rev. vii. ow: loodxap: [Jssachar.]) ) was a son of Ish- mael, and he gave his name, like the rest of his brethren, to the little province he colonized (Gen. xxv. 15, 16). In after years, when the Israelites had settled in Canaan, a war broke out between the half-tribe of Manasseh and the Hagarites (or Ishmaelites), Jetur, Nephish, and Nodab. The latter were conquered, and the children of Manas- seh “dwelt in the land, and they increased from Bashan unto Baal-Hermon.”? They already pos- sessed the whole of Bashan, including Gaulanitis and Trachonitis; and now they conquered and col- onized the little province of Jetur, which lay between Bashan and Mount Hermon (1 Chr. y. 19-23). Subsequent history shows that the Ishmaelites were neither annihilated nor entirely dispossessed, for in the second century B. c., Aristobulus, king of the Jews, reconquered the province, then called by its Greek name Itureea, and gave the inhabitants their choice of Judaism or banishment (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 11, § 8). While some submitted, many retired to their own rocky fastnesses, and to the defiles of Hermon adjoining. Strabo says that in his day the mountainous regions in the kingdom of Chalcis were inhabited partly by Itureeans, whom he de- scribes as kakodpya: mavres (xvi. pp. 518, 520). Other early writers represent them as skillful arch- ers and daring plunderers (Cic. Phil. ii. 44; Virg. Georg. ii. 448; Lucan. Phar. vii. 230). Iturea, with the adjoining provinces, fell into the hands of a chief called Zenodorus; but, about B. c. 20, they were taken from him by the Roman emperor, and given to Herod the Great (Joseph. Ant. xv. 10, § 1), who bequeathed them to his son Philip (Ant. xvii. 8, § 1; Luke iii. 1; comp. Joseph. B. J. ii. 3, § 3).. The passages above referred to point clearly to = | | ITURHA | the position of Itureea, and show, notwithstan the arguments of Reland and others (Relanc 106; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. s. y. lturea), th; was distinct from Auranitis _ Pliny rightly plac north of Bashan and near Lamasceus (v. 23); | J. de Vitry describes it as adjoining Trachon and lying along the base of Libanus between ") rias and Damascus (Gesta Dei, p. 1074; | 771, 1003). At the place indicated is situatec| modern province of Jedir ( 3 a>), whic just the Arabic form of the Hebrew Jetur (74) It is bounded on the east by Trachonitis, or] south by Gaulanitis, on the west by Hermon, on the north by the plain of Damascus. It is t] land with an undulating surface, and has little) ical and cup-shaped hills at intervals. The sout' section of it has a rich soil, well watered byj merous springs and streams from Hermon. | greater part of the northern section is entirely’ ferent. The surface of the ground is covered \t jagged rocks; in some places heaped up in | piles, in others sunk into deep pits; at one x smooth and naked, at another seamed with yn ing chasms in whose rugged edges rank grassr weeds spring up. The rock is all basalt, anil formation similar to that of the Lejah. [Arc3 The molten lava seems to have issued fron'l earth through innumerable pores, to haye s)2 over the plain, and then to have been rent shattered while cooling (Porter’s Handbook, p. : Jedir contains thirty-eight towns and village:te of which are now entirely desolate, and all thee: contain only a few families of poor peasants, ]\n in wretched hovels amid heaps of ruins (Por Damascus, ii. 272 ff.). Jets. | * Yet there is some dissent from this vie « the identity of Jetur (Gen. xxv. 15) and Ji and hence of the situation of Itureea as bein 0 the northeastern slope of Jebel Heisch, one oth spurs of Hermon. The German traveller intl Haurdn, Dr. Wetzstein, though he regards t and Itureea as unquestionably the same, mair il that Jetur and Jedir, or Gedwr, are not idera partly on account of the difference in the rné (generally considered unimportant), and partlb cause the Iturzeans, as described by ancient wir must have been a more hardy and powerful than the inhabitants of a few villages in a cou! atively low region like Gedir, and poorly protte against invasion and subjugation. He placest rea further south, on the summits and on ae ern declivity of the central mountains of the ” ran, now inhabited by a portion of the Druze of the most warlike tribes of the East. He ld that the Biblical Jetur, though now lost, was a : i these mountains, and belonged to an Ishmi tribe, as stated in Gen. xxv. 12 ff. He ales also, that a little district like Gedir, so ne t Damascus, would be under the jurisdiction off city, and not form part of an independent tetrahy The farms and villages there at present are ce by patrician families of Damascus. See thiau thor’s Reisebericht tiber Haurdn und die Tri men, pp. 88-92. The derivation of Gediir 0 Jetur, says the writer on “Iturea,” in Ze Bibl. Worterb., s. v. (2te Aufl.), has not ha shown. If the ancient name still remains, i! — a *Pliny assigns Iturea to Coele-Syria in iN v. 19, but does not refer to it in y. 23. i IVAH favors the finding of Iturea in Gediii, as Jso its being assigned by some of the ancient s to Cele-Syria. Yet Coele-Syria, it should d, is a vague designation, and was sometimes 30 as to embrace early all inner Syria from seus to Arabia (see Winer’s Bibl. Realw. i. 3te Aufl.). Dr. ‘Robinson (Phys. Geogr. p. follows the common representation. See, to ame effect, Raumer's Paldstina, p. 227, 4te For a paper on “ Bashan, Iturea, and Ke- by Mr. Porter, author of the above article, ibl. Sacra, xiii. 789-808. TAH, or A’VA (TAY, or SAY [destruc- ruins, Ges.]: ’ABd, [in Is. (with Hena), rovryava, Vat. (with Hena) Avaryovyava} . Aovdy; in 2 K. xviii., Vat. omits, Alex. in xix., Vat. Ovdov, Alex. Avra:] Ava), is mentioned in Scripture twice (2 K. xviii. ix. 13; comp. Is. xxxvii. 13: in connection Hena and Sepharvaim, and once (2 K. xvii. connection with Babylon and Cuthah, must ight in Babylonia, and is probably identical she modern Hit, which is the “Is of Herodotus )). This town lay on the Euphrates, between ra (Sepharvaim) and Anah (Hena), with _ it seems to have been politically united y before the time of Sennacherib (2 K. xix. It is probably the Ahava (SIT) of Ezra 15). The name is thought to have been ally derived from that of a Babylonian god, who represents the sky or ther, and to _the town is supposed to have been dedicated '. Rawlinson, in Rawlinson’s Herodotus, i. tote). In this case Jovah (TTY) would seem the most proper pointing. The pointing or rather Avva (SAY), shows a corruption of lation, which might readily pass on to Ahava ‘S). In the Talmud the name appears as (7). and hence would be formed the “Is, and the modern Hit, where the ¢ is \7 the feminine ending. Isidore of Charax | to intend the same place by his ’Ac/-zoArs 8. Parth. p. 5). Some have thought that: it as Jst in the Egyptian Inscriptions of the f Thothmes III., about B. c. 1450 (Birch, in | Bigyptiaca, p- 80). 8 place has always been famous for its bitu- /prings. It is bitumen which is brought to poe Il. as tribute from /st. From /s, ac- “ to Herodotus, was obtained the bitumen 7 48 cement in the walls of Babylon (i. s. c.). (2 calls Aeipolis “the place where are the le Springs” (Zy0a- dopadrirides mnyat). | Springs still exist at Hit, and sufficiently ' the identity of that place with the Herodo- \ and therefore probably with the Jvah of ure, They have been noticed by most of our otamian travellers (see, among others, Rich’s | Memoir on Babylon, p. 64, and Chesney's 4 es Expedition, i. 55). Cede ORY (]W), shén, in all passages, except 1 K. and 2 Chr. ix. 21, where DDT, shen- i is so rendered). The word shén literally Tag the “tooth? of any animal, and . hence 1 especially denotes the substance of the pro- ty tusks of elephants. By some of the an- Hnations these tusks were imagined to be 75 IVORY 1185 horns (Ez. xxvii. 15; Plin. viii. 4, xviii. 1), though Diodorus Siculus (i. 55) correctly calls them teeth As they were first acquainted with elephants througk their ivory, which was an important article of com- merce, the shape of the tusks, in all probability, led them into this error. It is remarkable that no word in Biblical Hebrew denotes an elephant, unless the latter portion of the compound shenhabbim be supposed to have this meaning. Gesenius derives it from the Sanscrit tbhas, ‘an elephant;’’ Keil (on 1 K. x. 22) from the Coptic eboy; while Sir Henry Rawlinson mentions a word habba, which he met with in the Assyrian inscriptions, and which he understands to mean “the large animal,’’ the term being applied both to the elephant and the camel (Journ. of As. Soc. xii. 463). It is sug- gested in Gesenius’ Zhesaurus (s. v.) that the original reading may have been DID FW, “ivory, ebony ’’ (cf. Ez. xxvii. 15). Hitzig (/saiah, p. 643), without any authority, renders the word “nubischen Zahn.”’ The Targum Jonathan on 1 K. x. 22 has D7 7W, “elephant’s tusk,’” while the Peshito gives simply “elephants.” In the Targum of the Pseudo Jonathan, Gen. 1. 1 is translated, ‘and Joseph placed his father upon a bier of JSD TW” (shindaphin), which is conjec- tured to be a valuable species of wood, but for which Buxtorf, with great probability, suggests as another reading hia 7w), “ivory.” The Assyrians appear to have carried on a great traffic in ivory. ‘Their early conquests in India had made them familiar with it, and (according to one rendering of the passage) their artists supplied the luxurious Tyrians with carvings in ivory from the isles of Chittim (Ez. xxvii. 6). On the obelisk in the British Museum the captives or tribute bearers are represented as carrying tusks. Among the merchandise of Babylon, enumerated in Rev. xviii. 12, are included “all manner vessels of ivory.”’ The skilled workmen of Hiram, king of Tyre, fash- ioned the great ivory throne of Solomon, and over- laid it with pure gold (1 K. x. 18; 2 Chr. ix. 17). The ivory thus employed was supplied by the car- avans of Dedan (Is. xxi. 18; Ez. xxvii. 15), or was brought with apes and peacocks by the navy of Tharshish (1 K. x. 22). The Egyptians, at a very early period, made use of this material in decora- tion. ‘The cover of a small ivory box in the Egyp- tian collection at the Louvre is “ inscribed with the prenomen Nefer-ka-re, or Neper-cheres, adopted by a dynasty found in the upper line of the tablet of Abydos, and attributed by M. Bunsen to the fifth. . . . In the time of Thothmes III. ivory was im- ported in considerable quantities into Wgypt, either ‘in boats laden with ivory and ebony’ from Ethi- opia, or else in tusks and cups from the Ruten-nu. . » « The celebrated car at Florence has its linch- pins tipped with ivory” (Birch, in Trans. of Roy. Soc. of Lit. iii. 2d series). The specimens of Egyptian ivory work, which are found in the prin- cipal museums of Europe, are, most of them, in the opinion of Mr. Birch, of a date anterior to the Persian invasion, and some even as old as the 18th dynasty. The ivory used by the Egyptians was principally brought from [Ethiopia (Herod. iii. 114), though their elephants were originally from Asia. The Ethiopians, according to Diodorus Siculus (i. 55), brought to Sesostris ‘ebony and gold, and the 1186 IVY eth of elephants.” Among the tribute paid by them to the Persian kings were « twenty large tusks of ivory” (Herod. iii. 97). In the Periplus of the Red Sea (¢. 4), attributed to Arrian, Coloe ( Calat) is said to be “the chief mart for ivory.” It was thence carried down to Adouli (Zulla, or Thulla), a port on the Red Sea, about three days’ journey front Coloe, together with the hides of hippopotami, tortoise-shell, apes, and slaves (Plin. vi. 34). The elephants and rhinoceroses, from which it was ob- tained, were killed further up the country, and few were taken near the sea, or in the neighborhood of Adouli. At Ptolemais Theron was found a little ivory like that of Adouli (Peripl. ¢. 3). Ptolemy Philadelphus made this port the depdt of the ele- phant trade (Plin. vi. 34). According to Pliny (viii. 10), ivory was so plentiful on the borders of Ethiopia that the natives made door-posts of it, and even fences and stalls for their cattle. The author of the Periplus (c. 16) mentions Rhapta as another station of the ivory trade, but the ivory brought down to this port is said to have been of an inferior quality, and “ for the most part found in the woods, damaged by rain, or collected from animals drowned by the overflow of the rivers at the equinoxes” (Smith, Dict. Geogr. art. Rhapta). The Egyptian merchants traded for ivory and onyx stones to Barygaza, the port to which was carried down the commerce of Western India from Ozene (Peripl. ce. 49). In the early ages of Greece ivory was frequently employed for purposes of ornament. The trappings of horses were studded with it (Hom. Jl. vy. 584); it was used for the handles of keys (Od. xxi. 7), and for the bosses of shields (Hes. Sc. Here. 141, 142). The “ivory house ” of Ahab (1 K. xxii. 39) was probably a palace, the walls of which were panelled with ivory, like the palace of Menelaus described by Homer (Odys. iv. 73; cf. Eur. Iph. Aul. 583, éAehayTodérot ddmot- Comp. also Am. iil. 15, and Ps. xlv. 8, unless the « ivory palaces ’’ in the latter passage were perfume boxes made of that material, as has been conjectured). Beds inlaid or veneered with ivory were in use among the He- brews (Am. vi. 4; cf. Hom. Od. xxiii. 200), as also among the Egyptians (Wilkinson, Anuc. Egypt. iii. 169). The practice of inlaying and veneering wood with ivory and tortoise-shell is described by Pliny (xvi. 84). The great ivory throne of Solomon, the work of the Tyrian craftsmen, has been already mentioned (cf. Rev. xx. 11); but it is difficult to determine whether the “ tower of ivory”? of Cant. vil. 4 is merely a figure of speech, or whether it had its original among the things that were. By the luxurious Pheenicians ivory was employed to orna- ment the boxwood rowing benches (or “hatches ”’ according to some) of their galleys (Ez. xxvii. 6). Many specimens of Assyrian carving in ivory have been found in the excavations at Nimroud, and among the rest some tablets “richly inlaid with blue and opaque glass, lapis lazuli, ete.’’ (Bonomi, Nineveh and its Palaces, p. 334; ef. Cant. v. 14). Part of an ivory staff, apparently a sceptre, and several entire elephants’ tusks were discovered by Mr. Layard in the last stage of decay, and it was with extreme difficulty that these interesting relics 20uld be restored (Nin. and Bab. p. 195). W. A. W. IVY (xioads: hedera), the common Hedera heliz, af which the ancient Greeks and Romans leseribe two or three kinds, which appear to be IZRAHITE, THE only varieties. Mention of this plant is mad in 2 Mace. vi. 7, where it is said that the were compelled, when the feast of Bacchy kept, to go in procession carrying ivy to this to whom it is well known this plant was s Ivy, however, though not mentioned by nam a peculiar interest to the Christian, as formir “ corruptible crown”? (1 Cor. ix. 25) for whi) competitors at the great Isthmian games conti and which St. Paul so beautifully contrasts the “incorruptible crown”? which shall hei encircle the brows of those who run worthi race of this mortal life. In the Isthmian ec the victor’s garland was either ivy or pine. | WwW. * The ivy (such as is described above) ; wild also in Palestine. G. E. IZ’EHAR ['Iocdap: Jesaar]. The fo, which the name Izhar is given in the A.| Num. iii. 19 only. In ver. 27 the family | same person is given as Izeharites. The Hi word is the same as Izhar. IZEHARITES, THE (27: || adap; Alex. 0 Saap: Jesaarite). “A fam) Kohathite Levites, descended from Izhar tl| of Kohath (Num. iii. 27); called also in the *¢ Tzharites.”’ W. A, | IZ’HAR (spelt Izehar in Num. iii. 1) A. V.; in Heb. always W139 [oil, and per| anointed with oil]: leodap and [1 Chr. y xxiii. 12, 18,] “Iodap [but here Vat. Alex’ Iocaap; Vat. in Ex. iii. au. Iooaxa, ft Ta son of Kohath, grandson of Levi, uncle of 1 and Moses, and father of Korah (Ex. yi. 1) Num. iii. 19, xvi. 1; 1 (Chr. vi. 2, 18). it 1 Chr. vi. 22 Amminadad is substituted for ; as the son of Kohath and father of Korah, | line of Samuel. This, however, must be ok dental error of the scribe, as in ver. 38, whe’! same genealogy is repeated, Izhar appears ag) his right place. The Cod. Alex. in ver. 322% Izhar [Iocaap] in place of Amminadab, art Aldine and Complut. read Amminadab 4 Izhar and Kore, making another generation. these are probably only corrections of thele (See Burrington’s Genealogies of the O. T.) f was the head of the family of the IzHarr IZEHARITES (Num. iii. 27; 1 Chr. xxvi. 2:2 one of the four families of the Kohathites. | Ey oe IZHARITES, THE Gansta 6 La ‘Iocadp, 5 "Iocaapt; [Vat. in 1 Chr. xxi! xxvi. 29, Igoapers] Alex. 0 Iocaapt, nd Ixaapi: Isaari, [saarite). The same as thp ceding. In the reign of David, Shelomith w t chief of the family (1 Chr. xxiv. 22), and wi! brethren had charge of the treasure dedicat, | the Temple (1 Chr. xxvi. 23, 29). W. A. /- IZRAHVAH MII [Jehovah cars sprout forth or appear} : TeCpata, "E(patas Zapewa;] Alex. le(pia: Jzrahia), a man of Iss one of the Bene-Uzzi [sons of U.], and fatir four, or five — which, is not clear — of the jn pal men in the tribe (1 Chr. vii. 8). : IZRAHITE, THE (M77, i. «. i Izrach”* [indigenous, native, Ges., Fiirst] : 6 Tee [Vat. Eopae;] Alex. le(paea: Jezerites), thd ignation of Shamhuth, the captain of th¢fi ; ts ys [as above]: ’IenAd; Alex. Tala), Ezr. ii. 56; and in Esdras as JEELI. ALAM (Boy): whom God hides, Ges.: 3 Thelon, Ihelom), a son of Esau by his wife AMAM (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14, 18; cf. 1 Chr. ‘nda phylarch (A. V. «“duke’’) or head of of Edom. bi Sa ap ANAT [3 syl.] OID: [whom Jehovah i]: “Taviy; [Vat. lovew;] Alex. Tava: ‘'a chief man in the tribe of Gad (1 Chr. The LXX. have connected the following haphat, to Jaanai, and rendered it as I. 6 revs. \RE-OR’EGIM (D°I[N TY [see “Aptwopylu; [Vat. Alex. yet :] Saltus ‘Muus), according to the present text of 2 1. 19, a Bethlehemite, and the father of “who slew Goliath (the words “the brother f'added in the A. V.): | , JAAZANIAH 1187 sage, 1 Chr. xx. 5, besides other differences, Jair is found instead of Jaare, and Oregim is omitted. Oregim is not. elsewhere found as a proper name, nor is it a common word; and occurring as it does without doubt at the end of the verse (A. V. “ weavers ’’), in a sentence exactly parallel to that in 1 Sam. xvii. 7, it is not probable that it should also occur in the middle of the same. The con- clusion of Kennicott (Dissertation, 80) appears a just one—that in the latter place it has been interpolated from the former, and that Jair or Jaor is the correct reading instead of Jaare. [ELHANAN, vol. i. p. 697 a.] Still the agreement of the ancient versions with the present Hebrew text affords a certain corrobora- tion to that text, and should not be overlooked. [J AIR. ] The Peshito, followed by the Arabic, substitutes for Jaare-Oregim the name “ Malaph the weaver,” to the meaning of which we have no clew. The Targum, on the other hand, doubtless anxious to avoid any apparent contradiction of the narrative in 1 Sam. xvii., substitutes David for Elhanan, Jesse for Jaare, and is led by the word Oregim to relate or possibly to invent a statement as to Jesse's calling — “ And David son of Jesse, weaver of the veils of the house of the sanctuary, who was of Bethlehem, slew Goliath the Gittite.”’ By Jerome Jaare is translated by saltus, and Oregim by poly- mitarius (comp. Quest. Heb. on both passages). In Josephus’s account (Ant. vii. 12, § 2) the Israelite champion is said to have been “ Nephan the kins- man of David” (Nepdvos 6 avyyeviys abtod); the word kinsman perhaps referring to the Jewish tra- dition of the identity of Jair and Jesse, or simply arising from the mention of Bethlehem. In the received Hebrew text Jaare is written with a small or suspended r, showing that in the opinion of the Masorets that letter is uncertain. JA’ASAU (WD, but the Keri has WD, i. e. Jaasai [Jehovah makes, or is maker]: and so the Vulg. Jast), one of the Bene-Bani who had married a foreign wife, and had to put her away (Eizr. x. 37). In the parallel list of 1 Esdras the name is not recognizable. The LX.X. had a different text — kal érolnoay = MWY), JAA’SIEL (Ospipy [whom God created]: "lao; [Vat. Aceinp;] Alex. Acma: Jasiel), son of the great Abner, ruler (7922) or “prince” (7227) of his tribe of Benjamin, in the time of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 21). [whom Jehovah hears]). Cle(ovias; [Vat. O¢ovias:] Jezonias), one of the ‘captains of the forces’? who accompanied Johanan ben-Kareah to pay his respects to Gedaliah at Miz- pah after the fall of Jerusalem (2 K. xxv. 23), and who appears afterwards to have assisted in recover- ing Ishmael’s prey from his clutches (comp. Jer. xli. 11). After that, he probably went to Egypt with the rest (Jer. xliii. 4, 5). He is described as the “son of the (not ‘a’) Maachathite.’’ In the narrative of Jeremiah the name is slightly changed to JEZANIAH. 2. YA’AZAN-YA‘HU Clexovias; Alex. TeCovtas: Jezonias), son of Shaphan: leader of the band of seventy of the elders of Israel, who were seer. by In the parallel pas-'| Ezekiel worshipping before the idols on th wall of 1188 JAAZER she court of the house of Jehovah (Ez. viii. 11). It is possible that he is identical with — 3. YA’AZAN-YAW’ (‘lexovias: Jezontas), son of Azur; one of the “ princes”? (17) of the people against whom Ezekiel was directed to prophesy (Kz. xi. 1). 4. YA’AZAN-YAW’ (‘Iexovias: Jezonias), a Re- chabite, son of Jeremiah. He appears to have been the sheikh of the tribe at the time of Jeremiah’s interview with them (Jer. xxxv. 3). [{kHON- ADAD. | JA’AZER and JA’ZER [helper, Ges.; or place hedged about, First: see infra}. (The form of this name is much varied both in the A. V. and the Hebrew, though the one does not follow the other. In Num. xxxii. it is twice given Jazer and once Jaazer, the Hebrew being in all three cases “V=*7" [2], 7. e. Ya’ezzer. Elsewhere in Numbers and in Josh. xiii. it is Jaazer; but in Josh. xxi., in 2 Sam. xxiv., Isaiah and Jeremiah, Jazer: the He- brew in all these is TTY%, Ya’ezer. In Chronicles it is also Jazer; but here the Hebrew is in the extended form of “FY, Ya’ezeir, a form which the Samar. Codex also presents in Num. xxxil. The LXX. have ’Ia¢hp, but once [2 Sam. xxiv. 5] "EAréCep, Alex. EAsa¢np — including the affixed Heb. particle, [and in 1 Chr. vi. 81, Vat. Ta¢ep; xxvi. 31, Vat. Pia (np, Alex. Ta¢np:] Vulg. Jazer, Jaser, [Jezer]). A town on the east of Jordan, in or near to Gilead (Num. xxxii. 1, 8; 1 Chr. xxvi. 31). We first hear of it in possession of the Amorites, and as taken by Israel after Heshbon, and on their way from thence to Bashan (Num. xxi. 82).@ It was rebuilt subsequently by the chil- dren of Gad (xxxii. 35), and was a prominent place in their territory (Josh. xiii. 25; 2 Sam. xxiv. 5). It was allotted to the Merarite Levites (Josh. xxi. 39; 1 Chr. vi. 81), but in the time of David it would appear to have been occupied by Hebronites, i. e. descendants of Kohath (1 Chr. xxvi. 31). It seems to have given its name to a district of de- pendent or “daughter ’’ towns (Num. xxi. 32, A. V. “ villages;’? 1 Mace. v. 8), the “land of Jazer”’ (Num. xxxii. 1). In the “burdens ’’ proclaimed over Moab by Isaiah and Jeremiah, Jazer is men- tioned so as to imply that there were vineyards there, and that the cultivation of the vine had ex- tended thither from SipmMAuH (Is. xvi. 8, 9; Jer. xlviii. 32). In the latter passage, as the text at present stands, mention is made of the “ Sea of Jazer”? (TTY mn). This may have been some pool or lake of water, or possibly is an ancient cor- ruption of the text, the LXX. having a different reading — améArs “I. (See Gesenius, Jesuia, i. 550.) Jazer was known to Eusebius and Jerome, and its position is laid down with minuteness in the Onomasticon as 10 (or 8, s. voc. *ACwp) Roman miles west of Philadelphia (Ammdn), and 15 from Heshbon, and as the source of a river which falls into the Jordan. ‘Two sites bearing the names of Chiirbet Szar and es-Szir, on the road westward of Amman, were pointed out to Seetzen in 1806 (Reisen, 1854, i. 397, 398). The latter of these was passed also by Burckhardt (Sy. 364) at 24 hours @ In Num. xxi, 24, where the present Hebrew text 2as TY (A. V. “ strong”’), the LXX. have read ’Ia¢yp. r JABBOK below Funes going south. The ruins ap have been on the left (east) of the road, anc them and the road is the source of the War (pao); or Mojeb es-Szir (Seetzen), ans) though certainly but imperfectly, to the a, péyioros Of Eusebius. Seetzen conjectur the sea of Jazer may have been at the sou this brook, considerable marshes or pools son existing at these spots. (Comp. his early; tion of the source of the Wady Serka, Szir, or Seir, is shown on the map of Van di as 9 Roman miles W. of Amman, and ab from Heshbon. And here, until further iny tion, we must be content to place Jazer. JAAZI’AH (A339, i. e. Yaaziyayhu Jehovah consoles]: ’O¢ta; [Vat. O¢ea:] . apparently a third son, or a descendant, of | the Levite, and the founder of an inde house in that family (1 Chr. xxiv. 26, 27); he nor his descendants are mentioned au (comp. the lists in xxiii. 21-23; Ex. vi. 1 The word Beno (22), which follows d should probably be translated ‘ his son,” i) son of Merari. | JAA/ZIEL (OSD? [whom God co: "OCHA [ Vat. FA. -€er-]5 Alex. Inova : one of the Levites of the second order w appointed by David to perform the msl before the ark (1 Chr. xv. 18). If AZIEL| 20 is a contracted form of the same nami there is no reason to doubt it (comp. Je: and Asharelah, 1 Chr. xxv. 2, 14) —his_ was to “sound the psaltery on Alamoth.” | * In the A. V. ed. 1611 the name is1 Jaziel, as in the Bishops’ Bible and tl gate. i J A’BAL els [a stream]: "IwBhr { IwBed:] Jabel), the son of Lamech an: (Gen. iv. 20) and brother of Jubal. The scended from a dweller in a city (ver. 1’. described as the father of such as dwell and have cattle, Bochart (Hieroz. i. ii. ¢. |; the end) points out the difference between 1): of life and Abel’s. Jabal’s was a migra’) and his possessions probably included other} besides sheep. The shepherds who were be'é may have found the land on which they d! ficiently productive for .the constant suste' their flocks in the neighborhood of th abodes. a JAB/BOK (2° [streaming forth,” Sim. Ges.]: ['Ia8d«; in Gen. xxxii. 22% laBadx: Jaboe, [Jeboc]), a stream whic ! sects the mountain-range of Gilead (com xii. 2, and 5), and falls into the Jordan ab way between the sea of Galilee and the Lid There is some difficulty in interpreting twc passages of Scripture in which the Jabbok >} of as “the border of the’ children of 4? The following facts may perhaps throw s¢@ upon them: — The Ammonites at one te sessed the whole country between the rive and Jabbok, from the Jordan on the wes ti wilderness on the east. They were drivenit by Sihon king of the Amorites; and he wa) expelled by the Israelites. Yet long subsite these events, the country was popularly ca i JABESH of the Ammonites,’ and was even claimed by (Judg. xi. 12-22). For this reason the Jab- g still called “the border of the children of ion” in Deut. iii. 16, and Josh. xii. 2. Again, the Ammonites were driven out by Sihon their ancient territory, they took possession e eastern plain, and of a considerable section e eastern defiles of Gilead, around the sources upper. branches of the Jabbok. * Rabbath-Am- their capital city (2 Sam. xi.), stood within mountains of Gilead, and on the banks of a tary to the Jabbok. This explains the state- in Num. xxi. 24 — “Israel possessed his m’s) Jand irom Arnon unto Jabbok, unto the ren of Ammon (]VAY DD"TY), for the sr of the children of Ammon was strong’? — order among the defiles of the upper Jabbok strong. ‘This also illustrates Deut. i. 37, ly unto the land of the ¢hildren of Ammon camest not, unto every place of the torrent ok (2) Sn 13-53), and unto the cities ie mountains, and every place which the Lord 30d forbad.’’ was on the south bank of the Jabbok the in- ew took place between Jacob and Esau (Gen. . 22); and this river afterwards became, to- s its western part, the boundary between the doms of Sihon and Og (Josh. xii. 2, 5). Euse- ‘tightly places it between Gerasa and Phila- ria (Onom. s. v.); and at the present day it rates the province of Belka from Jebel Ajlin. yodern name is Wady Zurka. It rises in the au east of Gilead, and receives many tributaries both north and south in the eastern declivities 1e mountain-range — one of these comes from ‘sa, another from Rabbath-Ammon; but all of \ are mere winter streams. The Zurka cuts igh Gilead in a deep, narrow defile. Through- she lower part of its course it is fringed with ‘ets of cane and oleander, and the banks above lothed with oak-forests. Towards its mouth stream is perennial, and in winter often im- ble. 5 PB! BG ‘For other notices of the Jabbok, its history scenery, the reader may see Robinson’s Phys. mw. pp. 57, 156 f.; Tristram’s Land of Israel, \:16, 563 (2d ed.); Stanley’s S. g¢ P. p. 290 er. ed.); Porter’s Handbook of Syria, p. 310 f.; ‘Lynch’s Expedition to the Dead Sea, p. 253. ‘ford of Jabbok which Jacob crossed with his /y on his return from Mesopotamia (Gen. xxxii. ) is pointed out at Kalaat Serka, on the great ascus road through Gilead. A. legend which vadicts the Biblical account assigns the passage je Jordan, north of the Sea of Galilee. See ts Geogr. of Palestine, Gage’s transl. ii. 228. depression which marks the valley of the Zerka ook) ean be seen from the heights near Bethel \. dtes. i. 444, 2d ed.). ] A’BESH (wo) [dry, parched]: "laBis ; F ToBes;] Alex. ABers, IaBers; Joseph. jigos: Jabes). 1. Father of SHALLUM, the \ king of Israel (2 K. xv. 10, 13, 14). [Vat. laBers; Alex. in 1 Sam., EvaBeis; in tay IaBers.| ‘The short form of the name /siGitzan (1 Chr. x. 12 only). [The short Vee ata in 1 Sam. xi. 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, XXxl. ABESH-GILEAD (TY'72 WR), also i 1189 Wr", 1 Sam. xi. 1, 9, &e., dry, from WD), to be dry; [1 Sam. xi. 1, 2 Sam. xxi. 12,] "IaBls [Vat. Alex. -Bes | Tadaad; [1 Sam. xi. 9; IaBis (Vat -Bets); Alex. EraBets Tadaad; 1 Sam. xxxi. 11, 2 Sam. ii. 4, 5, IaBis (Vat. -Bets, Alex. E:aBets) THs Tadaadiridos (Vat. -Se-); 1 Chr. x. 11, Tadadd:] Jabes Galaad), or Jabesh in the terri- tory of Gilead. [GILEAD.] In its widest sense Gilead included the half tribe of Manasseh (1 Chr. XXVii. 21) as well as the tribes of Gad and Reuben (Num. xxxii. 1-42) east of the Jordan —and of the cities of Gilead, Jabesh was the chief. It is first mentioned in connection with the cruel vengeance taken upon its inhabitants for not coming up to Mizpeh on the occasion of the fierce war between the children of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin. Every male of the city was put to the sword, and all virgins — to the number of 400 —seized to be given in marriage to the 600 men of Benjamin that remained (Judg. xxi. 8-14). Nevertheless the city survived the loss of its males; and being attacked subsequently by Nahash the Ammonite, gave Saul an opportunity of displaying his prowess in its defense, and silencing all objections made by the children of Belial to his sovereignty (1 Sam. xi. 1-15). Neither were his exertions in behalf of this city unrequited; for when he and his three sons were slain by the Philistines in Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. xxxi. 8), the men of Jabesh-Gilead came by night and took down their corpses from the walls of Beth-shan where they had been exposed as trophies; then burnt the bodies, and buried the bones under a tree near the city — observing a strict funeral fast for seven days (ibid. 13). David does not forget to bless them for this act of piety towards his old master, and his more than brother (2 Sam. ii. 5); though he afterwards had their remains translated to the ancestral sepulchre in the tribe of Benjamin (2 Sam. xxi. 14). As to the site of the city, it is not defined in the O. T., but Euse- bius (Onomast. s. v.) places it beyond Jordan, 6 miles from Pella on the mountain-road to Gerasa; where its name is probably preserved in the Wady Yabes, which, flowing from the east, enters the Jordan below Beth-shan or Scythopolis. Accord- ing to Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res. iii. 319), the ruin ed-Deir, on the S. side of the Wady, still marks its site. E. 8. Ff. JA’BEZ (YBY [who causes sorrow, Ges.; possibly a high place, First]: "IdBis; [Vat-. Ta- pecap;] Alex. TaBns: Jabes), apparently a place at which the families of the scribes (a75D) resided, who belonged to the families of the Kenites (1 Chr. ii. 55). It occurs among the descendants of Salma, who was of Judah, and closely connected with Bethlehem (ver. 51), possibly the father of Boaz; and also — though how is not clear — with Joab. The Targum states some curious particulars, which, however, do not much elucidate the diffi- culty, and which are probably a mixture of trust- worthy tradition and of mere invention based on philological grounds. Rechab is there identified with Rechabiah the son of Eliezer, Moses’ younger son (1 Chr. xxvi. 25), and Jabez with Othniel the Kenezzite, who bore the name of Jabez “ because he founded by his counsel (TEP) a school (SE°DTN)) of disciples called Tirathites, Shim- eathites, ‘and Sucathites.”” See also the quotations JABEZ 1190 JABIN JABNEEL from Tal nud, Temurah, in Buxtorf's Lex. col. 966, | time, Josh. xi. 18), Joshua “turned back where a similar derivation is given. perhaps on some fresh rebellion of Jabin, j 2. ['IyaBhs; Alex. layBns, FaBns-] The name jon him a signal and summary vengeanee, 1 occurs again in the genealogies of Judah (1 Chr. | Hazor an exception to the general rule of noi iv. 9,10) in a passage of remarkable detail inserted ing the conquered cities of Canaan (xi. in a genealogy again connected with Bethlehem Joseph. Ant. vy. 1, § 18; Ewald, Gesch. ii. : (ver. 4). Here a different force is attached to the| 2. [In Judg., IaBiv (Vat. -Bew); Alex. | ‘ ° Pee ’ / H a name. It is made to refer to the sorrow Gaines IaBew; in Ps., "TaBety.) A king of Hazor, i { j : : reneral Sisera was defeated by Barak, wh otzeb) with which his mother bore him, and also to 4 described in much the ae tatine ag Pa his prayer that evil may not grieve QALY) him. | predecessor (Judg. iv. 8, 13), and who suffer Jabez was “more honorable than his brethren,’’ | cisely the picgon fate. We have already poini though who they were is not ascertainable. It is | the minute similarity of the two narratives very doubtful whether any connection exists be- | X1-3 Judg. lv., v.), and an attentive compar. tween this genealogy and that in ii. 50-55. Several | them with Josephus (who curiously omits thi names appear in both — Hur, Ephratah, Bethlehem, |of Jabin altogether in his mention of Ji Zareathites (in A. V. iv. 2 inaccurately “ Zorath- | Victory, although _his account is full of « ites”), Joab, Caleb; and there is much similarity | Would easily supply further points of resem between others, as Rechab and Rechah, Eshton and [BaraK; Desoran.] It is indeed by no Eshtaulites; but any positive connection seéms un- | impossible that if the course of 150 years demonstrable. The Targum repeats its identifica- | Should have risen from its ashes, and evel tion of Jabez and Othniel. sumed its preéminence under sovereigns w These passages in the Targums are worthy of | bore the old dynastic name. But entirely remark, not only because they exemplify the same |Pendent considerations show that the pert labit of playing on words and seeking for deriva- | tween Joshua and Barak could not have be tions which is found in the above and many other years, and indeed tend to prove that tho passages of the Bible, both early and late, but also | chiefs were contemporaries (Hervey, Gen’ because, as often as not, the puns do not now exist | 228); and we are therefore led to regard in the Rabbinical Hebrew in which these para- | 2ccounts of the destruction of Hazor and J; phrases are written, although they appear if that |Teally applying to the same monarch, and th, Kabbinical Hebrew is translated back into Biblical event. What is to prevent Us from supposir’ Ilebrew. There are several cases of this in the |Jabin and his confederate kings were defeate Targum above quoted, namely, on 1 Chr. ii. 55 (see | by J oshua and by Barak, and that distinet Bt Tirathim, Socathim, etc.), and others in the Tar- | of both victories were preserved? The most: gum on Ruth, in the additions to the genealogy at | Teader of the narrative cannot but be struck the end of that book. One example will show what |remarkable resemblance between the two 11 pice There is no ground whatever to throw dou is intended. “Obed (T2)Y) was he who served the historical veracity of the earlier narrativia the Lord of the world with a perfect heart.” done by Hasse (p. 129), Maurer (ad loc.), “Served” in Biblical Hebrew is 2D, from the | 0” Jes, p- 90), and De Wette (Hinl. p': same root as Obed, but in the dialect of the Tar- according to Keil, on Josh. xi. 10-15; 4 gum it is TOD, so that the allusion (like that Rosenmiiller (Schol. Jos. xi. 11); but wh chronological arguments are taken into con\ in Coleridge’s famous pun) exists, as it stands, neither for the eye nor the ear. tion, we do not (in spite of the difficulties still remain) consider Hiivernick successful d : A moving the improbabilities which beset thi JA’BIN (2? [intelligent, Fiirst; one whom | ron sappeattion that this Jabin lived long God observes, Ges.]: "IaBis; [Vat. Alex. IaBeis:| the one which Joshua defeated. At any 12 Jabin}). 1, King of Hazor, a royal city in the cannot agree with Winer in denouncing any alt north of Palestine, near the waters of Merom, who | ¢o identify them with each other as the 1 organized a confederacy of the northern ae ultra of uncritical audacity. Fk, Wi against the Israelites (Josh. xi. 1-3). He assembled A 4 : an army, which the Scripture narrative merely com- JAB NEEL (SIR) [God per pares to the sands for multitude (ver. 4), but which | ¢0 ui/d]). The name of two towns in P om Josephus reckons at 300,000 foot, 10,000 horse, and| 1. (In O. T. AeBvd; [Vat. Aeuvas] Alesic 20,000 chariots. Joshua, encouraged by God, sur-|vmA; in Apoer. *Iauvela: Jebneel, J ep prised this vast army of allied forces “ by the waters of Merom’’ (ver. 7; near Kedesh, according to of the points on the northern boundary of «1 not quite at the sea, though near it (Jo'. Josephus), utterly routed them, cut the hoof-sinews |11). There is no sign, however, of its ever | of their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire | been occupied by Judah. Josephus (Ant. ‘1 at a place which from that circumstance may haye | 22) attributes it to the Danites. There was » derived its name of MisrepHorH-Marm (Hervey, | Stant struggle going on between that, tribe a’! On the Genealogies, p- 228). [MisrEPHOTH- Philistines for the possession of all the pla ‘ Marm.] It is probable that in consequence of this | the lowland plain [DAN], and it is not sur! battle the confederate kings, and Jabin among that the next time we meet with Jabneel it >t them, were reduced to vassalage, for we find im- |be in the hands of the latter (2 Chr. xxvi. Bt mediately afterwards that Jabin is safe in his capital. But during the ensuing wars (which occupied some ziah dispossessed them of it, and demolisl fortifications. Here it is in the shorter fo SE a FP aad SEEING Sh th PR Fe @ Tn Josh. xv. 46, after the words * from Ekron,”’ he LXX. add "Ieuva', Jabneh, instead of even unto the sea;” probably reading 772%5% for the ) C word TTD), TT il JABNEEL yen. In its Greek garb, IAMNIA, it is fre- itly mentioned in the Maccabees (1 Mace. iv. y. 58, x. 69, xv. 40), in whose time it was na strong place. According to Josephus (Ant. 8, § 6) Gorgias was governor of it; but the of the Maccabees (2 Mace. xii. 82) has Idu- , At this time there was a harbor on the t, to which, and the vessels lying there, Judas fire, and the conflagration was seen at Jerusa- a distance of about 25 miles (2 Mace. xii. 9). harbor is also mentioned by Pliny, who in con- ence speaks of the town as double — duce Jam- (see the quotations in Reland, p. 823). Like Jon and Gaza, the harbor bore the title of umas, perhaps a Coptic word, meaning the ce on the sea’’ (Reland, p. 590, &c.; Raumer, 4, note, 184, note; Kenrick, Phaenicia, pp. 27, At the time of the fall of Jerusalem, Jabneh one of the most populous places of Judea, and ained a Jewish school of great fame,* whose aed doctors are often mentioned in the Talmud. great Sanhedrim was also held here. In this city, according to an early Jewish tradition, buried the great Gamaliel. His tomb was ed by Parchi in the 14th century (Zunz, in er’s Benj. of Tudela, ii. 439, 440; also 98). he time of Eusebius, however, it had dwindled small place, roAixvn, merely requiring casual tion (Onomasticon). In the 6th century, under inian, it became the seat of a Christian bishop phanius, adv. Her. lib. ii. 730). Under the saders it bore the corrupted name of [belin, and -a title to a line of Counts, one of whom, Jean elin, about 1250, restored to efficiency the fa- s code of the ‘+ Assises de Jérusalem ’’ (Gibbon, 38 ad jin.; also the citations in Raumer, Pa- na, p. 185). he modern village of Yebna, or more accurately 4 (Lins), stands about two miles from the on a slight eminence just south of the Nuhr in, It is about 11 miles south of Jaffa, 7 Ramleh, and 4 from Akir (Ekron). It prob- ‘occupies its ancient site, for some remains of buildings are to be seen, possibly relics of the ess which the Crusaders built there (Porter, dbook, p. 274). G. \Raumer (Paldstina, p. 203, 4te Aufl.) regards jeel and Jabneh as probably the same. First ndw. i. 479) denies that they are the same, re- ‘ing Jabneh indeed as represented by Yebna, the site of Jabneel as lost. The traveller go- ‘Tom Esdud (Ashdod) to Yafa (Joppa) passes | Yebna, conspicuous on a hill to the right, at oot of which is a well from which the water is d by a large wheel. ‘The women of the vil- Mmay be seen here in picturesque groups, with / Water-skins and jars, at almost any hour. A of antique marble forms the front-piece of the tng-trough, and other similar fragments lie ered here and there. At a little distance fur- /South occur a few remains of a Roman aque- The Gamaliel whose tomb is shown at Yebna above) must be understood to be Gamaliel the ger, a grandson of the great Gamaliel who ‘Paul’s teacher. (See Sepp’s Jerus. und das | tS is ¥ Graetz (Geschichte der Juden, iv. 13) speaks of dea of a renowned Jewish school at Jabneh be- » ‘he fall of Jerusalem as unfounded. All its celeb- | if not its existence, was subsequent to that event. H. | | JACHIN 1191 heil. Land, ii. 501.) The origin, studies, and fame of the Jewish school established at Jamnia or Yebna after the destruction of Jerusalem fo1m an important chapter in the history of rabbinical and Biblical literature. Lightfoot furnishes an out- line of the subject ( Opp. ii. pp. 141-144, Amsterd. 1686). The best modern account of this seminary and its influence on the philosophy and religious ideas of the Jews is probably that of Dr. H. Graetz in the opening chapter of his Geschichte der Juden, vol. iv. (Berlin, 1853). The reader may see also Jost’s Geschichte der Israeliten, iii. 185 ff.; and Dean Milman’s History of the Jews, vol. ii. bk. xvii. (Amer. ed.). H 2. (‘IepOapul; Alex. IaByna; [Comp. vihr:] Jebnaél.) One of the landmarks on the boundary of Naphtali (Josh. xix. 33, only). It is named next after Adami-Nekeb, and had appar- ently Lakkum between it and the “ outgoings ’’ of the boundary at the Jordan. But little or no clew can be got from the passage to its situation. Doubtless it is the same place which, as "Iauvela (Vita, § 37), and "lauvid (B. J. ii. 20, § 6), is mentioned by Josephus among the villages in Upper Galilee, which, though strong in themselves (ze7- podes odcas), were fortified by him in anticipation of the arrival of the Romans. The other villages named by him in the same connection are Meroth, Achabare, or the rock of the Achabari, and Seph. Schwarz (p. 181) mentions that the later name of Jabneel was Kefi Yamuth,° the village by the sea. Taking this with the vague indications of Josephus, we should be disposed to look for its traces at the N. W. part of the Sea of Galilee, in the hill coun- try. G. JAB/NEH (713 |» [he lets or causes to build]: *IaBunp; [Vat. ABevynp5] Alex. IaBers: Jabnia), 2 Chr. xxvi. 6. [JABNEEL.] JA’CHAN (jay) [affliction or afflicted]: Iwaydv; [Vat. Xma:] Alex. Iaxay: Jachan), one of seven chief men of the tribe of Gad (1 Chr. vy. 13). J A’CHIN (p>) [he shall establish]: in Kings, "Iaxovn, Alex. Iaxouv; but in Chr. Ka- TépOwors in both MSS.; Josephus, "Iaxiv: Jachin, Jachim), one of the two pillars which were set up ‘in the porch”’ (1 K. vii. 21) or before the temple (2 Chr. iii. 17) of Solomon. It was the “right- hand ”’ one of the two; by which is probably meant the south (comp. 1 K. vii. 39). However, both the position and the structure of these famous columns are full of difficulties, and they will be most suit- ably examined in describing the TEMPLE. Inter- preted as a Hebrew word Jachin signifies firmness [See Boaz 2.] J A’CHIN (2) [as above |: "Axely, "layxely, ‘axlv; [in Num., Vat. Alex. Iayeiw; in Gen. and Ex.,] Alex. Iayeu: Jachin). 1. Fourth son of Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10; Ex. vi. 15); founder of the family of the JACHINITES (Num. xxvi. 12). 2. [In 1 Chr. ix. and Neh., ’Iaxiv, Vat. Alex. Iaxewv; in 1 Chr. xxiv., ’Axiu, Vat. Ayer, Alex. Iaxew.] Head of the 21st course of priests in the time of David. Some of the course returned from Babylon (1 Chr. ix. 10, xxiv. 17; Neh. xi. TaB- b Can the name in the Vat. LXX. (given above) be a corruption of this? It van hardly be corrupted from Jamnia or Jabneel, 1192 JACHINITES, THE 10). [Joraris.] Jacimus, the original name of Alcimus (1 Mace. vii. 5, &e.; Joseph. Ant. xii., ix. § 7), who was the first of his family that was high- priest, may possibly have been in Hebrew Jachin, though the « more properly suggests Jakim. "Axelu, ACHIM (Matt. i. 14), seems also to be the same name. A Cond. JA/CHINITES, THE (13°25/77 [see above] : "Taxi [Vat. -ver.]; Alex. 0 Iaxew: familia Ja- chinitarum), the family founded by JACHIN, son of Simeon (Num. xxvi. 12). JACINTH (SdxivOos: hyacinthus), a precious stone, forming one of the foundations of the walls of the new Jerusalem (Rey. xxi. 20). It seems to be identical with the Hebrew leshem (eared, A. V. “ligure’*), which was employed in the forma- tion of the high-priest’s breastplate (Ex. xxviii. 19). The jacinth or hyacinth is a red variety of zircon, which is found in square prisms, of a white, gray, red, reddish-brown, yellow, or pale-green color. Li- gurite is a crystallized mineral of a yellowish-green or apple-green hue, found in Liguria, and thence deriving its name. It was reputed to possess an attractive power similar to that of amber (Theo- phrast. Lapp. 28), and perhaps the Greek Arvydpiov, which the LXX. gives, was suggested by an appar- ent reference to this quality (as if from Aelyey, “to lick’’?). The expression in Rev. ix. 17, “of jacinth,” applied to the breastplate, is descriptive simply of a hyacinthine, i. e. dark-purple color, and has no reference to the stone. JA/COB (AP D5 = supplanter: "landbB: Ja- cob), the second son of Isaac and Rebekah. He was born with Esau, when Isaac was 59 and Abra- ham 159 years old, probably at the well Lahai-roi. His history is related in the latter half of the book of Genesis. He grew up a quiet, domestic youth, the favorite son of his mother. He bought the birthright from his brother Esau; and afterwards, at his mother’s instigation, acquired the blessing intended for Esau, by practicing a well-known de- ceit on Isaac. Hitherto the two sons shared the wanderings of Isaac in the South Country; but now Jacob, in his 78th year, was sent from the family home, to avoid his brother, and to seek a wife among his kindred in Padan-aram. As he passed through Bethel, God appeared to him. After the lapse of 21 years he returned from Padan- aram with two wives, two concubines, eleven sons, and a daughter, and large property. He escaped from the angry pursuit of Laban, from a rencontre with Esau, and from the vengeance of the Canaan- ites provoked by the murder of Shechem; and in each of those three emergencies he was aided and strengthened by the interposition of God, and in sign of the grace won by a night of wrestling with God his name was changed at Jabbok into Israel (‘soldier of God’’). Deborah and Rachel died before he reached Hebron; and it was at Hebron, in the 122d year of his age, that he and Esau buried their father Isaac. Joseph, the favorite son of Jacob, was sold into Egypt eleven years before the death of Isaac; and Jacob had probably ex- ceeded his 180th year when he went thither, being encouraged in a divine vision as he passed for the last time through Beer-sheba. He was presented to Pharaoh, and dwelt for seventeen years in Ram- eses and Goshen. After giving his solemn blessing “0 Ephraim and Manasseh, and his own sons one: JACOB by one, and charging the ten to complete reconciliation with Joseph, he died in his year. His body was embalmed, carried with care and pomp into the land of Canaan, and ited with his fathers, and his wife Leah, in th of Machpelah. The example of Jacob is quoted by the fir the last of the minor prophets. Hosea, in #] ter days of the kingdom, seeks (xii. 3, 4, : convert the descendants of Jacob from thei of alienation from God, by recalling to their ory the repeated acts of God’s favor shown t ancestor. And Malachi (i. 2) strengthens tl sponding hearts of the returned exiles by as: them that the love which God bestowed upon was not withheld from them. Besides the fre mention of his name in conjunction with th the other two Patriarchs, there are distinet ences to events in the life of Jacob in four of the N. T. In Rom. ix. 11-13, St. Paul a the history of Jacob’s birth to prove that the of God is independent of the order of nab scent. In Heb. xii. 16, and xi. 21, the trans the birthright and Jacob’s dying benedictic referred to. His vision at Bethel, and his i sion of land at Shechem are cited in St. J 51, and iv. 5,12. And St. Stephen, in his}: (Acts vii. 12-16), mentions the famine whic the means of restoring Jacob to his lost | Egypt, and the burial of the patriach in She| Such are the events of Jacob’s life re Scripture. Some of them require addition: tice. : 1. For the sale of his birthright to Jacob. is branded in the N. T. as a “profane pe (Heb. xii. 16). The following sacred and i tant privileges have been mentioned as com) with primogeniture in patriarchal times, a! constituting the object of Jacob’s desire. (a perior rank’in the family: see Gen. xlix. 3, 4/ A double portion of the father’s property; so! Ezra: see Deut. xxi. 17, and Gen. xlviii. 22. The priestly office in the patriarchal chure. Num. viii. 17-19. In favor of this, see ‘ | ( p ad Evang. Ep. \xxiii. § 6; Jarchi im Gen. Estius in Hebr. xii.; Shuckford’s Connexio: vii.; Blunt, Undes. Coincid. pt. i. 1, §§ 2, 32 against it, Vitringa, Obs. Sac., and J. D. Mice Mosasch. Recht, ii. § 64, cited by Rosenmiir Gen. xxv. (d.) A conditional promise or adub tion of the heavenly inheritance: see Carts in the Crit. Sacr. on Gen. xxy. (e.) The py of the Seed in which all nations should be b: though not included in the birthright, maj) been so regarded by the patriarchs, as it their descendants, Rom. ix. 8, and Shuckfor The whole subject has been treated in se essays by Vitringa in his Obs. Sac. pt. i. 1 also by J. H. Hottinger, and by J. J. Sebi cited by Winer. , 2. With regard to Jacob’s acquisition (|! father’s blessing, ch. xxvii., few persons will / the excuse offered by Augustine, Serm. iv.|4 23, for the deceit which he practiced — that |W merely a figurative action, and that his panel of Esau was justified by his previous purch Esau’s birthright. It is not however nec¢! with the view of cherishing a Christian haty | sin, to heap opprobrious epithets upon a {il man whom the choice of God has eae erable in the eyes of believers. Waterland (iv speaks of the conduct of Jacob in language |! : i JACOB ither wauting in reverence nor likely to en- the extenuation of guilt. “I do not know her it be justifiable in every particular: I sus- that it is not. There were several very good laudable circumstances in what Jacob and Re- h did; but I do not take upon me to acquit . of all blame.’’ And Blunt (Undes. Coinc.) ves that none “of the patriarchs can be set s a model of Christian morals. They lived r a code of laws that were not absolutely good, aps not so good as the Levitical: for as this but a preparation for the more perfect law of st, so possibly was the patriarchal but a prep- on for the Law of Moses.’ The circumstances h led to this unhappy transaction, and the pution which fell upon all parties concerned in we been carefully discussed by Benson, Hulsean ures (1822) on Scripture Difficulties, xvi. and See also Woodgate’s Historical Sermons, ix.; Maurice, Patriarchs and Lawgivers, vy. On the ment of the prophecies concerning Esau and b,and on Jacob’s dying blessing, see Bp. Newton, stations on the Prophecies, §§ iii. and iv. Jacob’s vision at Bethel is considered by ius in a treatise, De Scald Jacobi, in the aurus novus Theologico-Philologicus, i. 195. also Augustine, Serm. cxxii. His stratagem Laban’s cattle is commented on by Jerome, st. m Gen. Opp. iii. 352, and by Nitschmann, orylo Jacobi in Thes. nov. Theol.-Phil. i. 201. Jacob’s polygamy is an instance of a patri- I practice quite repugnant to Christian moral- ut to be accounted for on the ground that the had not then come for a full expression of the f God on this subject. The mutual rights of md and wife were recognized in the history ie Creation; but instances of polygamy are. nt among persons mentioned in the sacred ls from Lamech (Gen. iv. 19) to Herod oh. Ant. xvii. 1,§ 2). In times when frequent increased the number of captives and orphans, educed nearly all service to slavery, there may been some reason for extending the recognition orotection of the law to concubines or half- ‘48 Bilhah and Zilpah. And in the case of ',it is right to bear in mind that it was not ‘ginal intention to marry both the daughters yan. (See on this subject Augustine, Contra ‘um, xxii. 47-54.) Jacob's wrestling with the angel at Jabbok is bject.of Augustine’s Sermo v.; compare with Civitate Dei, xvi. 39. Jacob may be traced a combination of the patience of his father with the acquisitiveness seems to have marked his mother’s family; 1 Esau, as in Ishmael, the migratory and in- Tent character of Abraham was developed into iterprising habits of a warlike hunter-chief. | whose history occupies a larger space, leaves > Yeader’s mind a less favorable impression ‘ither of the other patriarchs with whom he | ed in equal honor in the N. T. (Matt. viii. ) But in considering his character we must f mind that we know not what limits were | those days to the knowledge of God and the |Ying influence of the Holy Spirit. A timid, itful boy would acquire no self-reliance in a ‘d home. There was little scope for the 8 of Intelligence, wide sympathy, generosity, *8. Growing up a stranger to the great at Sreat sorrows of natural life — deaths, and , and births; inured to caution and restraint | f (2 ee ee eee JACOB in the presence of a more vigorous brother; secretly stimulated by a belief that God designed for him some superior blessing, Jacob was perhaps in a fair way to become a narrow, selfish, deceitful, disap- pointed man. But, after dwelling for more than half a life-time in solitude, he is driven from home by the provoked hostility of his more powerful brother. Then in deep and bitter sorrow the out- cast begins life afresh long after youth has passed, and finds himself brought first of all unexpectedly into that close personal communion with God which elevates the soul, and then into that enlarged inter- course with men which is capable of drawing out all the better feelings of human nature. An unseen world was opened. God revived and renewed to him that slumbering promise over which he had brooded for threescore years, since he learned it in childhood from his mother. Angels conversed with him. Gradually he felt more and more the watch- ful care of an ever present spiritual Father. Face to face he wrestled with the Representative of the Almighty. And so, even though the moral conse- quences of his early transgressions hung about him, and saddened him with a deep knowledge of all the evil of treachery and domestic envy, and partial judgment, and filial disobedience, yet the increasing revelations of God enlightened the old age of the patriarch; and at last the timid “ supplanter,’’ the man of subtle devices, waiting for the salvation of Jehovah, dies the “soldier of God”’ uttering the messages of God to his remote posterity. For reflections on various incidents in Jacob’s life, see Bp. Hall’s Contemplutions, bk. iii. Many rabbinical legends concerning him may be found in Eisenmenger’s Entd. Judenthum, and in the Jerusalem Targum. In the Koran he is often mentioned in conjunction with the other two patri- archs (ch. 2, and elsewhere). We Ti * Some of the other writers on the subject of this article may be mentioned: Hess, Geschichte der Patriarchen, ii. 67-423, the fullest of his Scripture histories. Kurtz, Geschichte des A. Bundes, i. 239- 338, valuable as a historical sketch, and for its vindication of the narrative against objections. Ranke, Untersuchungen tiber den Pentateuch, i. 50 ff. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israels, i. 489- 519 (3te Aufl.). Drechsler, especially on Jacob’s and Ksau’s character, Die HKinheit und Echtheit der Genesis, pp. 230-237. Winer, Realw. i. 522 ff. Auberlen, “ Jakob”? in Herzog’s Real-Encyk. vi. 373-378. Wunderlich, “ Jakob’’ in Zeller’s Bibl. Worterb. i. 649-650. Heim, Bibelstunden, 1845. Kitto, Daily Biblical Illustrations, with additions by J. L. Porter, i. 294-335 (ed. 1866). Thomson, Land and Book, ii. 23-29, 354 f., 398 f. Blunt, Veracity of the Book of Moses, ch. viii. Milman, History of the Jews, i. 75-108. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, i. 58-82 (Amer. ed.). Quarry, Genesis and its Authorship, pp- 482-508, 566-575 (Lond. 1866). The portions of Genesis relating to Jacob are fully and ably treated here in opposition to critics of the Colenso school. See HARAN (Amer. ed.) for supposed dif- ficulties connected with Jacob’s flight from Meso- potamia. Dean Stanley takes decided ground against those who entertain a disparaging view of Jacob's char- acter as compared with that of Esau. We quote a part of his reply to that adverse opinion: ‘“ Tak- ing the two from first to last, how entirely is the judgment of Scripture and the judgment of pos- terity confirmed by the result of the whole. The 1194 JACUBUS JAEL rere impulsive hunter vanishes away, light as air: | was overthrown, 7. e. in the reign of Alexar ‘he did eat and drink, and rose up and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.’ The substance, the strength of the chosen family, the true inheritance of the promise of Abraham, was interwoven with the very essence of the character of the ‘plain man, dwelling in tents,’ steady, perse- vering, moving onward with deliberate settled pur- pose, through years of suffering and of prosperity, of exile and return, of bereavement and recovery. The birthright is always before him. Rachel is won from Laban by hard services, ‘and the seven years seemed unto him but a few days for the love he had to her.’ Isaac and Rebekah, and Rebekah’s nurse, are remembered with a faithful, filial remem- brance; Joseph and Benjamin are long and _pas- sionately loved with a more than parental affection, — bringing down his gray hairs for their sakes ‘in sorrow to the grave.’ This is no character to be contemned or scoffed at; if it was encompassed with much infirmity, yet its very complexity de- mands our reverent attention; in it are bound up, as his double name expresses, not one man, but two; by toil and struggle, Jacob, the Supplanter, is gradually transformed into Israel, the Prince of God; the harsher and baser features are softened and purified away; he looks back over his long ca- reer with the fullness of experience and humility. ‘I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies and of all the truth which thou hast shown unto thy servant’ (Gen. xxxii. 10). Alone of the patriarchal family, his end is recorded as invested with the so- lemnity of warning and of prophetic song, ‘ Gather yourselves together, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father.’ We need not fear to acknowledge that the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac was also the God of Jacob.” (Jewish Church, p. 59 f.) HB, JACU’BUS ('IdkovBos; [Vat. IlapaovBoos:] Accubus), 1 Fsdr. ix. 48. [AkkKuB, 4.] JADA (YN [known, skillful]: ladad, and at ver. 32, Aadal, [Vat. Idovda,] Alex. Ieddue: [Jada]), son of Onam, and brother of Shammai, in the genealogy of the sons of Jerahmeel by his wife Atarah (1 Chr. ii. 28, 82). This genealogy is very corrupt in the LXX., especially in the Vatican Codex. Ax, ai, Ee JA/DAU [2 syl.] (VT, but the Keri has NT, i.e. Yaddai [ favorite, friend, Fiirst]: "Iadal; [ Vat. Adia:] Jeddu), one of the Bene-Nebo who had taken a foreign wife, and was compelled by Ezra to relinquish her [Ezr. x. 43). JADDU’A (YAN [known]: 'ladob, 1Sota} “[in Neh. xii. 22, Vat. Iadou, FA.! Adou:] Jeddoa), son, and successor in the high-priesthood, of Jon- athan or Johanan. He is the last of the high- priests mentioned in the O. T., and probably alto- gether the latest name in the canon (Neh. xii. 11, 22), at least if 1 Chr. iii, 22-24 is admitted to be corrupt (see Geneal. of our Lord, pp. 101, 107). His name marks distinctly the time when the latest additions were made to the book of Nehemiah and the canon of Scripture, and perhaps affords a clew to the age of Malachi the prophet. All that we learn concerning him in Scripture is the fact of his oeing the son of Jonathan, and high-priest. We gather also pretty certainly that he was priest in the reign of the last Persian king Darius, and that he was still high-priest after the Persian dynasty Great. Vor the expression “ Darius the Pe must have been used after the accession Grecian dynasty; and had another high-pri ceeded, his name would most likely have bee tioned. Thus far then the book of Nehemia out the truth of Josephus’s history, whiel Jaddua high-priest when Alexander invaded But the story of his interview with Al [ H1GH-PRIEST, vol. ii. p. 1072 b] does not account deserve credit, nor his account of th ing of the temple on Mount Gerizim duri dua’s pontificate, at the instigation of Sa both of which, as well as the accompanying stances, are probably derived from some apc book of Alexandrian growth, since lost, i chronology and history gave way to romai Jewish vanity. Josephus seems to place tl of Jaddua after that of Alexander (A. J. xi, Eusebius assigns 20 years to Jaddua’s po (Geneal. of our Lord, 323 ff.; Selden, di Prideaux, etc.). ARC JADDU’A (YA [as above]: "Teddor FA.) omit;] Alex. Ied8o0ux: Jeddua), oni chief of the people, 7. e. of the laymen, wl the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 21). JA’DON (JV) [judge]: Eddpev | MSS. [rather, in the Roman ed.; Vat. Al omit]: Jadon), a man, who in company ' Gibeonites and the men of Mizpah assisted | the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 7). His tii) Meronothite’’? (comp. 1 Chr. xxvii. 80), | mention of Gibeonites, would seem to po! place Meronoth, and that in the neighbo Gibeon; but no such place has yet been ti Jadon (’Iadév) is the name attributed phus (Ant. viii. 8, § 5) to the man of G Judah, who withstood Jeroboam at the | Bethel — probably intending Ippo the s}. Jerome (Qu. Hebr. on 2 Chr. ix. 29) thee given as Jaddo. JA‘’EL (Ops [climber, Fiirst, and h» goat]: Hex. Syr. Anael: "lah; Joseph? Jahel), the wife of Heber the Kenite. He the chief of a nomadic Arab clan, who ¢ arated from the rest of his tribe, and a his tent under the oaks, which had in cor received the name of “oaks of the wa (A. V. plain of Zaanaim, Judg. iv. 111 neighborhood of Kedesh-Naphthali. ~ [1 Kenires.] The tribe of Heber had seit quiet enjoyment of their pastures by a‘ neutral position in a troublous period descent from Jethro secured them the ¥ regard of the Israelites, and they were si¢ important to conclude a formal peace wi king of Hazor. | In the headlong rout which followed t): of the Canaanites by Barak, Sisera, aband chariot the more easily to avoid notice (con) . Tl, y. 20), fled unattended, and in anP direction from that taken by his army, t of the Kenite chieftainess. ‘ The tent | ' is expressly mentioned either because t I of Heber was in a separate tent (Ros Morgenl. iii. 22), or because the Kenite! was absent at the time. In the sacred % of this almost inviolable sanctuary, Sis€ } well have felt himself absolutely secure P! incursions of the enemy (Calmet, Frag; ’ JAEL although he intended to take refuge among the ites, he would not have ventured so openly to te all idea of oriental propriety by entering a an’s apartments (D’Herbelot, Bibi. Orient. « Haram’’), had he not received Jael’s express, est, and respectful entreaty to do so. He ac- od the invitation, and she flung a mantle @ over as he lay wearily on the floor. When thirst ented sleep, and he asked for water, she brought putter-milk in her choicest vessel, thus ratify- with the semblance of officious zeal the sacred 1 of eastern hospitality. Wine would have less suitable to quench his thirst, and may ibly have been eschewed by Heber’s clan (Jer. , 2). Butter-milk, according to the quotations Jarmer, is still a favorite Arab beverage, and this is the drink intended we infer from yes y. 25, as well as from the direct statement gsephus (ydAa SiepOopds On, Ant. v. 5, § 4), sugh there is no reason to suppose with Josephus the Rabbis (D. Kimchi, Jarchi, etc.), that Jael wsely used it because of its soporific qualities shart, Hieroz. i. 473). But arxiety still pre- ed Sisera from composing himself to rest, until iad exacted a promise from his protectress that would faithfully preserve the secret of his con- nent; till at last, with a feeling of perfect rity, the weary and unfortunate general resigned elf to the deep sleep of misery and fatigue. 1 it was that Jael took in her left hand one ie great wooden” pins (A. V. “nail*’) which ned down the cords of the tent, and in her ; hand the mallet (A. V. ‘¢a hammer’’) used ‘ive it into the ground, and creeping up to her ing and confiding guest, with one terrible blow ed it through Sisera’s temples deep into the \. With one spasm of fruitless agony, with contortion of sudden pain, “at her feet he id, he fell; where he bowed, there he fell down ” (Judg. vy. 27). She then waited to meet jursuing Barak, and led him into her tent that myht in his presence claim the glory of the | i any have supposed that by this act she ful- | the saying of Deborah, that God would sell ja into the hand of a woman (Judg. iv. 9; oh. v. 5, § 4); and hence they have supposed Jael was actuated by some divine and hidden mee. But the Bible gives no hint of such an ration, and it is at least equally probable that rah merely intended to intimate the share of jonor which would be assigned by posterity to wn exertions. If therefore we eliminate the nore monstrous supposition of the Rabbis that 1a was slain by Jael because he attempted to her violence —the murder will appear in all ideous atrocity. A fugitive had asked, and ved dakheel (or protection) at her hands, — he ha defeated, weary, — he was the ally t husband, — he was her invited and honored , —he was in the sanctuary of the haram, — /all, he was confiding, defenseless, and asleep ; 2 1¢ broke her pledged faith, violated her solemn tality, and murdered a trustful and unpro- (1 slumberer. Surely we require the clearest \nost positive statement that Jael was insti- to such a murder by divine suggestion. -‘Mantle” is here inaccurate; the word is ) | DWi] — with the definite article. But as the 1 is not found elsewhere, it is no. possible to rec- JAH 1195 But it may be asked, “Has not the deed ot Jael been praised by an inspired authority?’ ‘¢ Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent’’ (Judg. v. 24). Without stopping to ask when and where Deborah claims for herself any infallibility, or whether, in the passionate moment of patriotic triumph, she was likely to pause in such wild times to scrutinize the moral bearings of an act which had been so splendid a benefit to herself and her people, we may question whether any moral commendation is directly intended. What Debo- rah stated was a fact, namely, that the wives of the nomad Arabs would undoubtedly regard Jael as a public benefactress, and praise her as a popular hervine. The suggestion of Gesenius (TZhes. p. 608 6), Hollmann, and others, that the Jael alluded to in Judg. v. 6 is not the wife of Heber, but some un- known Israelitish judge, appears to us extremely unlikely, especially as the name Jael must almost certainly be the name of a woman (Proy. v. 19, A. V. “roe’’). At the same time it must Le admitted that the phrase “in the days of Jael”’ is one which we should hardly have expected. Wet, * This view of Gesenius that Jael (Judg v. 6}, is the name of a judge otherwise unknown, is also that of Fiirst, Bertheau, Wordsworth, and others. The name is masculine, and very properly used of a man, though such names were often borne by women. Cassel (Richter und Ruth, p. 50) denies that the wife of Heber can be meant in this in- stance, since Deborah was contemporary with her, and would hardly designate her own days as those of Jael. But to suppose with him that Shamgar mentioned in the other line is called Jael (=‘‘ active,” ‘‘ chivalrous ’’) merely as a complimentary epithet, seems far-fetched. From the order of the names, if this Jael was one of the judges, we should be led to place his time between Shamgar and Barak, and so have a more distinct enumeration of the long series of years during which the land was afflicted before the deliverance achieved by Deborah and her allies. H. JA/GUR (7A8 [lodging-place]: ’Acdép; Alex. Iayoup: Jagur), a town of Judah, one of those furthest to the south, on the frontier of Edom (Josh. xv. 21). Kabzeel, one of its companions in the list, recurs subsequently; but Jagur is not again met with, nor has the name been encountered in the imperfect explorations of that dreary region. The Jagur, quoted by Schwarz (p. 99) from the Talmud as one of the boundaries of the territory of Ashkelon, must have been further to the N. W. G. JAH (FI: Kipios: Dominus). The abbre- viated form of “ Jehovah,’’ used only in poetry It occurs frequently in the Hebrew, but with a sin- gle exception (Ps. lxviii. 4) is rendered “ Lord”’ in the A. V. The identity of Jah and Jehovah is strongly marked in two passages of Isaiah (xii. 2, xxvi. 4), the force of which is greatly weakened by the English rendering “the Lord.’’ The former of these should be translated “ for my strength and song is JAH JEHOVAH”’ (comp. Ex. xv. 2); and the latter, “trust ye in Jehovah for ever, for in ognize what the Semicah was. Probably some part of the regular furniture of the tent. b Idooados, LXX.; but according to Josephus, avdypeoy Aor, 1196 JAHATH JAH JEHOVAH is the rock of ages.’”’ “ Praise ye the Lord,’’ or Hallelujah, should be in all cases “praise ye Jah.’”’ In Ps. ixxxix. 8 [9] Jah stands in parallelism with Jehovah the God of hosts” in a passage which is wrongly translated in our version. It should be “O Jehovah, God of hosts, who like thee is strong, O Jah!” W. A. W. JA’HATH (FW [oneness, union]: 140, ["Ied0; Vat. Iee#, Hya: Jahath]). 1. Son of Libni, the son of Gershom, the son of Levi (1 Chr. vi. 20, A. V.). He was ancestor to Asaph (ver. 43). 2. ['1¢9: Leheth.] Head of a later house in the family of Gershom, being the eldest son of Shimei, the son of Laadan., The house of Jahath existed in David’s time (1 Chr. xxiii. 10, 11). A. C. H. 3. (’1¢0; Alex. omits: [Jahath.]) A man in the genealogy of Judah (1 Chr. iy. 2), son of Reaiah ben-Shobal. His sons were Ahumai and Lahad, the families of the Zorathites. If Reaiah and Haroeh are identical, Jahath was a descendant of Caleb ben-Hur. [HARo§EH.] 4. ((’1d0; Vat.] Alex. Iva@.) A Levite, son of Shelomoth, the representative of the Kohathite family of IzHAR in the reign of Dayid (1 Chr. XXiy. 22), 5. [’1é0; Vat. ; Comp. ’Iaé0.] A Merarite Levite in the reign of Josiah, one of the overseers of the repairs to the Temple (2 Chr. xxxiv. 12). JA’HAZ, also JAHA’ZA, JAHA/ZAH, and JAH’ZAH. Under these four forms are given in the A. V. the name of a place which in the Hebrew appears as Y'7> and 7TE1N), the 17 being in some cases —as Num. and Deut. —the particle of motion, but elsewhere an integral addi- tion to the name. It has been uniformly so taken by the LXX., who have "Iagod, and twice ’lacd [once, namely, Judg. xi. 20, where Alex. reads IgpandA]. JAWAz is found Num. xxi. 23; Deut. ii. 82; Judg. xi. 20; Is. xv. 4; Jer. xlviii. 34. In the two latter only is it YiT., without the final rt. The Samaritan Cod. has TTR: Vulg. Jasa. At Jahaz the decisive battle was fought between the children of Israel and Sihon king of the Amo- rites, which ended in the overthrow of the latter and in the occupation by Israel of the whole pas- toral country included between the Arnon and the Jabbok, the Belka of the modern Arabs (Num. xxi. 23; Deut. ii. 82; Judg. xi. 20). It was in the allotment of Reuben (Josh. xiii. 18), though not mentioned in the catalogue of Num. xxxii.; and it was given with its suburbs to the Merarite Levites (1 Chr. vi. 78; and Josh. xxi. 36, though here omitted in the ordinary Hebrew text). Jahazah occurs in the denunciations of Jeremiah and Isaiah on the inhabitants of the ‘ plain coun- try,’ 7. e. the Mishor, the modern Belka (Jer. xlviii. 21, 34; Is. xv. 4); but beyond the fact that at this period it was in the hands of Moab we know noth- ing of its history. From the terms of the narrative in Num. xxi. and Deut. ii., we should expect that Jahaz was in the extreme south part of the territory of Sihon, but yet north of the river Arnon (see Deut. ii. 24, 36; and the words in 31, ‘ begin to possess ’’), and in exactly this position a site named Jazaza is mentioned by Schwarz (227), though by him only. oe JAHDAI But this does not agree with the statetne Eusebius (Onom. ‘Ieaod), who says it was e }in his day between Medeba and AyBois, by he probably intends Dibon, which would Jahaz considerably too far to the north. many others relating to the places east of th Sea, this question must await further re (See Ewald, Geschichte, ii. 266, 271.) JAHA/ZA (TET, «i. ¢. Yahtzah [i down, threshing-floor]: Bacdy; Alex. ; Jassa), Josh. xiii. 18. [Janaz.] | JAHA‘ZAH (iT3TT) [as above]: i ‘Peds, in both MSS.; [FA.1 Pagad, Comp od:] Jaser, Jasa), Josh. xxi. 36 (though ¢ in the Rec. Hebrew Text, and not recogniz the LXX. [perhaps represented by "Ianp] xlviii. 21. [Janaz.] | JAHAZVAH (FNM, i. e Yael [whom Jehovah beholds, Ges.]: "laCias;| FA.1 Aa¢era:] Jaasia), son of Tikvah, app a priest; commemorated as one of the foi originally sided with Ezra in the matter | foreign wives (Ezr. x. 15). In Esdras th becomes EzEcHIAs. JAHA/ZIEL (OSNET [whom God st: ens]). 1. (‘IeCimad; [Vat. FA. leCna:] Je One of the heroes of Benjamin who deser cause of Saul and joined David when he Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 4). 2. (OGha [Vat. FA2 O¢ema:] Jaci priest in the reign of David, whose office it \ conjunction with Benaiah, to blow the trur: the ministrations before the ark, when Day brought it to Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi. 6). [ PRIEST. | 3. (TeCina, laCihas [Vat. O¢ina, lawn! Ia¢ina: [Jahaziel.]) A Kohathite Levite son of Hebron. His house is mentioned in t) meration of the Levites in the time of Di Chr. xxiii. 19; xxiv. 23). A. CE 4. COGHA [ Vat. O¢enr; Comp. i a Jahaziel.) Son of Zechariah, a Levite / Bene-Asaph, who was inspired by the Sy! Jehovah to animate Jehoshaphat and the ai. Judah in a moment of great danger, namel:y they were anticipating the invasion of an er» horde of Moabites, Ammonites, Mehunin! other barbarians (2 Chr. xx. 14). Ps. Ixii entitled a Psalm of Asaph, and this, coupl|: the mention of Edom, Moab, Ammon, andi in hostility to Israel, has led some to corX with the above event. [GEBAL.] But, ly desirable, this is very uncertain. 5. (ACifa; [Vat. Alex. omit:] Lzechie: ‘‘son of Jahaziel”’ was the chief of the Be- caniah [sons of §.] who returned from 1b; with Ezra, according to the present state! Hebrew text (Ezr. viii. 5). But according LXX., and the parallel passage in 1 Esdr. (v. a name has escaped from the text, and ita read, “of the Bene-Zathoe (probably 2° Shecaniah son of Jahaziel.” In the lattep the name appears as JEZELUS. JAH’DAT [2 syl.] OTR i. e. Yehdai Jehovah leads]: ’ASS8at; [ Vat. Inoov3] At Sai: Jahoddai), a man who appears to bem" abruptly into the genealogy of Caleb, as thiat of six sons (1 Chr. ii. 47). Various sug} = a JAHDIEL JAIRITE, THE 1197 -ip:] Jair). 1. A man who on his father’s side was descended from Judah, and on his mother’s from Manasseh. His father was Segub, son of Hezron the son of Pharez, by his third wife, the daughter of the great Machir, a man so great that his name is sometimes used as equivalent to that of Manasseh (1 Chr. ii. 21, 22). Thus on both sides he was a member of the most powerful family of each tribe. By Moses he is called the * son of Manasseh ’”? (Num. xxxii. 41; Deut. iii. 14), and according to the Chronicles (1 Chr. ii. 23), he was one of the “sons of Machir the father of Gilead.” This designation from his mother rather than his father, perhaps arose from his haying settled in the tribe of Manasseh, east of Jordan. During the conquest he performed one of the chief feats re- corded. He took the whole of the tract: of ARGoB (Deut. iii. 14 [comp. Josh. xiii. 30]), the naturally inaccessible Trachonitis, the modern Lejah — and in addition possessed himself of some nomad vil- lages in Gilead, which he called after his own name, HAvvoru-JAIR (Num. xxxii. 41; 1 Chr. ii. 23). None of his descendants are mentioned with certainty; but it is perhaps allowable to con- sider IRA THE JAIRITE as one of them. Possibly another was — ’ 2. [Iatp; Vat. Iaep; Alex. Ine, Aeip.] “JAR THE GILEADITE,”’ who judged Israel for two and twenty years (Judg. x. 3-5). He had thirty sons who rode thirty asses (o*9»y), and possessed thirty “ cities ’’ (oy) in the land of Gilead, which, like those of their namesake, were called Havvoth-Jair. Possibly the original twenty- three formed part of these. Josephus (Ant. v. 7, § 6) gives the name of Jair as ’Iaeipns; he declares him to have been of the tribe of Manasseh, and his burial place, CAMoN, to have been in Gilead. [HAvorn-J AIR. ] 3. ['Idipos; Vat. FA. Iaerpos; Alex. Iarpos. | A Benjamite, son of Kish and father of Mordecai (Esth. ii. 5). In the Apocrypha his name is given as J AIRUS, 4. Coe [whom God awakens]: a totally dif- erent name from the preceding ; *Iatp; [Vat. Iaecp;] Alex. Adeip: Saltus.) The father of Elhanan, one of the heroes of David’s army, who killed Lachmi the brother of Goliath (1 Chr. xx. 5). In the orig- inal Hebrew text (Cethib) the name is Jaor (799%). In the parallel narrative of Samuel (2 Sam. xxi. 19) Jaare-Oregim is substituted for Jair. The arguments for each will be found under ELuA- NAN and JAARE-OREGIM. In the N. Test., as in the Apocrypha, we en- counter Jair under the Greek form of JAIRUS. G. JA’IRITH, THE QUS87 [patronym.]: 6 Iaply [Vat. -exv]; Alex. 0 Taetpet: Jairites). Ira the Jairite was a priest (JD, A. V. “chief ruler’’) to David (2 Sam. xx. 26). If “priest” is to be taken here in its sacerdotal sense, Ira must have been a descendant of Aaron, in whose line however no Jair is mentioned. But this is not imperative [see Priest], and he may therefore ling the name have been made: as that Ga- he name preceding, should be Jahdai; that i was a concubine of Caleb, etc.: but these ere groundless suppositions (see Burrington, ; Bertheau, ad loc.). \H’DIEL Osi [whom God makes I]: "edihr; [Vat. lercrna:] Jediel), one of eroes who were heads of the half-tribe of sseh on the east of Jordan (1 Chr. y. 24). \H/DO (VATT [united, together]: 1eddat, the name had originally been Y TTT" ; comp. Au, JADAU; [Vat. Iovper; Comp. "1e550:] )), a Gadite named in the genealogies of his (1 Chr. y. 14) as the son of Buz and father shishai. . \H/LEEL Os orp [hoping in God]: Wr; Alex. AAondA, AAAnNA: Jahelel, [Jalel]), nird of the three sons of Zebulun (Gen. xlvi. Num. xxvi. 26), founder of the family of the gELITES. Nothing is heard of him or of ascendants. \HLEWLITES, THE (ONDTINT: 6 nat [Vat. -Aec]: Jalelite). A branch of the of Zebulon, descendants of Jahleel (Num. 26). W.A. W. ASH/MAL [2 syl.] (YSTID [whom Jehovah ds|: "owat; [Vat. Ecikay; Alex. Ienou: i), a man of Issachar, one of the heads of ouse of Tola (1 Chr. vii. 2). \H’ZAH (mT [a place stamped, thresh- lor]: "lacd; [Vat. omits:] Jassa), 1 Chr. vi. (JAHAz. | \H’ZEEL (Oser [God apportions] : a3 (Vat. in Num., Sana:] Jasiel), the first 2 four sons of Naphtali (Gen. xlvi. 24), founder e family of THE JAHZEELITES (ONETET, . xxvi. 48). His name is once again men- d (1 Chr. vii. 13) in the slightly different form AHZIEL. AHW/ZERLITES, THE (PNET: 6 PAG [Vat.1 Sander, 2. m. Aonare: | Jesielite). anch of the Naphtalites, descended from Jah- Num. xxvi. 48). AW/ZERAH (TIT) [whom God leads :"EGipds [or ’E¢ipa; Vat. Iede.as; Alex. as:| Jezra), a priest, of the house of Immer; ‘tor of Maasiai (read Maaziah), one of the 88 which returned (1 Chr. ix. 12). [JEHOIA- In the duplicate passage in Neh. xi. 13 he led “ITS, Anasat, and all the other names Mon varied. A US H: JAILOR. [Prison; PunisHMENTSs.] te, a Orem [God allots or appor- a ‘Taowha; [Vat. lewrenn:] Jasiel), the form i the name of the first of Naphtali’s sons, eg given JAHZEEL, appears in 1 Chr. vii. Jy. ATR (7S) [whom Jehovah enlightens]: © [Vat. commonly Iaeto; Alex. Iaeip, -np, __—. dering is said to be, ‘‘ And Geshur and Aram took the Havvoth-Jair from them, with Kenath and her daugh ter-towns, sixty cities” (Bertheau, Chronth, p. 16). this verse would seem not to refer to the original lest of these villages by Jair, as the A. V. repre- but tather to their recapture. The accurate ren- 1198 JAIRUS have sprung from the great Jair of Manasseh, or some lesser person of the name. JAI’RUS [8 syl.]. 1. (Idewpos: [Jair ae ruler of a synagogue, probably in some town near the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. He was the father of the maiden whom Jesus restored to life (Matt. ix. 18; Mark v. 22; Luke viii. 41). The name is probably the Grecized form of the Hebrew JAIR. * It has been questioned whether the daughter of Jairus was really dead and raised to life again _ by the power of Jesus, or lay only in a state of in- sensibility. Among others Olshausen (Bibl. Comm. i. 321 ff.) and Robinson (Lea. of the N. T., p. 362) entertain the latter view. The doubt has arisen chiefly from the fact that the Sayiour said of the damsel, “She is not dead, but sleepeth ”’ (see Matt. ix. 24). The usual verb for describing death as a sleep, it is true, is a different one oye udaw, see John xi. 11 f.); but the one which the Saviour employed in this instance (KaOevSer) is also used of the dead in 1 Thess. v. 10, where “whether we wake or sleep”? is equivalent to *‘ whether we are alive or dead.’ Hence we may attach the same figurative sense to the word as applied in the passage before us. It was a pecu- liarly expressive way of saying that in its relation to Christ’s power death was merely a slumber: he had only to speak the word, and the lifeless rose at once to consciousness and activity. But there are positive reasons for understanding that Christ per- formed a miracle on this occasion. The damsel lay dyi ing when the father went in pursuit of Jesus (Luke viii. 42); shortly after that she was reported as dead (Mark y. 35); and was bewailed at the house with the lamentation customary on the decease of a per- son (Mark v. 38 ff.). The idea that she was asleep merely was regarded as absurd (Matt. ix. 24), and Luke states expressly (vili. 55) that ‘her spirit came again’’ to her on being commanded to arise. The parents and the crowd “ were astonished with a great astonishment”’ at what they beheld or heard related (Mark v. 42), and the Saviour per- mitted that impression to remain with them. One other circumstance in this account deserves notice. Our Lord on arriving at the house of Jai- rus found the mourners already singing the death- dirge, and the “ minstrels’ (aAnral, * flute-play- ers’’) performing their part in the service (Matt. ix. 23). On that custom, see De Wette’s Hebi. Archdologie, § 263 (4te Aufl.). Mr. Lane mentions that it is chiefly at the funer- als of the rich among the modern Egyptians that musicians are employed as mourners. (Modern Egyptians, ii. 287, 297.) It is not within the ability of every family to employ them, as they are professional actors, and their presence involves some expense. The same thing, as a practical result, was true, no doubt, in ancient times.¢ Hence “the minstrels ’? very properly appear in this par- ticular history. Jairus, the father of the damsel | h whom Christ restored to life, being a ruler of the synagogue, was a person of some ‘tank among his countrymen. In such a family the most decent style of performing the last sad offices would be observed. Further, the narrative allows of hardly my interval between the daughter's death and the a * Even if the rule was stricter, circumstances would control the practice. The poor must often with- bold the prescribed tribute. The Talmud (Chethuboth, Iv. 8) says, with reference to the death of a wife: JAKEH | commencement of the wailing. This agree the present oriental custom; for when the de a person is expected, preparations are often m as to have the lament begin almost as soon last breath is drawn. 2. (Idipos; [Vat. leetpos.]) Esth. xi. 2. | 3.] Wad, JA/‘KAN (Wie [= 7Py, intelligent, cious]: ?Akdy;3 [Vat. Qvuvs] “Alex. [Iwara, Ovrau: Jacan), son of Ezer the Horite (1 ( 42). The name is identical with that | monly expressed in the A. V. as JAAKAN see AKAN. JA/KEH ( Culpa and in some MSS. xP infr a], which is followed by a MS. of the T: in the Cambridge Univ. Libr., and was evil the reading of the Vulgate, where the whole , is itendeaed symbolically — “ Verba colt filii vomentis’’?). The A. V. of Proy. xxx. | lowing the authority of the Targum and § x has represented this as the proper name » father of Agur, whose sayings are collected in Xxx., and such is the natural interpretation. 1 yond this we haye no clew to the existence of f | Agur or Jakeh. Of course if Agur be Sol it follows that. Jakeh was a name of Dayid 0; mystical significance. But for this there is( shadow of support. Jarchi, punning on tht names, explains the clause, ‘ the words of who gathered understanding and vomited it dently having before him the reading ND, 1 he derived from $1), “ to vomit.” ‘This ext: tion, it needs scarcely be said, is equally chat ized by elegance and truth. Others, adopti) form 1T))°, and connecting it with Ta First gives it, T TIP), yikk’hah, «obedic apply it to Solomon in his late repentance. ! these and the like are the merest conjecture Jakeh be the name of a person, as there icv reason to believe, we know nothing more ) him; if not, there is no limit to the symili meanings which may be extracted from a in which it occurs, and which change with thy shifting ground of the critic’s point of view. [1 the passage was early corrupted is clear fro} 1 rendering of the LXX., who insert ch. xxx\- in the middle of ch. xxiv. The first claustl translate robs enods Adyous, vie, PoBHOn’ | Setduevos av’Tovs meravde: — “ My son, fe! words, and, having received them, repent: ”’ ae ing which at first sight seems hard to extract the Hebrew, and which has therefore been % doned as hopelessly corrupt. But a slight altwti of one or two letters and the vowel-points I it do no more, at least show how the LXX. #ii' at their extraordinary translation. They» have read DUS) TON 2B 7A NT, which the letters of the last word are sigh posed, in order to account for peravde if port of this alteration see Zech. xi. 5, ht VOU INS is rendered wereuédovro.? The Tee «Etiam pauperrimus inter Israelitas praebebit 2 minus quam duas tibias et unam a |. t b This conjecture incidentally throws light LXX. of Prov. xiv. 15, épyerau cis peravotl ! 7” , | JAKEH yriae point to different readings also, though here Jakeh is concerned. tzig (die Spriiche Salomo’s), unable to find ther explanation, has recourse to an alteration » text as violent as it is unauthorized. He ses to read SWID FT JD, “the son of shose obedience is Massa: ’’ which, to say the of it, is a very remarkable way of indicating queen of Massa.’’? But in order to arrive at reading he first adopts the rare word MiP) h only occurs in the const. state in two pas- , Gen. xlix. 10, and Proy. xxx. 17), to which 4aches the unusual form of the pronominal ,and ekes out his explanation by the help of liptical and highly poetical construction, which angely out of place in the bald prose heading echapter. Yet to this theory Bertheau yields assent (‘nicht ohne Zoégern,” die Spr. Sal. Pp xviii.); and thus Agur and Lemuel are ers, both sons of a queen of Massa, the for- being the reigning monarch (Proy. xxxi. 1). 3, massa, ‘prophecy ”’ or “burden,” is consid- as a proper name and identical with the region id Massa in Arabia, occupied by the descen- of a son of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 14; 1 Chr. i. ‘and mentioned in connection with Dumah. district, Hitzig conjectures, was the same fh was conquered and occupied by the 500 Sim- es, whose predatory excursion in the reign of kiah is narrated in 1 Chr. iv. 41-43. They ‘here said to have annihilated the Amalekites fount Seir, and to have seized their country. this country was Massa, of which Lemuel was and that Agur was a descendant of the con- ng Simeonites, is the opinion of Hitzig, ap- id by Bunsen. But the latter, retaining the ved text, and considering Jakeh as a proper », takes SUIT, hammassd, as if it were : NDI, hammassdi, a gentilic name, “the man ‘assa,”” supporting this by a reference to Gen. 2, where PWIDT, Dammesck, is apparently ‘in the same manner (Bibelwerk, i., clxxviii.). e is good reason, however, to suspect that the ) in question in the latter passage is an inter- be or that the verse is in some way corrupt, /e rendering of the Chaldee and Syriac is not uorted by the ordinary usages of Hebrew, though adopted by the A. V., and by Gesenius, Kno- sd fos which they probably read Nay 2 89, Valeat quantum. \* Here, as generally in the English edition of this , Cod. B, or the Vatican manuscript 1209, is con- 0 led with the Roman edition of 1587. The Vat- e manuscript (B) does not contain the books of -abees. ¢ dix hame itself will perhaps repay a few mo- he consideration. As borne by the Apostles and ' contemporaries in the N. T., it was of course I 3, and it is somewhat remarkable that in them it € ears for the first time since the patriarch himself. lie unchangeable East St. James is still St. Jacob ar Yakoob; but no sooner had the name left the 8 of Palestine than it underwent a series of cu- A and interesting changes probably unparalleled iy other case. ‘To the Greeks it became ’IdxwBos, 1 the accent on the first syllable; to the Latins, ‘ 8, doubtless similarly accented, since in Italian ' Ticomo or Giacomo [also Jacopo]. In Spain it JAMES 1199 bel, and others. In any case the instances are not analogous. W. A. W. JA’KIM (DP [whom God lifts up]: "Tart p; [Vat.] Iaxem: Jacim). 1. Head of the 12th course of priests in the reign of David (1 Chr xxiv. 12). The Alex. LXX. gives the name Elia- kim (EAcaetu). [JEHOIARIB; JACHIN.] 2. (Alex. Iaxeru.] A Benjamite, one of tne Bene-Shimhi [sons of S.] (1 Chr. viii. 19). A... C.. HH. JA’LON Chia [lodging, abiding]: laudév; [Vat. Apwv:] Alex. IaAwy: Jalon), one of the sons of Ezrah, a person named in the genealogies of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 17). JAM’BRES. [See Jannes and JAMpERES.] JAM’BRI. Shortly after the death of Judas Maccabeeus (B. C. 161), “the children of Jambri”’ are said to have made a predatory attack on a de- tachment, of the Maccabeean forces and to have suf- fered reprisals (1 Mace. ix. 36-41). The name does not occur elsewhere, and the variety of read- ings is considerable: "IauBpl, Cod. B; 4 [lauBpiy, | IauBpew, Cod. A; [Sin. ApBpet, lauBpr;] alii, ’AuBpol, "AuBpl; Syr. Ambre. Josephus (Ant. xiii. 1, § 2) reads of *Awapatou TALES, and it seems almost certain that the true reading is "Aypl (-ef), a form which occurs elsewhere (1 K. xvi. 22: Joseph. Ant. viii. 12, § 5, "Auapivos; 1 Chr. XXVii. 18, Heb. “WY, Vulg. Amiri; 1 Chr. ix. 4,’ Aur Bpaty). It has been conjectured (Drusius, Michaelis, Grimm, 1 Mace. ix. 36) that the original text was STAN 432, “the sons of the Amorites,” and that the reference is to a family of the Amorites who had in early times occupied the town Medeba (ver. 36) on the borders of Reuben (Num. xxi. 30, 31). Bi Fe: W.. JAMES (Id«wBos: Jacobus), the name of several persons mentioned in the N. T. 1. JAMES THE SON OF ZEBEDEE. This is the only one of the Apostles of whose life and death we can write with certainty. The little that we know of him we have on the authority of Scripture. All else that is reported is idle legend, with the possible exception of one tale, handed down. by Clement of Alexandria to Eusebius, and by Kuse- bius to us. With this single exception the line of demarcation is drawn clear and sharp. ‘There is assumed two forms, apparently of different origins: Jago —in modern Spanish Diego, Portuguese, Tiago —and Xayme or Jayme, pronounced Hayme, with a strong initial guttural. In France it became Jacques ; but another form was Jame, which appears in the metrical life of St. Thomas & Becket by Garnier (A. P 1170-74), quoted in Robertson’s Becket, p. 189, note. From this last the transition to our James is easy. When it first appeared-in English, or through what channel, the writer has not been able to trace. Pos sibly it came from Scotland, where the name was a favorite one. It exists in Wycliffe’s Bible (1881). In Russia, and in Germany and the countries more im- mediately related thereto, the name has retained its original form, and accordingly there alone there would seem to be no distinction between Jacob and James; which was the case even in medieval Latin, where Jacob and Jacobus were always discriminated. Its modern dress, however, sits very lightly on the name ; and we see in ‘ Jacobite” and * Jacobin ”” how ready it is to throw it off, and, like a true Oriental, reveal _its original form. G. 1200 JAMES no fear of confounding the St. James of the New Testament with the hero of Compostella. Of St. James's early life we know nothing. We first hear of him A. D. 27, when he was called to be our Lord’s disciple; and he disappears from view. A. D. 44, when he suffered martyrdom at the hands of Herod Agrippa I. We proceed to thread to- gether the several pieces of information which the inspired writers have given us respecting him dur- ing these seventeen years. I. His History. —In the spring or summer of the year 27, Zebedee, a fisherman, but possessed at least of competence (Mark i. 20), was out on the Sea of Galilee, with his two sons, James and John, and some boatmen, whom either he had hired for the occasion, or who more probably were his usual attendants. He was engaged in his customary oc- cupation of fishing, and near him was another boat belonging to Simon and Andrew, with whom he and his sons were in partnership. Finding them- selves unsuccessful, the occupants of both boats came ashore, and began to wash their nets. At this time the new Teacher, who had now been min- istering about six months, and with whom Simon and Andrew, and in all probability John, were al- ready well acquainted (John i. 41), appeared upon the beach. He requested leave of Simon and An- drew to address the crowds that flocked around him from their boat, which was lying at a convenient distance from the shore. The discourse being com- pleted, and the crowds dispersing, Jesus desired Simon to put out into the deeper water, and to try another cast for fish. Though reluctant, Simon did as he was desired, through the awe which he already entertained for One who, he thought, might possibly be the promised Messiah (John i. 41, 42), and whom even now he addressed as “ Rabbi” (émuardra, Luke v. 5, the word used by this Evan- gelist for ‘PaBBi). Astonished at the success of his draught, he beckoned to his partners in the other boat to come and help him and his brother in landing the fish caught. The same amazement communicated itself to the sons of Zebedee, and flashed conviction on the souls of all the four fish- ermen. ‘They had-doubted and mused before; now they believed. At His call they left all, and became, once and for ever, His disciples, hereafter to catch men. This is the call of St. James to the discipleship. It will be seen that we have regarded the events narrated by St. Matthew and St. Mark (Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-20) as identical with those related by St. Luke (Luke yv. 1-11), in accordance with the opinion of Hammond, Lightfoot, Maldo- natus, Lardner, Trench, Wordsworth, etc.; not as distinct from them, as supposed by Alford, Gres- well, ete. For a full year we lose sight of St. James. He is then, in the spring of 28, called to the apostle- ship with his eleven brethren (Matt. x. 2; Mark iii. 14; Luke vi. 13; Acts i. 13). In the list of the Apostles given us by St. Mark, and in the book of Acts. his name occurs next to that of Simon Peter: in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke it comes third. It is clear that in these lists the names are not placed at random. In all four, the names of Peter, Andrew, James, and John are placed first; and it is plain that these four Apostles @ An ecclesiastical tradition, of uncertain date, JAMES were at the head of the twelve throughout. we see that Peter, James, and John, alone admitted to the miracle of the raising of Jz daughter (Mark v. 87; Luke viii. 51). The three Apostles alone were permitted to be ) at the ‘Transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1; Mark Luke ix. 28). The same three alone were al to witness the Agony (Matt. xxvi. 37; Mar] 33). And it is Peter, James, John, and A’ who ask our Lord for an explanation of his sayings with regard to the end of the work his second coming (Mark xiii. 3). It is wort notice that in all these places, with one exe) (Luke ix. 28), the name of James is put | that of John, and that John is twice deseril “the brother of James” (Mark v. 37; Matt! 1). This would appear to imply that at this James, either from age or character, took a }; position than his brother. On the last oceasi which St. James is mentioned we find this pc reversed. That the prominence of tae Apostles was founded on personal character (i of every twelve persons there must be two or to take the lead), and that it was not an offic by them ‘“quos Dominus, ordinis seryandi /; ceteris preeposuit,” as King James I. has; (Prefat. Mon. in Apol. pro Jur. Fid.), scarcely be doubted (cf. Eusebius, ii. 14). It would seem to have been ‘at the time (i appointment of the twelve Apostles that thet of Boanerges [BOANERGES] was given to thi of Zebedee. It might, however, like Simon’s ) of Peter, have been conferred before. This i plainly was not bestowed upon them becaus’’ heard the voice like thunder from the cloud (Jei nor because “divina eorum predicatio mai quendam et illustrem sonitum per terrarum \) datura erat’’ (Vict. Antioch.), nor és yo puxas Kal OeoAoywrdrous (Theoph.), but i like the name given to Simon, at once desert and prophetic. The “Rockman” had a nz strength, which was described by his title, ai was to have a divine strength, predicted It same title. In the same way the “Sons of Thu! had a burning and impetuous spirit, which /) exhibits itself in its unchastened form (Luke ib Mark x. 87), and which, when moulded bit Spirit of God, taking different shapes, led St. « to be the first apostolic martyr, and St. { become in an especial manner the Apostle of )\ The first occasion on which this natural 2 acter manifests itself in St. James and his bih is at the commencement of our Lord’s last jon to Jerusalem in the year 30. He was pill through Samaria; and now courting rather hi avoiding publicity, he ‘sent messengers befo ! face’’ into a certain village, “to make reaif him’? (Luke ix. 52), 7. e. in all probability ‘a! nounce him as the Messiah. The Samaritans)! their old jealousy strong upon them, refus | receive him, because he was going to Jerule instead of to Gerizim; and in exasperation «1! and John entreated their Master to folloytl example of Elijah, and call down fire to corim them. ‘The rebuke of their Lord is testified | | all the New Testament MSS. The words tl rebuke, “ Ye know not what manner of spit are of,’ rest on the authority of the Codea that village is commonly known to the memb: : Places the residence of Zebedee and the birth of St.| the Latin Church in that district as Sa | James at Japhia, now Y@fa, near Nazareth. Hence [JAPHIA. |] ; 7 JAMES ‘afew MSS. of minor value. The rest of the e, “ For the Son of Man is not come to destroy ’s lives, but to save them,” is an insertion hout authority of MSS. (see Alford, in loc.).4 \t the end of the same journey a similar spirit ears again. As they went up to Jerusalem our d declared to his Apostles the circumstances of coming Passion, and at the same time strength- 1 them by the promise that they should sit on lve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. se words seem to have made a great impression n Salome, and she may have thought her two ; quite as fit as the sons of Jonas to be the chief ‘isters of their Lord in the mysterious kingdom ch he was about to assume. She approached efore, and besought, perhaps with a special rence in her mind te Peter and Andrew, that two sons might sit on the right hand and on left in his kingdom, @. ¢. according to a Jewish a of expression > (Joseph. Ani. vi. 11, § 9), that rmight be next to the King in honor. The brothers joined with her in the prayer (Mark 5). The Lord passed by their petition with a 1 reproof, showing that the request had not an from an evil heart, but from a spirit which ed too high. He told them that they should ik His cup and be baptized with His baptism uffering, but turned their minds away at once 1 the thought of future preéminence: in His dom none of his Apostles were to be lords over rest. The indignation felt by the ten would v that they regarded the petition of the two hers as an attempt at infringing on their priv- ‘s as much as on those of Peter and Andrew. rom the time of the Agony in the Garden, A. p. to the time of his martyrdom, a. p. 44, we wnothing of St. James, except that after the sion he persevered in prayer with the other ‘stles, and the women, and the Lord’s brethren jsi.13). In the year 44 Herod Agrippa L., of Aristobulus, was ruler of all the dominions that the death of his grandfather, Herod the at, had been divided between Archelaus, An- 3, Philip, and Lysanias. He had received from gula, Trachonitis in the year 37, Galilee and 2ain the year 40. On the accession of Clau- } in the year 41, he received from him Idumea, aria, and Judwa. This sovereign was at once dple statesman and a stern Jew (Joseph. Ant. 6, §7, xix. 5-8): a king with not a few grand Kingly qualities, at the same time eaten up | Jewish pride —the type of a lay Pharisee. |} Was very ambitious to oblige the people with tions,” and “he was exactly careful in the ‘vance of the laws of his country, keeping him- wtirely pure, and not allowing one day to. pass | his head without its appointed sacrifice” (Ant. 1, § 3). Policy and inclination would alike such a monarch “to lay hands”? (not “ stretch | his hands,” A. V. Acts xii. 1) “on certain te church; ” and accordingly, when the pass- | of the year 44 had brought St. James and St. to Jerusalem, he seized them both, considering \* See note d under Exisan, vol. i. p. 707 f. A. ie Same form is common throughout the East. ‘ane’s Arab. Nights, vol. iii. p. 212, &c. The great Armenian convent at Jerusalem on the ‘tled Mount Zion is dedicated to St. James the f Zebedee.” The church of the convent, or rather ‘Ul chapel on its northeast side, occupies the tra- ‘lal site of his martyrdom. This, however, can | 76 Sy JAMES 1201 doubtless that if he cut off the “Son of Thunder ”’ and the “ Rockman’’ the new sect would be more tractable or more weak under the presidency of James the Just, for whose character he probably had a lingering and sincere respect. James was apprehended first — his natural impetuosity of tem- per would seem to have urged him on even beyond Peter. And “Herod the king,” the historian simply tells us, ‘ killed James the brother of John with the sword ”’ (Acts xii. 2). This is all that we know for certain of his death.c We may notice two things respecting it — first, that James is now described as the brother of John, whereas previously John had been described as the brother of James, showing that the reputation of John had increased, and that of James diminished, by the time that St. Luke wrote: and secondly, that he perished not by stoning, but by the sword. The Jewish law laid down that if seducers to strange worship were few, they should be stoned; if many, that they should be beheaded. Either therefore Herod in- tended that James’s death should be the beginning of a sanguinary persecution, or he merely followed the Roman custom of putting to death from prefer- ence (see Lightfoot, 2m loc.). The death of so prominent a champion left a huge gap in the ranks of the infant society, which was filled partly by St. James, the brother of our Lord, who now steps forth into greater prominence in Jerusalem, and partly by St. Paul, who had now been seven years a convert, and who shortly after- wards set out on his first apostolic journey. II. Chronological recapitulation. —In the spring or summer of the year 27 James was called to be a disciple of Christ. In the spring of 28 he was appointed one of the Twelve Apostles, and at that time probably received, with his brother, the title of Boanerges. In the autumn of the same year he was admitted to the miraculous raising of Jairus’s daughter. In the spring of the year 29 he wit- nessed the Transfiguration. Very early in the year 30 he urged his Lord to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritan village. About three months later in the same year, just before the final arrival in Jerusalem, he and his brother made their ambitious request through their mother Salome. On the night before the Crucifixion he was present at the Agony in the Garden. On the day of the Ascension he is mentioned as persevering with the rest of the Apostles and disciples in prayer. Shortly before the day of the Passover, in the year 44, he was put to death. Thus during fourteen out of the seventeen years that elapsed between his call and his death we do not even catch a glimpse of him. III. Tradition respecting him. —Clement of Alexandria, in the seventh book of the /Typotyposeis, relates, concerning St. James’s martyrdom, that the prosecutor was so moved by witnessing his bold confession that he declared himself a Christian on the spot: accused and accuser were therefore hurried off together, and on the road the latter begged St. James to grant him forgiveness; after 2 moment's hardly be the actual site (Williams, Holy City, ii. 558). Its most interesting possession is the chair of the Apostle, a venerable relic, the age of which is perhaps traceable as far back as the 4th century (Williams, 560). But as it would seem that it is believed to have belonged to “the first Bishop of Jerusalem,” it is doubtful to which of the two Jameses the tradition would attach 10. 1202 JAMES hesitation, the Apostle kissed him, saying, « Peace | know that James the Lord’s brother had be to thee!’ and they were beheaded together. This tradition is preserved by Eusebius (H. L. ii. 6). There is no internal evidence against it, and the external evidence is sufficient to make it credible, for Clement flourished as early as a. p. 195, and he states expressly that the account was given him by those who went before him. For legends respecting his death and his con- nection with Spain, see the Roman Breviary (in Fest. 8. Jac. Ap.), in which the healing of a paralytic and the conversion of Hermogenes are attributed to him, and where it is asserted that he preached the Gospel in Spain, and that his remains were translated to Compostella. See also the fourth pook of the Apostolical History written by Abdias, the (pseudo) first bishop of Babylon (Abdiz, Baby- lonie primi Episcopi ab Apostolis constituti, de his- toria Certaminis Apostolici Libri decem, Paris, 1566); Isidore, De vita et obitu SS. utriusque Test. No. LXXIII. (Hagenos, 1529); Pope Callixtus II.’s Four Sermons on St. James the Apostle (Bibl. Pair. Magn. xv. p. 824); Mariana, De adventu Jacobi Apostoli Majoris in Hispaniam (Col. Agripp. 1609); Baronius, Martyrologium Romanum ad Jul. 25, p. 825 (Antwerp, 1589); Bollandus, Acta Sanc- torum ad Jul. 25, tom. vi. pp. 1-124 (Antwerp, 1729); Estius, Comm. in Act. Ap. c. xii.; Annot. wn difficthora loca 8. Script. (Col. Agripp. 1622); Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir a histoire ec- clésiastique des six premiers siecles, tom. i. p- 899 (Brussels, 1706). As there is no shadow of foun- dation for any of the legends here referred to we pass them by without further notice. Even Baronius shows himself ashamed of them; Estius gives them up as hopeless; and Tillemont rejects them with as much contempt as his position would allow him to show. Epiphanius, without giving or probably having any authority for or against his statement, reports that St. James died unmarried (S. Epiph. Adv. Her, ti. 4, p. 491, Paris, 1622), and that, like his namesake, he lived the life of a Nazarite (ibid. iii. 2, 13, p. 1045). 2. JAMES THE SON OF ALPH-EUS. Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13. 3. JAMES THE BROTHER OF THE LorD. Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; Gal. i. 19. 4. JAMES THE Son oF Mary, Matt. xxvii. 56; Luke xxiv. 10. Also called THE LirrLe, Mark xv. 40. 5. JAMES THE BROTHER oF Jupr. Jude 1. 6. JAMES THE BROTHER (?) oF JUDE. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13. 7. JAMES. Acts xii. 17, xv..13, xxi. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 7; Gal. ii. 9, 12. ‘8. JAMES THE SERVANT OF GOD AND OF THE Lorp JEsus Curist. James i. 1. We reserve the question of the authorship of the epistle for the present. St. Paul identifies for us Nos. 3 and 7 (see Gal. ii. 9 and 12 compared with i. 19). If we may translate "Iodéas "laxéBou, Judas the brother, rather than the son of James, we may con- clude that 5 and 6 are identical. And that we may so translate it, is proved, if proof were needed, by Winer (Grammar of" the Idioms of the N. T., translated by Agnew and Ebbeke, New York, 1850, §§ Ixvi. and xxx.), by Hanlein (Handb. der Kinl. in die Schriften des Neuen Test., Erlangen, 1809), by Arnaud (Recherches critiques sur l'Epitre de Jude, Strasbourg, 1851). We may identify 5 and 6 with 3, because we JAMES al named Jude. We may identify 4 with 8 because we James the son of Mary had a brother named and so also had James the Lord’s brother. Thus there remain two only, James the Alpheeus (2.), and James the brother of th (3.). Can we, or can we not, identify them { requires a longer consideration. | I. By comparing Matt. xxvii, 56 and M; 40, with John xix. 25, we find that the Virgin had a sister named like herself, Mary, who y wife of Clopas, and who had two sons, Jan Little, and Joses. It has been suggeste ‘Mary the wife of Clopas’’ in John xix. 2 not be the same person as “his mother’s ¢ (Kitto, Lange, Davidson), but the Greek w admit of this construction without the addi the omission of a xa/, By referring to Mat 55 and Mark vi. 3 we find that a James! Joses, with two other brethren called Juc Simon, and at least three (adeaz) sisters) living with the Virgin Mary at Nazaretl referring to Luke vi. 16 and Acts i. 13 we fir) there were two brethren named James anc) among the Apostles. It would certainly be 1! to think that we had here but one family ¢ brothers and three or more sisters, the child; Clopas and Mary, nephews and nieces of the : Mary. There are difficulties, however, in tl) of this conclusion. For, (1) the four breth) Matt. xiii. 55 are described as the brothers gol) of JESUS, not as His cousins; (2) th found living as at their home with the | Mary, which seems unnatural if she were aunt, their mother being, as we know, still| (3) the James of Luke vi. 15 is described as t not of Clopas, but of Alpheus; (4) the “bi of the Lord’’ (who are plainly James, Joses. and Simon) appear to be excluded from 4 tolic band by their declared unbelief in his\ siahship (John vii. 8-5) and by being formal) tinguished from the disciples by the Gospel-i (Matt. xii. 48; Mark iii. 33; John ii. 12; |t 14); (5) James and Jude are not designated Lord’s brethren in the lists of the Apostle Mary is designated as mother of James and) whereas she would have been called mother of 1 and Jude, had James and Jude been Apostli: Joses not an Apostle (Matt. xxvii. 56). These are the six chief objections which 1 made to the hypothesis of there being bi family of brethren named James, Joses, Juc|é Simon. The following answers may be give|- Objection 1.— “ They are called brethren is a sound rule of criticism that words are) understood in their most simple and literal ap tion; but there is a limit to this rule. : greater difficulties are caused by adhering | ' literal meaning of a word, than by interpreig more liberally, it is the part of the critic tot pret more liberally, rather than to cling || ordinary and literal meaning of a word. Nail clearly not necessary to understand @deA\l ‘brothers’? in the nearest sense of brothe0 It need not mean more than relative (comp. : Gen. xiii. 8, xiv. 14, xx. 12, xxix. 12)%xx) - Lev. xxv. 48; Deut. ii. 8; Job xix. 18, x] Xen. Cyrop. i. 5, § 47; Isocr. Paneg. 20°! Phed. 57, Crit. 16; see also Cie. ad Att. 15/1 Ann. iii. 88; Quint. Curt. vi. 10, § 34; comp. and Schleusner, ¢z voc.). But perhaps the et I vl JAMES ces of the case would lead us to translate it hren? On the contrary, such a translation sars to produce very grave difficulties. or, , it introduces two sets of four first-cousins, ing the same names of James, Joses, Jude, and on, who appear upon the stage without any- ig to show which is the son of Clopas, and which cousin; and secondly, it drives us to take our ice between three doubtful and improbable otheses as to the parentage of this second set ames, Joses, Jude, and Simon. ‘There are three 1 hypotheses: (a.) The Eastern hypothesis, , they were the children of Joseph by a former . This notion originated in the apocryphal pel of Peter (Orig. in Matt. xiii. 55, Op. tom. p- 462, E. ed. Delarue), and was adopted by Epiphanius, St. Hilary, and St. Ambrose, and ded on to the later Greek Church (Epiph. Her. i, 1, Op. tom. i. p. 115; Hil. in Aut. i., St. br. Op. tom. ii. p. 260, Ed. Bened.). (6.) The vidian hypothesis, put forward at first by osus, Helvidius, and Jovinian, and revived by wuss and Herder in Germany, and by Davidson Alford in England, that James, Joses, Jude, on, and the three sisters, were children of Joseph ‘Mary. This notion is opposed, whether rightly rongly, to the general sentiment of the Chris- body in all ages of the Church; like the other hypotheses, it creates two sets of cousins with same name: it seems to be scarcely compatible our Lord’s recommending His mother to the of St. John at His own death (see Jerome, ‘tom. ii. p. 10); for if, as has been suggested, gh with great improbability, her sons might hat time have been unbelievers (Blom. Disp. ol. p. 67, Lugd. Bat.; Neander, Planting, etc., '), JEsus would have known that that unbelief ‘only to continue for a few days. ‘That the rétokos vids of Luke ii. 7, and the gws of ‘¢ of Matt. i. 25, imply the birth of after chil- , is not now often urged (see Pearson, On the d, i. 304, ii. 220). (c.) The Levirate hypothesis be passed by. It was a mere attempt made ae eleventh century to reconcile the Greek and 1 traditions by supposing that Joseph and ps were brothers, and that Joseph raised up ito his dead brother (Theoph. in Matt. xiii. 55; tom. i. p. 71, E. ed. Venet. 1764). Neetion 2.— “The four brothers and their ‘sare always found living and moving about the Virgin Mary.’’ If they were the children opas, the Virgin Mary was their aunt. Her husband would appear without doubt to have at some time between A. D. 8 and A. D. 26. have we any reason for believing Clopas to been alive during our Lord’s ministry. (We not pause here to prove that the Cleophas of xxiv. is an entirely different person and name | Clopas.) What difficulty is there in sup- g that the two widowed sisters should have | together, the more so as one of them had but on, and he was often taken from her by his i iterial duties? And would it not be most ‘al that two families of first cousins thus living ) her should be popularly looked upon as one y, and spoken of as brothers and sisters instead ,isins? It is noticeable that St. Mary is no- »? called the mother of the four brothers. jection 3. — « James the Apostle is said to be m of Alpheus, not of Clopas.’”” But Alphzeus A0pas are the same name rendered into the 1< language in two different but ordinary and : : 1208 recognized ways, from the Aramaic spbr ” Jasw, (See Mill, Accounts of our Lord's Brethren vindicated, etc. p. 236, who compares the two forms Clovis and Aloysius; Arnaud, Recherches, etc. ). Objection 4.— Dean Alford considers John vii. 5, compared with vi. 67-70, to decide that none of the brothers of the Lord were of the number of the Twelve (Proleg. to Lp. of James, Gr. Test. iv. 88, and Comm. in loc.). If this verse, as he states, makes ‘the crowning difficulty ” to the hypothesis of the identity of James the son of Alpheus. the Apostle, with James the brother of the Lord, the difficulties are not too formidable to be overcome. Many of the disciples having left Jesus, St. Peter bursts out in the name of the Twelve with a warm expression of faith and love; and after that — very likely (see Greswell’s Harmony) full six months afterwards — the Evangelist states that ‘“ neither did his brethren believe on Him.”’ Does it follow from hence that all his brethren disbelieved? Let us compare other passages in Scripture. St. Mat- thew and St. Mark state that the thieves railed on our Lord upon the Cross. Are we therefore to dis- believe St. Luke, who says that one of the thieves was penitent, and did not rail? (Luke xxiii. 34, 40). St. Luke and St. John say that the soldiers offered vinegar. Are we to believe that all did so? or, as St. Matthew and St. Mark tell us, that only one did it? (Luke xxiii. 36; John xix. 29; Mark xy. 36; Matt. xxvii. 48). St. Matthew tells us that “« his disciples ”? had indignation when Mary poured the ointment on the Lord’s head. Are we to sup- pose this true of all? or of Judas Iscariot, and perhaps some others, according to John xii. 4 and Mark xiv. 4? It is not at all necessary to suppose that St. John is here speaking of all the brethren. If Joses, Simon, and the three sisters disbelieved, it would be quite sufficient ground for the state- ment of the Evangelist. ‘The same may be said of Matt. xii. 47, Mark iii. 32, where it is reported to Him that his mother and his brethren, desig- nated by St. Mark (iii. 21) as of wap’ abrov, were standing without. Nor does it necessarily follow that the disbelief of the brethren was of such a nature that James and Jude, Apostles though they were, and vouched for half a year before by the warm-tempered Peter, could have had no share in it. It might have been similar to that feeling of unfaithful restlessness which perhaps moved St. John Baptist to send his disciples to make their inquiry of the Lord (see Grotius 7m loc., and Lard- ner, vi. p. 497, Lond. 1788). With regard to John, ii. 12, Acts i. 14, we may say that “his brethren ”’ are no more excluded from the disciples in the first passage, and from the Apostles in the second, by being mentioned parallel with them, than “ the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas’’ (1 Cor. ix. 5), excludes Peter from the Apostolic band. Objection 5. — “If the title of brethren of the Lord had belonged to James and Jude, they would have been designated by it in the list of the Apostles.” The omission of a title is so slight a ground for an argument that we may pass this by. Objection 6.— That Mary the wife of Clopas should be designated by the title of Mary the mother of James and Joses, to the exclusion of Jude, if James and Jude were Apostles, appears tc Dr. Davidson (Jntrod. to N. T., iii. 295, Londen, JAMES 1204 JAMES 1851) and to Dean Alford (Prol. to Ep. of’ James, G. T., iv. 90) extremely improbable. There is no improbability in it, if Joses was, as would seem likely, an elder brother of Jude, and next in order to James. II. We have hitherto argued that the hypothesis ‘vhich most naturally accounts for the facts of Holy Scripture is that of the identity of James the Little, the Apostle, with James the Lord’s brother. We have also argued that the six main objections to this view are not valid, inasmuch as they may either be altogether met, or at best throw us back on other hypotheses which create greater difficulties than that under consideration. We proceed to point out some further confirmations of our original hypothesis. 1. It would be unnatural that St. Luke, in a list of twelve persons, in which the name of James twice occurred, with its distinguishing patronymic, should describe one of the last persons on his list as brother to “ James,” without any further desig- nation to distinguish him, unless he meant the James whom he had just before named. The James whom he had just before named is the son of Alpheus; the person designated by his relationship to him is Jude. We have reason therefore for re- garding Jude as the brother of the son of Alpheus; on other grounds (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3) we have reason for regarding him as the brother of the Lord: therefore we have reason for regarding the son of Alpheus as the brother of the Lord. 2. It would be unnatural that St. Luke, after having recognized only two Jameses throughout his Gospel and down to the twelfth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and having in that chapter nar- rated the death of one of them (James the son of Zebedee), should go on jin the same and following chapters to speak of “James,’’ meaning thereby not the other James, with whom alone his readers are acquainted, but a different James not yet men- tioned by him. Alford’s example of Philip the Evangelist (Proleg. to the Ep. of James, p. 89) is in no manner of way to the point, except as a con- trast. St. Luke introduces Philip the Evangelist, Acts vi. 5, and after recounting the death of Stephen his colleague, continues the history of the same Philip. 3. James is represented throughout the Acts as exercising great authority among, or even over, Apostles (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18); and in St. Paul’s Epistles he is placed before even Cephas and John, and declared to be a pillar of the Church with them (Gal. ii. 9-12). It is more likely that an Apostle would hold such a position, than one who had not been a believer till after the Resur- rection. 4. St. Paul says (Gal. i. 19), “Other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother ”’ (Erepov 5€ Tay amocTéAwy ovK Eldov ei wh Id- KwBov Toy adeApdy Tod Kupiov). This passage, though seeming to assert distinctly that James the Lord’s brother was an Apostle, and therefore iden- tical with the son of Alpheus, cannot be taken as a direct statement to that effect, for it is possible that &mroordAwy may be used in the looser sense, though this is not agreeable with the line of defense which St. Paul is here maintaining, namely, that he had received his commission from God, and not from the Twelve (see Thorndike, i. p. 5, Oxf. 1844). And again, ef uh may qualify the whole sentence, and not only the word amogréAwy (Mayerhoff, Hist. brit. Hinleit. in die Petrin. Schr. p. 52, Hamb. a B si a Pe i JAMES 1833; Neander, Michaelis, Winer, Alford). this is not often, if ever, the case, when ¢, lows €repoy (Schneckenburger, Adnot. ad Jac. perpet. p. 144, Stuttg. 1832: see also } Gramm. 5th ed., p. 647, and Meyer, Komm. in and if St. Paul had not intended to inelu James among the Apostles, we should rathe expected the singular aréoroAoy than the | tav aroogtéAwy (Arnaud, Recherches, ete.). more natural interpretation of the verse appear to be that which includes James amo} Twelve, identifying him with the son of Aly But, as we have said, such a conclusion do necessarily follow. Compare, however, this with Acts ix. 27, and the probability is ine; by several degrees. St. Luke there assert) Barnabas brought Paul to the Apostles, mp) aroatéAous. St. Paul, as we have seen, ‘| that during that visit to Jerusalem he say } and none other of the Apostles, save Jam Lord’s brother. Peter and James, then, we two Apostles to whom Barnabas brought Pai course, it may be said here also that amderi: used in its lax sense; but it appears to be i natural conclusion that James the Lord’s ti was one of the Twelve Apostles, being id with James the son of Alpheus, or Jam Little. Be Ill. We must now turn for a short tink Scripture to the early testimony of uniri writers. Here, as among ‘modern writers, yi the same three hypotheses which we have 2 mentioned : — For the identity of James the Lord’s Ut with James the Apostle, the son of Alpha find Papias of Hierapolis, a contemporary | Apostles @ (see Routh, Relig. Sacr. i. 16, 42 Oxon, 1846), St. Clement of Alexandria Up posers, bk. vii. apud Euseb. H. E. ii. 1), St.! sostom (in Gal. i. 19). : Parallel with this opinion there existed ait in favor of the hypothesis that James was t. of Joseph by a former marriage, and therefi identical with the son of Alpheus. This ‘f found in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (see (2 in Matt. xiii. 55), in the Protevangelium of n and the Pseudo-Apostolical Constitutions third century (Thilo, Cod. Apocr. i. 228; Apost. vi. 12). It is adopted by Eusebius ( in Esai. xvii. 6; H. H. i. 12, ii. 1). Perhajt Origen’s opinion (see Comm. in Joh. ii. 12 Epiphanius, St. Hilary, and St. Ambrose, wh already mentioned as being on the same sid are Victorinus (Vict. Phil. im Gal. -apuiM y Script. vet. nov. Coll. [tom. iii. pars ii.) 1828) and Gregory Nyssen (Opp. tom. ii. 8 uY D, ed. Par. 1618), and it became the rec¢ belief of the Greek Church. Meantime the hypothesis maintaining a tity of the two was maintained; and being ' defended by St. Jerome (in Matt. xii. 4{ 2 supported by St. Augustine (Contra Fau:x 35, &c.), it became the recognized belief Western Church. The third hypothesis was unknown until) ' put forward by Bonosus in Macedonia, and | vidius and Jovinian in Italy, as an eau seemed to them conformable with Scripture. |} ‘ a * Here, too, the older Papias is a followers were called Antidicomarianites. his later namesake. See note, vol. i. p. 829. 7 f JAMES heir having a name given them shows that their abers must have been considerable; they date 1 the latter part of the fourth century. inglish theological writers have been divided veen the first and second of these views, with, eyer, a preference on the whole for the first othesis. See, for example, Lardner, vi. 495, d. 1788; Pearson, Minor Works, i. 350, Oxf. 4, and On the Creed, i. 308, ii. 224, Oxf. 1833; mndike, i. 5, Oxf. 1844; Horne’s /ntrod. to H. y. 427, Lond. 1834, &. On the same side are htfoot, Witsius, Lampe, Baumgarten, Semler, ler, Eichhorn, Hug, Bertholdt, (Guericke, neckenburger, Meier, Steiger, Gieseler, Theile, ge. ‘Taylor (Opp. tom. v. p. 20, Lond. 1849), son ( Opp. tom. vi. p. 673, Oxf. 1859), Cave (Life i, James) maintain the second hypothesis, with sius, Basnage, Valesius, ete. The third is held Yr. Davidson (Jntr. N. T. vol. iii.) and by Dean wd (Greek Test. iv. 87). ‘he chief treatises on the subject are Dr. Mill’s ounts of our Lord's brethren vindicated, Cam- ge, 1843; Alford, as above referred to; Lange’s icle in Herzog’s Real-L-ncyklopddie fiir protes- wehe Theologie und Kirche, Stuttgart, 1856; nder’s Pflanzung und Leitung; Schnecken- rer’s Annotatio ad Epist. Jac. perpetua, Stutt- , 1832; Arnaud’s Recherches critiques sur vive de Jude, Strasbourg, 1851; Schaff’s Das hiltniss des Jacobus Bruders des Herrn und ybus Alphdi, Berlin, 1842; Gabler’s De Jacobo, stole eidem ascripte Auctori, Altorf, 1787. {ad we not identified James the son of Alpheeus 1 the brother of the Lord we should have but + to write of him. When we had said that his € appears twice in the catalogue of the Twelve ‘stles, our history of him would be complete. In ‘manner the early history of the Lord's brother ld be confined to the fact that he lived and ed from place to place with his brothers and ws, and with the Virgin Mary; and, except the arance of the risen Lord to him, we should /nothing more to recount of him until after leath of James the son of Zebedee, in the year r at least, till St. Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem , his conversion, in the year 40. Of James the e, who would probably be distinct from each ‘e above (for an argument against the identity ‘ue Jameses is the doubt of the identity of ‘us and Clopas), we should know nothing, ot that he had a mother named Mary, who the sister of the Virgin Mary and the wife of as. {MES THE LITTLE, THE SON OF ALPHUS, ' BROTHER OF THE Lorp. — Of James’ father 1917, rendered by St. Matthew and St. Mark @us (AAgaios), and by St. John Clopas omas), we know nothing, except that he mar- (Mary, the sister of the Virgin Mary, and had Jer four sons and three or more daughters.? ppears to have died before the commencement ( r Lord's ministry, and after his death it would * that his wife and her sister, a widow like her- ‘nd in poor circumstances, lived together in house, generally at Nazareth (Matt. xiii. 55), Hometimes also at Capernaum (John ii. 12) and falem (Acts i. 14). It is probable that these VS f a author of the article on the ‘ Brethren of | ord” takes a different view from the one given + [Broruer, vol. i. p. 829.] | , iva) JAMES 1208 cousins, or, as they were usually called, brothers an¢ sisters, of the Lord were older than himself; as or one occasion we find them, with his mother, indig- nantly declaring that He was beside himself, and going out to “lay hold on Him” and compel Him to moderate his zeal in preaching, at least suf- ficiently ‘to eat bread’? (Mark iii. 20, 21, 31). This looks like the conduct of elders towards one younger than theniselves. Of James individually we know nothing till the spring of the year 28, when we find him, together with his younger brother Jude, called to the Apos- tolate. It has. been noticed that in all the four lists of the Apostles James holds the same place, heading perhaps the third class, consisting of him- self, Jude, Simon, and Iscariot; as Philip heads the second class, consisting of himself, Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew; and Simon Peter the first, consisting of himself, Andrew, James, and John (Alford, in Matt. x. 2). The fact of Jude being described by reference to James (‘Iovdas laxéBov) shows the name and reputation which he had, either at the time of the calling of the Apostles or at the time when St. Luke wrote. It is not likely (though far from impossible) that James and Jude took part with their brothers and sisters, and the Virgin Mary, in trying “to lay hold on”? Jesus in the autumn of the same year (Mark iii. 21); and it is likely, though not certain, that it is of the other brothers and sisters, without these two, that St. John says, “‘ Neither did his brethren believe on Him” (John vii. 5), in the autumn of A. D. 29. : We hear no more of James till after the Cruci- fixion and the Resurrection. At some time in the forty days that intervened between the Resurrection and the Ascension the Lord appeared to him. This is not related by the Evangelists, but it is men- tioned by St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 7); and there never has been any doubt that it was to this James rather than to the son of Zebedee that the manifestation was vouchsafed. We may conjecture that it was for the purpose of strengthening him for the high position which he was soon to assume in Jerusalem, and of giving him the instructions on “the things pertaining to the kingdom of Gop” (Acts i. 3) which were necessary for his guidance, that the Lord thus showed himself to James. We cannot fix the date of this appearance. It was probably only a few days before the Ascension; after which we find James, Jude, and the rest of the Apostles, together with the Virgin Mary, Simon, and Joses, in Jerusalem, awaiting in faith and prayer the out- pouring of the Pentecostal gift. Again we lose sight of James for ten years, and when he appears once more it is in a far higher position than any that he has yet held. In the year 37 occurred the conversion of Saul. Three years after his conversion he paid his first visit to Jerusalem, but the Christians recollected what they had suffered at his hands, and feared to have any- thing to do with him. Barnabas, at this time of far higher reputation than himself, took him by the b Joachim (?) 7 Anna (?) St. hrary miry = Clopas or Alphzus. the Virgin, | | Simon. Three or more daughters | JESUS. lls Joses. Jule. 1206 JAMES hand, and introduced him to Peter and James (Acts ix. 27; Gal. i. 18, 19), and by their authority he was admitted into the society of the Christians, and allowed to associate freely with them during the fifteen days of his stay. Here we find James on a level with Peter, and with him deciding on the admission of St. Paul into fellowship with the Church at Jerusalem; and from henceforth we always find him equal, or in his own department superior, to the very chiefest Apostles, Peter, Jonn, and Paul. For by this time he had been appointed (at what exact date we know not) to preside over the infant Church in its most important centre, in a position equivalent to that of Bishop. This pre- eminence is evident throughout the after history of the Apostles, whether we read it in the Acts, in the Epistles, or in ecclesiastical writers. Thus in the year 44, when Peter is released from prison, he desires that information of his escape may be given to “James, and to the brethren” (Acts xii. 17). In the year 49 he presides at the Apostolic Council, and delivers the judgment of the Assembly, with the expression 81d eyw Kplyw (Acts xv. 13, 19; see St. Chrys. 7m loc.). In the same year (or perhaps in the year 51, on his fourth visit to Jerusalem) St. Paul recognizes James as one of the pillars of the Church, together with Cephas and John (Gal. ii. 9), and places his name before them both. Shortly afterwards it is “certain who came from James,” that is, from the mother church of Jeru- salem, designated by the name of its Bishop, who lead Peter into tergiversation at Antioch. And in the year 57 Paul pays a formal visit to James in the presence of all his presbyters, after having been previously welcomed with joy the day before by the brethren in an unofficial manner (Acts xxi. 18). Entirely accordant with these notices of Scripture is the universal testimony of Christian antiquity to the high office held by James in the Church of Jerusalem. That he was formally appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself, as reported by Epiphanius (Heres. lxxviii.); Chrysostom (Hom. xt.m 1 Cor. vii.); Proclus of Constantinople (De Trad. Div. Liturg.); and Photius (/p. 157), is not likely. Eusebius follows this account in a passage of his history, but says elsewhere that he was ap- pointed by the Apostles (H. EH. ii. 23). Clement of Alexandria is the first author who speaks of his Episcopate (Hypotyposeis, bk. vi. ap. Euseb. 7. LF. ii. 1), and he alludes to it as a thing of which the chief Apostles, Peter, James, and John, might well have been ambitious. The same Clement reports that the Lord, after his resurrection, delivered the gift of knowledge to James the Just, to John, and Peter, who delivered it to the rest of the Apostles, and they to the Seventy. This at least shows the estimation in which James was held. But the author to whom we are chiefly indebted for an ac- count of the life and death of James is Hegesippus Ww. e. Joseph), a Christian of Jewish origin, who lived in the middle of the second century. His narrative gives us such an insight into the position of St. James in the Church of Jerusalem that it is best to let him relate it in his own words: — Tradition respecting James, as given by Hege- sippus. ~- “¢ With the Apostles James, the brother of the Lord, succeeds to the charge of the Church — that James, who has been called Just from the time of the Lord to our own days, for there were many of the name of James. He was holy from his mother’s womb, he drank not wine or strong drink, nor did he eat animal food; a razor came not upon JAMES : his head; he did not anoint himself with o did not use the bath. He alone might go in holy place; for he wore no woollen clothes, but. And alone he used to go into the Temple, and, he was commonly found upon his knees, P for forgiveness for the people, so that his grew dry and thin [generally translated aral a camel's, from his constantly bending the prayer, and entreating forgiveness for the p On account therefore of his exceeding righteen he was called ‘ Just,’ and ‘ Oblias,’ which me; Greek ‘the bulwark of the people,’ and ‘righ’ ness,’ as the prophets declare of him. Some | seven sects then that I have mentioned inc of him, ‘ What is the door of Jesus?’ A said that this man was the Saviour, wherefore) believed that Jesus is the Christ. Now tha mentioned sects did not believe in the Resurre: nor in the coming of one who shall recom every man according to his works; but all became believers believed through James. | many therefore of the rulers believed, there disturbance among the Jews, and Scribes Pharisees, saying, ‘ There is a risk that the» people will expect Jesus to be the Christ.’ t came together therefore to James, and said, pray thee, stop the people, for they have gone a after Jesus as though he were the Christ. Wi thee to persuade all that come to the Passoyex cerning Jesus: for we all give heed to thee, | and all the people testify to thee that thou aru and acceptest not the person of man. Peila the people therefore not to go astray about si for the whole people and all of us give heed tch Stand therefore on the gable of the Templél thou mayest be visible, and that thy words ny heard by all the people; for all the tribes andy the Gentiles are come together for the Pas’e Therefore the forementioned Scribes and Phis placed James upon the gable of the Templa cried out to him, and said, ‘O Just one, to x we ought all to give heed, seeing that the 5 are going astray after Jesus who was crucifié t us what is the door of Jesus?’ And he me with a loud voice, ‘Why ask ye me abouts the Son of Man? He sits in heaven on thelg hand of great power, and will come on the ‘u of heaven.’ And many were convinced ancya glory onthe testimony of James, crying Hos to the Son of David. Whereupon the same Sib and Pharisees said to each other, ‘ We have ill in bringing forward such a witness to Jesu'b let us go up, and throw him down, that the be terrified, and not believe on him.’ Anil cried out, saying, ‘Oh! oh! even the Just i/o astray.’ And they fulfilled that which is wt in Isaiah, ‘ Let us take away the just man, |! is displeasing to us; therefore shall they eat ' fruit of their deeds.’ They went up therefora! threw down the Just one, and said to one anjit ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they 2? to stone him, for he was not killed by the fal bt he turned round, and knelt down, and cri) ‘ beseech thee, Lord God Father, forgive the ! they know not what they do.’ And yA were stoning him, one of the priests, of thi of Rechab, a son of the Rechabites to whom? miah the prophet bears testimony, cried ov! said, ‘Stop! What are you about? The J is praying for you!’ Then one of them, wl a fuller, took the club with which he press! ul clothes, and brought it down on the head 2. = fl ; JAMES tone. And so he bore his witness. And they ied him on the spot by the ‘Temple, and the mn still remains by the Temple. This man was ue witness to Jews and Greeks that Jxsus he Christ. And immediately Vespasian com- ced the siege’? (Euseb. ii. 23, and Routh, Rel. 7. p. 208, Oxf. 1846). ‘or the difficulties which occur in this extract, rence may be made to Routh’s Reliquie Sacre . i, p. 228), and to Canon Stanley's Apostolieal _(p. 319, Oxf. 1847). It represents St. James s in his life and in his death more vividly than modern words could picture him. We see ,a married man perhaps (1 Cor. ix. 5), but in ther respects a rigid and ascetic follower after teousness, keeping the Nazarite rule, like Anna prophetess (Luke ii. 37), serving the Lord in Temple “ with fastings and prayers night and regarded by the Jews themselves as one who attained to the sanctity of the priesthood, gh not of the priestly family or tribe (unless ed we argue from this that Clopas did belong 4e tribe of Levi, and draw thence another argu- ‘for the identity of James the son of Clopas James the Lord’s brother), and as the very of what a righteous or just man ought to be. ay man could have converted the Jews as a on to Christianity, it would have been James. sephus’ narrative of his death is apparently what different. He says that in the interval jeen the death of Festus and the coming of ous, Ananus the high-priest assembled the iedrim, and “brought before it James the ler Of him who is called Christ, and some ’s, and having charged them with breaking the delivered them over to be stoned.’ But if te to reconcile this statement with that of ‘sippus, we must suppose that they were not ily stoned on this occasion. The historian that the better part of the citizens disliked » was done, and complained of Ananus to ppa and Albinus, whereupon Albinus threat- ‘to punish him tor having assembled the San- m without his consent, and Agrippa deprived lof the high-priesthood (Ant. xx. 9). The (3 “brother of him who is called Christ,” are led by Le Clere, Lardner, etc., to be spurious. yiphanius gives the same account that Hege- | does in somewhat different words, having ‘tly copied it for the most part from him. Ads a few particulars which are probably mere sions or conclusions of his own (Heres. xxix. 1 Ixxviii. 13). He considers James to have the son of Joseph by a former wife, and caleu- that he must have been 96 years old at the ‘of his death; and adds, on the authority, as “ys, of Eusebius, Clement, and others, that he the méradov on his forehead, in which he “4 confounds him with St. John (Polyer. ee the monument — part excavation, part edifice — » is now commonly known as the ‘ Tomb of St. ai,” is on the east side of the so-called Valley of » haphat, and therefore at a considerable distance ; che Spot on which the Apostle was killed, which » trative of Hegesippus would seem to fix as some- , Under the southeast corner of the wall of the ;,) OF perhaps further down the slope nearer the * tain of the Virgin.” [EN-RoGEL.] It cannot at u: te be said to stand ‘ by the Temple.” The tra- about the monument in question is that St. _ took refuge there after the capture of Christ, ‘mained, eating and drinking nothing, until our JAMES, EPISTLE OF 19207 apud Euseb. H. £. y. 24. But see Cotta, De lam pont. App. Joan. Jac. et Marci, Tub. 1755). Gregory of Tours reports that he was buried, not where he fell, but on the Mount of Olives,@ in a tomb in which he had already buried Zacharias and Simeon (De glor. Mart. i. 27). Eusebius tells us that his chair was preserved down to his time; on which see Heinichen’s Excursus (Eze. ai. ad Euseb. H. E. vii. 19, vol. iv. p. 957, ed. Burton). We must add a strange Talmudic legend, which appears to relate to James. It is found in the Midrash Koheleth, or Commentary on Ecclesiastes, and also in the Tract Abodah Zarah of the Jeru- salem Talmud. It is as follows: “R. Eliezer, the son of Dama, was bitten by a serpent; and there came to him Jacob, a man of Caphar Secama, to heal him by the name of Jesu the son of Pandera; but R. Ismael suffered him not, saying, ‘That is not allowed thee, son of Dama.’ He answered, ‘Suffer me, and I will produce an authority against thee that it is lawful;’ but he could not produce the authority before he expired. And what was the authority ?— This: ‘ Which if a man do, he shall live in them’ (Lev. xviii. 5). But it is not said that he shall die in them.’’ The son of Pan- dera is the name that the Jews have always given to our Lord, when representing him as a magician. The same name is given in Epiphanius (Heres. Ixxviii.) to the grandfather of Joseph, and by John Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv. 15) to the grand- father of Joachim, the supposed father of the Virgin Mary. For the identification of James of Secama (a place in Upper Galilee) with James the Just, see Mill (Historic. Criticism of the Gospel, p. 318, Camb. 1840). The passage quoted by Origen and Eusebius from Josephus, in which the latter speaks of the death of James as being one of the causes of the destruction of Jerusalem, seems to be spuri- ous (Orig. in Matt. xiii. 55; Euseb. H. £. ii. 23). It is possible that there may be a reference to James in Heb. xiii. 7 (see Theodoret in loc.), which would fix his death at some time previous to the writing of that epistle. His apprehension by Ana- nus was probably about the year 62 or 63 (Lardner, Pearson, Mill, Whitby, Le Clerc, Tillemont). There is nothing to fix the date of his martyrdom as nar- rated by Hegesippus, except that it must have been shortly before the commencement of the siege of Jerusalem. We may conjecture that he was be- tween 70 and 80 years old.? ¥F. M. JAMES, THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF. I. ts Genuineness and Canonicity. — In the third book of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius makes his well-known division of the books, or pretended books, of the New Testament into four classes. Under the head of duoAoyovmeva he places the Gospels, the Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the First Epistle of St. John, and the First Epistle Lord appeared to him on the day of his resurrection (See Quaresmius, etc., quoted in Tobler, Siloah, etc. 299.) The legend of his death there seems to be first mentioned by Maundeville (a. D. 1820: see Early Trav. 176). By the old travellers it is often called the * Church of St. James.” 6 It is almost unnecessary to say that the Jacobite churches of the East — consisting of the Armenians, the Copts, and other Monophysite or Eutychian bodies —do not derive their title from St. James, but from a later person of the same name, Jacob Baradseus who died Bishop of Edessa in 588. 1208 JAMES, EPISTLE OF of St. Peter. In the class of aT iAeydmeva. he places the Epistle of St. James, the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, and the Epistle of St. Jude. Amongst the yé@a he enumerates the Acts of St. Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrine of the Apostles, the Gospel to the Hebrews. The aiperind eonsist of the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and others, the Acts of Andrew, John, and others. The avriAeyéueva, amongst which he places the Epistle of St. James, are, he Says, yyopiua Suws Tots moAAots, Whether the expression means that they were acknowledged by, or merely that they were known to, the majority (#7. &. iii. 25). Else- where he refers the epistle to the class of yé@a, for this is the meaning of po@ederau peév, which was apparently misunderstood by St. Jerome (De Vir. {llust.); but he bears witness that it was publicly read in most churches as genuine (H. L. ii. 23), and as such accepts it himself. \ This then was the state of the question in the time of Eusebius; the epistle was accepted as canonical, and as the writ- ing of James, the brother of the Lord, by the ma- jority, but not universally. Origen bears the same testimony as Eusebius (tom. iv. p. 306), and prob- ably, like him, himself accepted the epistle as gen- uine (tom. iv. p. 535, &e.). It is found in the Syriac version, and appears to be referred to by Clement of Rome (ad Cor. x.), Hermas (lib. ii. Mand. xii. 5), Ireneus (Adv. Heres. [lib. iv. ¢.] 16, § 2), and is quoted by almost all the Fathers of the 4th cen- tury, e. g. Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom (see Davidson, Jntrod. to N. T., iii. p. 838). In 397 the Council of Car- thage accepted it as canonical, and from that time there has been no further question of its genuine- ness on the score of external testimony. But at the time of the Reformation the question of its authenticity was again raised, and now upon the ground of internal evidence. Erasmus and Car- dinal Cajetan in the Church of Rome, Cyril Lucar in the Greek Church, Luther and the Magdeburg Centuriators among Protestants, all objected to it. Luther seems to have withdrawn his expression that it was ‘a right strawy epistle,’’ compared with the Gospel of St. John and the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter, after that expression had been two years before the world. The chief objec- tion on internal grounds is a supposed opposition between St. Paul and St. James, on the doctrine of Justification, concerning which we shall presently make some remarks. At present we need only say that it is easy to account for the non-universal re- ception of the epistle in the Early Church, by the fact that it was meant only for Jewish believers, and was not likely therefore to circulate widely among Gentile Christians, for whose spiritual neces- sities it was primarily not adapted; and that the objection on internal grounds proves nothing except against the objectors, for it really rests on a mis- take. Il. Jis Author. — The author of the epistle must be either James the son of Zebedee, according to the subscription of the Syriac version; or James the son of Alpheus, according to Dr. Davidson’s view (Jntrod. to N. T., iii. 812); or James the brother of the Lord, which is the general opinion (see Euseh, 1. E. ii. 28; Alford, G. T. iv. p. 28); or an unknown James (Luther). The likelihood of this last hypothesis falls to the ground when the zanonical character of the epistle is admitted. James the son of Zebedee could not have written ye JAMES, EPISTLE OF it, because the date of his death, only seven after the martyrdom of Stephen, does not time for the growth of a sufficient number of ish Christians, év 79 Siag7mo @. Internat evi (see Stanley, Apost. Age, p. 353) points unmi ably to James the Just as the writer, and we already identified James the Just with the Alpheeus. The Jewish Christians, whether residing at. salem or living scattered among the Gentiles only visiting that city from time to time, wer especial charge of James. To them he addi this epistle; not to the unbelieving Jews (Lar Macknight, Hug, ete.), but only to believe Christ, as is undoubtedly proved by i. 1, ii. 7, v. 7. The rich men of y. 1 may be thei lieving Jews (Stanley, p. 299), but it does no low that the epistle was written to them. usual for an orator to denounce in the secon¢ son. It was written from Jerusalem, which St. J does not seem to have ever left. The time at) he wrote it has been fixed as late as 62, and as as 45. Those who see in its writer a oy counteract the effects of a miseonstruction ¢ Paul’s doctrine of Justification by faith, in ii) 26 (Wiesinger), and those who see a referet the immediate destruction of Jerusalem in| (Macknight), and an allusion to the name ( tians in ii. 7 (De Wette), argue in favor ¢ later date. The earlier date is advocated by Sch enburger, Neander, Thiersch, Davidson, St: and Alford; chiefly on the ground that the e; could not have been written by St. James afte Council in Jerusalem, without some allusi( what was there decided, and because the G Christian does not yet appear to be recognized Ill. Lis Object. — The main object of the e} is not to teach doctrine, but to improve moii St. James is the moral teacher of the N. T.: in such sense a moral teacher as not to be al same time a maintainer and teacher of Chri doctrine, but yet mainly in this epistle a » teacher. There are two ways of explaining characteristic of the epistle. Some commen and writers see in St. James a man who hai realized the essential principles and peculiarit) Christianity, but was in a transition state, hall and half-Christian. Schneckenburger thinkh Christianity had not penetrated his sy MR Neander is of much the same opinion (Pflaii und Leitung, p. 579). And the same notior perhaps be traced in Prof. Stanley and Dean i But there is another and much more ras of accounting for the fact. St. James was will for a special class of persons, and knew wha’ class especially needed; and therefore, undet guidance of God's Spirit, he adapted his inu tions to their capacities and wants. Tho: f whom he wrote were, as we have said, the Ji Christians whether in Jerusalem or abroad.|* James, living in the centre of Judaism, saw b were the chief sins and vices of his countryé and, fearing that his flock might share in the’ | lifted up his voice to warn them against the tagion from which they not only might, but ¢ part, suffer. This was his main object; butje is another closely connected with it. As Chris! his readers were exposed to trials which thed not bear with the patience and faith that have become them. Here then are the two 0? of the Epistle — (1.) To warn against the s) | which as Jews they were most liable; (2.) To ci? 7 JAMES, EPISTLE OF JAMES, EPISTLE OF 1205 exhort them under the sufferings to which as | other hand, was opposing the old Jewish tenet tha’ stians they were most exposed. The warnings consolations are mixed together, for the writer not seem to have set himself down to compose ssay or a letter of which he had previously aged the heads; but, like one of the old prophets, ave poured out what was uppermost in his ghts, or closest to his heart, without waiting onnect,his matter, or to throw bridges across subject to subject. While, in the purity of Areek and the vigor of his thoughts, we mark in of education, in the abruptness of his transi- ;and the unpolished roughness of his style we trace one of the family of the Davideans, who ‘med Domitian by the simplicity of their minds by exhibiting their hands hard with toil resipp- apud Euseb. iii. 20). he Jewish vices against which he warns them -Formalism, which made the service (@pnoKela) 9d consist in washings and outward ceremonies, as he reminds them (i. 27) that it consists xx in active love and purity (see Coleridge’s to Reflection, Aph. 23; note also Active Love p. Butler’s “ Benevolence,” and Purity = Bp. ar’s * Temperance’’); fanaticism, which under Joak of religious zeal was tearing Jerusalem to s (i. 20); fatalism, which threw its sins on (i. 18); meanness, which crouched before the (ii. 2); falsehood, which had made words and 3 playthings (iii. 2-12); partizanship (iii. 14); ipeaking (iv. 11); boasting (iv. 16); oppres- (y. 4). The great lesson which he teaches , as Christians, is patience — patience in trial ); patience in good works (i. 22-25); patience t provocations (iii. 17); patience under oppres- ‘v. 7); patience under persecution (v. 10); and round of their patience is, that the coming ‘e Lord draweth nigh, which is to right all gs (v. 8). ’. There are two points in the epistle which nda somewhat more lengthened notice. These 1) ii. 14-26, which has been represented as a ul opposition to St. Paul's doctrine of justifi- ‘1 by faith, and (4) vy. 14, 15, which is quoted ne authority for the sacrament of extreme on. \) dustification being an act not of man but »D, both the phrases “justification by faith ”’ ‘justification by works”’ are inexact. Justi- m must either be by grace, or of reward. fore our question is, Did or did not St. James } justification by grace? If he did, there is no /adiction between the Apostles. Now there is )né word in St. James to the effect that a man “ his justification by works; and this would ‘essary in order to prove that he held justifi- of reward. Still St. Paul does use the ex- Yon “justified by faith’? (Rom. v. 1), and St. \ the expression, ‘justified by works, not by only.” And here is an apparent opposition. f we consider the meaning of the two Apostles, » at once that there is no contradiction either (ed or possible. St. Paul was opposing the ‘ang party, which claimed to earn acceptance hod works, whether the works of the Mosaic Nor works of piety done by themselves. In ‘tion to these, St. Paul lays down the great Uthat acceptance cannot be earned by man at it is the free gift of Gop to the Christian for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ, oriated by each individual, and made his own tnstrumentality of faith. — St. James, on the to be a child of Abraham was all in all; that god- liness was ‘not necessary, so that the belief was correct. This presumptuous confidence had trans- ferred itself, with perhaps double force, to the Christianized Jews. They had said, «‘ Lord, Lord,” and that was enough, without doing His Father’s will. ‘They had recognized the Messiah: what more was wanted? They had faith: what more was required of them? It is plain that their “ faith” was a totally different thing from the “faith” of St. Paul. St. Paul tells us again and again that his ‘faith’? is a “faith that worketh by love; ” but the very characteristic of the “ faith’? which St. James is attacking, and the very reason why he attacked it, was that it did not work by love, but- was a bare assent of the head, not influencing the heart, a faith such as devils can have, and tremble. St. James tells us that “fides informis” is not sufficient on the part of man for justification; St. Paul tells us that “fides formata” is sufficient: and the reason why fides informs will not justify us is, according to St. James, because it lacks that special quality, the addition of which constitutes it Jides formats. See on this subject Bull’s Hur- monia Apostolica et Examen Censure ; Taylor's Sermon on “ Faith working by Love,” vol. viii. p. 284, Lond. 1850; and, as a corrective of Bull’s view, Laurence’s Bampton Lectures, iv., v., vi. (6.) With respect to v. 14, 15, it is enough to say that the ceremony of extreme unction and the ceremony described by St. James differ both in their subject and in their object. The subject of extreme unction is a sick man who is about to die; and its object is not his cure. The subject of the ceremony described by St. James is a sick man who is not about to die; and its object is his cure, together with the spiritual benefit of absolution. St. James is plainly giving directions with respect to the manner of administering one of those extraordinary gifts of the Spirit with which the Church was endowed only in the Apostolic age and the age immediately succeeding the Apostles. The following editions, etc., of St. James’ Epistle may be mentioned as worthy of notice. The edition of Benson and Michaelis, Hale Magdeburgice, 1746; Semler’s Paraphiasis, Hale, 1781; Mori Prelectiones in Jacobi et Petri Epistolas, Lipsize 1794; Schneckenburger’s Annotatio ad Epist. Jac perpetua, Stuttg. 1832; Davidson’s Jntroduction to the New Test. iii. 296 ff., Lond. 1851; Alford’s Greek Test. vol. iv. p. 274, Lond. 1859 [4th ed., 1866]. The following spurious works have been attrib- uted to St. James: (1.) The Protevangelium. (2.) Historia de Nativitate Marie. (3.) De Miraculis Infantie Domini nostri, etc. Of these, the Pro- tevangelium is worth a passing notice, not for its contents, which are a mere parody on the early chapters of St. Luke, transferring the events which occurred at our Lord’s birth to the birth of St. Mary his mother, but because it appears to have been known so early in the Church. It is possible that Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. ¢. 78), and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. viii.) refer to it. Origen speaks of it (in Matt. xiii. 55); Greg- ory Nyssen (Opp. p. 346, ed. Paris), Epiphanius (Her. \xxix.), John Damascene (Orat. i., ii. in Nativ. Marie), Photius (Orat. in Nativ. Marie), and others allude to it. It was first published in Latin in 1552, in Greek in 1564. The oldest MS. of it now existing is of the 10th century. (See 1210 JAMES, EPISTLE OF Thilo’s Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, tom. i. pp. 45, 108, 159, 337, Lips. 1832.) -F. M. * It deserves notice that this epistle of James, like that of Jude, but unlike that of the other apostolic writings, never alludes to the outward facts of the Saviour’s life. pressly of the Lord Jesus Christ (see i. 1, ii. 1, v. 7, 8, 14, 15); and the faith as shown by works on which he lays such emphasis is that which rests on Christ as the Saviour of men. At the same time the language of James “offers the most strik- ing coincidences with the language of our Lord’s discourses.’’ Compare James i. 5, 6 with Matt. vii. 7, xxi. 22; i. 22 with Matt. vii. 21; ii. 13 with Matt. v. 7; iii. 1 with Matt. xxiii. 8; iii. 12 with Matt. vii. 16; and v. 12 with Matt. v. 34-37. See Westeott's /ntroduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 186 (Amer. ed.). In speaking of the sources from which the Apostle Paul derives his favorite metaphors, Dr. Howson points out in this respect a striking difference be- tween him and the Apostle James. ‘The figures of Paul are drawn almost exclusively from the practical relations or business of men, as military life, architecture, agriculture, and the contests of the gymnasium and race-course: while the figures of James are taken from some of the varied aspects or phenomena of nature. It is remarked that there is more imagery of this latter kind in the one short epistle of James than in all Paul’s epistles put together. This trait of his style appears in his allusions to ‘+ the waves of the sea driven with the wind and tossed’ (i. 6), ‘the flower of the grass’ (ver. 10), ‘the sun risen with a burning heat’ (ver. 11), ‘the fierce winds’ (iii. 4), ‘the kindling of the fire’ (ver. 5), ‘the beasts, birds, and serpents and things in the sea’ (ver. 7), ‘the fig, olive, and vine,’ ‘the salt water and fresh’ (ver. 12), ‘ the vapor that appeareth for a little time and then vanisheth away’ (iv. 14), ‘the moth-eaten garments’ (vy. 2), ithe rust’ (ver. 3), ‘the early and latter rain’ (ver. 7), ‘and the earth bringing forth her fruit’ (ver. 18).”’ (Lectures on the Character of St. Paul, pp- 6, 7, Lond. 1864.) Among the commentaries on this epistle (see above) may be mentioned Gebser, Der Brief Jacobi tibersetzt u. erkldrt, in which special reference is made to the views of the ancient Greek and Latin interpreters (1828); Theile, Comm. in Lpist. Jacobi (1833); Kern, Der Brief Jacobi untersucht u. erkldrt (1838); Cellerier, Htude et Commentaire sur U'Epitre de St. Jacques (1850); Wiesinger, Olshausen’s Bibl. Comm. vi. pt. i. (2te Aufl., 1854): Huther, in Meyer's Komm. iiber das N. T. xv. (2te Aufl., 1863): De Wette, Kxeyet. Handb. vol. iii. pt. i. (3te Aufl., by Brickner, 1865); Lange and Oosterzee, Lange’s Bibelwerk, xiii. (1862) and Amer. transl. with additions by Dr. J. I. Mombert, pp- 1-148 (1868); Neander, Der Brief Jacobi, praktisch erléutert, with Luther's version corrected by K. F. Th. Schneider, pp. 1-162; Webster and Wilkinson, Greek N. Test., with notes grammatical and exegetical, ii. 1-5 and 10-30 (Lond. 1861); Rev. T. Trapp, Commentary on the N. Testament (pp. 6938-705), quaint in style but terse and sen- tentious (Webster’s ed. Lond. 1865); and Bouman, Comm. perpetuus in Jacobi Epistolam, Traj. ad Rhen. 1865. For a list of some of the older works, zee Reuss’s (Geschichte des N. Test. p. 131 (8te Ausg. 1860). Valuable articles on the epistle of James will be ‘ound in Herzog’s Real-Encyk. vi. 417 ff. by Lange; Yet James speaks ex- JANGLING in Zeller’s Bibl. Worterd. i. 658 fF. by Z analysis specially good); and in Kitto’s Bibl. Literature, by Dr. Eadie (3d ed. 186 a compendious view of the critical questions to the authorship, destination, and doctring letter, see Bleek’s Linleitung in das N. | 539-553 (1862). Rey. T. D. Maurice gives line of the apostle’s thoughts in his Uni New Testament, pp. 816-331. See also § Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic A ge,’ 324. The monographic literature is some: tensive. The theologian, George Chr. Knay of “The Doctrine of Paul and James re Faith and Works, compared with the Tea our Lord,” in his Seripta Varit Arg 411-456. See a translation of the same W. Thompson in the Biblical Repository, 228. Neander has an essay in his Gele, schrifien (3te Ausg. 1827) entitled Paw Jacobus, in which he illustrates the “Unit Evangelical Spirit in different Forms.” § tracts from this essay are appended to tl translation. Prof. E. P. Barrows has writte “ Alleged Disagreement between Paul and on the subject of justification, in the Bibl ix. 761-782. On this topic see also N Pflanzung u. Leitung, ii. 858-873 (Ro; transl. p. 498 ff); Lechler’s Das apos nachapost. Zeitalter, pp. 252-263; and | History of the Apostolic Church, p. 625 ff! 1853). Stier has published Der Brief des! in 82 Betrachtungen ausgelegt (1845). F other similar works or discussions, see | Bibelwerk as above (p. 24 f.), or Dr. Scat of Lange's Commentary (p. 83 f.) JAMIN (]'D° [right side or hand]: | "Tauelu, Iouty; [Vat. lauerv, and so Alex} Num.:] Jamin). 1. Second son of Simec xlvi. 10; Ex. vi. 15; 1 Chr. iy. 24), founda family (mishpacah) of the Jaminites (Nui 12). 2. (["Iouiv; Vat. Iawew;] Alex. IaBe man of Judah, of the great house of Hezron\ son of Ram the Jerahmeelite (1 Chr. ii. 27 3. [Comp. ’Iauefy.] One of the Ley; under Ezra and Nehemiah read and expour? law to the people (Neh. viii. 7). By the [Rom., Vat., Alex.] the greater part of th) in this passage are omitted. JA’MINITES, THE O22 [ patriy 6 "Iauivt [Vat. -ver]: familia Jaminitard) descendants of JAMIN the son of Simeon xxvi. 12). i JAM’LECH (712% [He, i. e. God king]: "Iewoddx; [Comp. Ald.] Alex. Au Jemlech), one of the chief men (OS WIA “princes ”’) of the tribe of Simeon (1 Chr.'. probably in the time of Hezekiah (see ver. |) JAMNIA (‘Tapvia, Idurera, and so Jep [in 1 Mace. iv. 15, Alex. lavyela, Sin. rah Jamnia), 1 Mace. iv. 15, v. 58, x. 69, | [JABNEEL. | ae JAMW’NITES, THE (oi év ’lapvela, virar: Jamnite), 2 Mace. xii. 8, 9, 40. NEEL. | : * JANGLING in 1 Tim. i. 6 (A. V.¥ “vain jangling ”’ represents the Greek warai? does not signify “wrangling,” but “ba JANNA talk.” This use of the word is well illustrated tation from Chaucer’s Parson’s Tale, given twood and Wright’s Bible Word-Book: gelyny is whan a man spekith to moche biforn nd clappith as a mille, and taketh no keep saith.” As WNA (Savvd [Lachm. and Tisch. "Iavvai]), ‘oseph, and father of Melchi, in the geneal- ‘Christ (Luke iii. 24). It is perhaps only a ion of Joannas or John. .A. C. H. NNES and JAM’BRES (‘Iavyjjs, “Tau- ,the names of two Egyptian magicians who ad Moses. St. Paul alone of the sacred writers ons them by name, and says no more than hey “ withstood Moses,’’ and that their folly ng so became manifest (2 Tim. iii. 8, 9). It rs from the Jewish commentators that these ;were held to be those of the magicians who 1d Moses and Aaron, spoken of in Exodus (or their leaders), of whom we there read that irst imitated the wonders wrought by Moses laron, but, afterwards failing, confessed that gwer of God was with those whom they had jood (chap. vii. 11, where the Targum of han inserts these names, 22, viii. 18, 19). ‘this St. Paul's words perfectly agree. abres is written in some codices MauBpijs: orms, the latter being slightly varied, are found } Jewish commentaries (OT2%8", O75): wmer appears to be the earlier form. We been unable to discover an Egyptian name bling Jambres or Mambres. The termination s that of many Egyptian compounds ending RA “the sun;’? as Men-kau-ra, Mevyépns atho, [Vth Dyn.). mes appears to be a transcription of the jan name AAN, probably pronounced Ian. It he nomen of two kings: one of the XIth sty, the father or ancestor of Sesertesen I. of Ith; the other, according to our arrangement, (or fifth king of the XVth Dyn., called by tho "Idvvas or “lavias (Jos.) or Sraay (Afr. ). Hore Alyyptiace, pp. 174, 175.) There is King bearing the name Annu, whom we ) to the IId Dyn. (Hor. Aq. p. 101). The cation of A‘in is doubtful: the cognate word ‘Means a valley or plain. ‘The earlier king may be assigned to the twenty-first century the latter one we hold to be probably the A predecessor of Joseph’s Pharaoh. This shows ) name which may be reasonably supposed to ‘original of Jannes, was in use at or near the of the sojourn in Egypt. The names of the (it Egyptians were extremely numerous and l uctuating in use: generally the most prevalent ytime were those of kings then reigning or ing dead. "result as to the name of Jannes throws light /.4 curious question raised by the supposition ft. Paul took the names of the magicians from [alent tradition of the Jews. This conjecture ‘old as the time of Theodoret, who makes the I sed tradition oral. (Ta pévrot tov’Twy dvd- bovk ek Tis clas ypapis weudOnrer 6 Oetos TroAos, GAA’ ex THs aypadov TaY lovdalwy {kadtas: ad loc.). This opinion would be of ‘mportance were it not for the circumstance “hese names were knewn to the Greeks and ans at too early a period for us to suppose that aformation was derived from St. Paul's men- JANOHAH 1211 tion (see Plin. H. N. xxx. 1; Apul. Apol. p. 24 Bipont.; Numenius ap. Euseb. Prep. Evan. ix. 8) It has therefore been generally supposed that St Paul took these names from Jewish tradition. It seems, however, inconsistent with the character of an inspired record for a baseless or incorrect current tradition to be cited; it is therefore satisfactory to find there is good reason for thinking these names to be authentic. Whether Jannes and Jambres were mentioned in some long-lost book relating to the early history of the Israelites, or whether there were a veritable oral tradition respecting them, can- not now be determined. The former is the more probable supposition — if, as we believe, the names are correct — since oral tradition is rarely exact in minute particulars. The conjecture of Majus (Odserr. Sacr. ii. 42 ft., ap. Winer, Realwért. s. v.), that Jannes and Jambres are merely meaningless words put for lost proper names, is scarcely worth refuting. The words are not sufficiently similar to give a color to the idea, and there is no known instance of the kind in the Bible. The Rabbins state that Jannes and Jambres were sons of Balaam, and among various forms of their names give Johannes and Ambrosius. ‘There was an apocryphal work called Jaunnes and Mambres, condemned by Pope Gelasius. The Arabs mention the names of several magi- cians who opposed Moses; among them are none resembling Jannes and Jambres (D’Herbelot, art. Moussa Ben Amran). There are several dissertations on this subject (J. Grotius, Diss. de Janne et Jambre, Hafn. 1707; J. G. Michaelis, /d. Hal. 1747; Zentgrav, /d. Argent. 1669; Lightfoot, Sermon on Jannes and Jambres, ete. [labricius, Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 813-825]). There is a question of considerable interest as to these Egyptian magicians which we cannot here discuss: Is their temporary success attributable to pure imposture? The passages relating to them in the Bible would lead us to reply affirmatively, as we have already said in speaking of ancient Egyp- tian magic. [EGypr.] Babs bs JANO’AH (™73 [rest, quiet]: » ’Amadx;3 Alex. Iavwy: Janoé), a place apparently in the north of Galilee, or the “land of Naphtali’’ — one of those taken by Tiglath-Pileser in his first ineur- sion into Palestine (2 K. xv. 29). No trace of it appears elsewhere. By Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. “Tanon’’), and even by Reland (Pal. p. 826), it is confounded with Janohah, in the centre of the country. G. JANO’HAH (MTD, i. e. Yanochah [with LA local, unto rest]: ’layw«d, but in next verse Maxa; Alex. Iavw3 [Comp. ‘Tavwxd:] Janve), a place on the boundary of Ephraim (possibly that between it and Manasseh). It is named between Taanath-Shiloh and Ataroth, the enumeration pro- ceeding from west to east (Josh. xvi. 6,7). Euse- bius (Onomasticon, ‘*Iano’’) gives it as twelve miles east of Neapolis. A little less than that dis- tance from Nablis, and about S. E. in direction, two miles from Akrabeh, is the village of Yanin, doubtless identical with the ancient Janohah. It seems to have been first visited in modern times by Van de Velie (ii. 303, May 8, 1852; see also Rob. iii. 297). It is in a valley descending sharply east- ward towards the Jordan. The modern village is 1212 JANUM very small, but the ancient ruins “extensive and interesting.” “T have not seen,” says V., “any of Israel's ancient cities in such a condition: entire nouses and walls exist, covered with immense heaps of earth.’”’ But there are also ruins on the hill N. E. of Yanin, called Khirbet Y., which may be the site of the original place (Rob. p. 297). G. JA’NUM (DADS, following the Keri of the Masorets, but in the original text, Cedid, it is D°°, Janim [slumber]: "Ieuaty [Vat. -ev]; Alex. Avovp: Janum), a town of Judah in the mountain district, apparently not far from Hebron, and named between Eshean and Beth-tappuah (Josh. xv. 53). It was not known to Eusebius and Jerome (see Onomast. “JTanun’’), nor does it appear to have been yet met with by any modern investigator. G. JA’PHETH (415): "Ide: Japheth), one of the three sons of Noah. From the order in which their names invariably oceur (Gen. vy. 82, vi. 10) we should naturally infer that Japheth was the youngest, but we learn from ix. 24 that Ham held that position, and the precedence of Japheth before this one of the three is indicated in the order of the names in x. 2,6. It has been generally sup- posed from x. 21 that Japheth was the eldest; but it should be observed that the word gadél in that passage is better connected with “ brother,” as in the Vulg. “fratre Japhet majore.”’ Not only does the usage of the Hebrew language discountenance the other construction, but the sense of the passage requires that the age of Shem rather than of Ja- pheth should be there specified. We infer therefore that Japheth was the second son of Noah. The origin of the name is referred by the sacred writer to the root pathah (71E78), “to extend,” as pre- dictive of the wide spread of his descendants over the northern and western regions of the world (Gen. ix. 27). The name has also been referred to the root yaphah (7155), “to be fair,” as significant of the light complexion of the Japhetic races (Gesenius, Thes. p. 1138; Knobel, Volkert. p. 22). From the resemblance of the name to the mythological Japetus, some writers have sought to establish a connection between them. Iapetus was regarded hy the Greeks as the ancestor of the human race. The descendants of Japheth occupied the “ isles of the Gentiles ’’ (Gen. x. 5), 7. e. the coast-lands of the Mediterranean Sea in Europe and Asia Minor, whence they spread northwards over the whole continent of Europe and a considerable portion of Asia. [JAVAN.] Wade. JAPHYVA (pa [ fair, splendid]: bayyal; Alex. Iagaya:; [Comp. "lapdié 3 Ald. "Adué:] Japhie). The boundary of Zebulun ascended from Daberath to Japhia, and thence passed to Gath- hepher (Josh. xix. 12). Daberath appears to be on the slopes of Mount Tabor, and Gath-hepher may possibly be e/-Meshhad, 2 miles N. of Naza- reth. Six miles W. of the former, and 2 miles S. of Nazareth, is Ydafa, which is not unlikely to be identical with Japhia (Rob. ii. 8343-44): at least — @ It should be remarked that Yafa, Lsly, is the modern representative of both 5%, 7. e. Joppa, and 985%, Japhia, two names originally very distinct. r wJA’PHO (p> [beauty] : "Idan? JAPHO this is much more probable than Chaifa ( nopolis) in the bay of Akka — the sugge Eusebius (Onomast. “Tapheth’’), and end Reland (Pal. p. 826) — an identification 1 neither etymologically nor topographically ble. Yafa may also be the same with tl which was occupied by Josephus during hi gle with the Romans — “a very large vi Lower Galilee, fortified with walls and full ple” (Vita, § 45; comp. 37, and B. J. ii. | of whom 15,000 were killed and 2,130 taker ers by the Romans (B. J. iii. 7, § 81); th Jefat be Jotapata this can hardly be, as are more than ten miles apart, and he ¢ says that they were neighbors to each othe! A tradition, which first appears in § Maundeville, makes Yafa the birthplace « dee and of the Apostles James and John, | Hence it is called by the Latin monks of } ‘San Giacomo.’”’ See Quaresmius, Eluci 843; and Karly Trav., p. 186; Maundey it the “ Castle of Saffra.”” So too Von Hai 1498: “Saffra, eyn castett van wylcheme und Sebedeus geboren waren” (Pilgerf| 195). JAPHI’A (Y°D® [shining, splendid]: Alex. Iagie: Japhia). 1. King of Lachis: time of the conquest of Canaan by the ] (Josh. x. 3); one of the five “kings of tl rites’? who entered into a confederacy Joshua, and who were defeated at Beth-ho lost their lives at Makkedah. The king of is mentioned more than once in this narrat 5, 23), but his name occurs only as above. : 2. (legués, "Tagi€; [Vat. in 1 Chr. ; Iavovov (so FA.);] Alex. Agze, [Iadie:] « One of the sons of David, tenth of the born to him by his wives after his establish Jerusalem (2 Sam. vy. 15; 1 Chr. iii. 7, \ In the Hebrew form of this name there ar} riatious. The Peshito has Nephia, and, i ili., Nepheg. In the list given by Joseph) vii. 3, § 8) it is not recognizable: it may? vapny, or it may be "Ievaé. There do noy to be any traditions concerning Japhia. T) alogy is given under DAvip, vol. i. p. 560). JAPH’LET (bps [whom God dw ‘IapAnrs [Vat. daanx, Iapadna:] Alexi Ant: Jephiat), a descendant of me OF Beriah, his youngest son; named as the fie three Bene-Japhlet (1 Chr. vii. 32, 33). JAPH’LETI (SOE — the Jap» [patron., see above:] ’AmraAiy [ Vat. -Ac): tov lepadrei: Jephleti). The “boundary! Japhletite ”’ is one of the landmarks on ae boundary-line of Ephraim (Josh. xvi. 3), Beth-horon the lower, and between it and t Who “the Japhletite ’’ was who is thus f ated we cannot ascertain. Possibly the na serves the memory of some ancient tribe ¥ remote age dwelt on these hills, just as thitl presence of other tribes in the neighborh« be inferred from the names of Zemaraim) (the Ophnite), Cephar ha-Ammonai, anditl [BENJAMIN, p. 277, note b.] We can hary pose any connection with JAPHLET of theft Asher. No trace of the name has yet beens ered in the district. : JARAH ¥ rord occurs in the A. V. but once, Josh. xix. | of Assyria, or to its king, not in the sense in which it is the accuraté representation of the He- yord which on its other occurrences is ren- in the better known form of Joppa (2 Chr. Ear. iii. 7; Jon. i. 3). In its modern garb Vafu (LeL,), which is also the Arabic name \PHIA, a very different word in Hebrew. A; JOPPE. | /RAH (7232, and in some MSS. PTTY> y): add: Jara), a man among the descend- yf Saul; son of Micah, and great-grandson eribbaal, or Mephi-bosheth (1 Chr. ix. 42, 40). In the parallel list of ch. viii. the name ‘erially altered to JEHOADAH. /REB (az [an adversary, hostile]: "la- as if (7), in both Hos. v. 13 and x. 6;¢ h Theodoret gives "Iape{B in the former pas- and "Iapefu in the latter [and Comp. in x. 6 jap{B]; and Jerome has Jarib for the Greek lent of the LX X.) is either to be explained } proper name of a country or person, as a in apposition, or as a verb from a root 2, ‘to contend, plead.’’ All these senses are ented in the A. V. and the marginal read- md, as has been not unfrequently the case, ist preferable has been inserted in the text. Jareb been the proper name of the king of ‘a, as it would be if this rendering were cor- he word preceding (Tor, melec, * king ’’) have required the article. R. D. Kimchi iis difficulty, and therefore explained Jareb name of some city of Assyria, or as another ‘of the country itself. The Syriac gives ', yorob, as the name of a country, which is 1 by Ephrem Syrus to Egypt, reference being ‘to Hoshea king of Israel, who had sent to So ag of Egypt for assistance in his conspiracy t Shalmanezer (2 K. xvii. 4). So also the 8 Or lapetu of Theodoret is Egypt. The in which it occurs is supposed by many to io Judah, in order to make the parallelism jste; and with this in view Jarchi interprets Ahaz, who sent to Tiglath-Pileser (2 K. xvi. iid him against the combined forces of Syria rael. But there is no reason to suppose that ‘0 clauses do not both refer to Ephraim, and ‘usion would then be, as explained by Jerome, ), who was subsidized by Menahem (2 K. xv. 1d Judah would be indirectly included. The ing of the Vulgate, “avenger” (‘ad regem n”), which follows Symmachus, as well as Of Aquila (S:xaCduevov) and Theodotion, '®,” are justified by Jerome by a reference to yaal, the name of Gideon, which he renders catur se Baal,’ or “judicet eum Baal,’ “let venge himself,” or ‘Jet, Baal judge him.’ » ‘argumist evidently looked upon it as a verb, yocopated future Hiphil of DAT, rv, and ‘ted the clause, “and sent to the king that “ht come to avenge them.’’ If it be a He- ord, it is most probably a noun formed from ‘ove-mentioned root, like AY, ydrib (Is. 9; Ps. xxv. 1), and is applied to the land ES ESSE | an.instance of the contrary, see NeBpwd for JARHA 1213 it is understood in the Targum, but as indicating their determined hostility to Israel, and their gen-- erally aggressive character. Cocceius had this idea before him when he translated “ rex adversarius.’’ Michaelis (Suppl. ad Lea. Heb.), dissatisfied with the usual explanations, looked for the true meaning of Jareb in the Syriac root Need e ireb, “to be great,’ and for “king Jareb”’ substituted “the great king,’’ a title frequently applied to the kings of Assyria. If it were the proper name of a place, he says it would denote that of a castle or palace in which the kings of Assyria resided. But of this there can be no proof, the name has not descended to us, and it is better to take it in a symbolical sense as indicating the hostile character of Assyria. That it is rather to be applied to the country than to the king may be inferred from its standing in parallelism with Asshur. Such is the opinion of First (Handw. s. v.), who illustrates the symbolical usage by a comparison with Rahab as applied to Egypt. At the same time he hazards a conjecture that it may have been an old Assyrian word, adopted into the Hebrew language, and so modified as to express an intelligible idea, while retaining something of its original form. Hitzig (dze 12 kl. Proph.) goes further, and finds in a mixed dialect, akin to the Assyrian, a verb jarbam, which denotes “to struggle or fight,’ and jarbech, the Aithiopic for “a hero or bold warrior;’’ but it would be desirable to have more evidence on the point. Two mystical interpretations, alluded to by Je- rome as current among commentators in his time, are remarkable for the singularly opposite conclu- sions at which they arrived; the one referring the word to the Devil, the other to Christ. Rivetus (quoted by Glassius, Philol. Sacr. iv. tr. 3) was of opinion that the title Jareb or ‘avenger”’ was as- sumed by the powerful king of Assyria, as that of ‘‘ Defender of the Faith’? by our own monarchs. Wit AseW: JA/RED (17° [descent, low ground], i. e. Je- red, as the name is given in A. V. of Chr., but in pause oT from which the present form may have been derived, though more probably from the Vul gate: "Idped, Alex. also Iaper; N. T. Idped and [Lachm.] ’Idpe6 [Tisch. *Idper]; Joseph. lapédys: Jared), one of the antediluvian patriarchs, the fifth from Adam; son of Mahalaleel, and father of Enoch (Gen. v. 15, 16, 18, 19, 20; Luke iii 37). In the lists of Chronicles the name is given in the A. V. [as] JERED. JARESI’AH (AMWIY? [whom Jehovah nourishes] : "lapacia; [Vat. lacapaia:] Jersia), a Benjamite, one of the Bene-Jeroham [sons of J.]; a chief man of his tribe, but of whom nothing is recorded (1 Chr. viii. 27). JARHA (DM) [see at end of the art.]: "Iwxynr: [Comp. ‘leped; Ald. ‘Iepad:] Jerac), the Egyptian servant of Sheshan, about the time of Eli, to whom his master gave his daughter and heir in marriage, and who thus became the founder of a chief house of the Jerahmeelites, which con- tinued at least to the time of king Hezekiah, and b In another place he gives “ Jarib; dijudicans. vel ulciscens”’ (de Nom. Hebr.) 1214 JARIB JASHEN | from which sprung several illustrious persons such | of the five who conspired to punish Gibeon f as Zabad in the reign of David, and Azariah in| ing made alliance with Israel (Josh. x. 3, § the reign of Joash (1 Chr. ii. 31 ff). 5: ZABAD.] It is a matter of somewhat curious mquiry what was the name of Jarha’s wife. In ver. 31 we read “the children of Sheshan, Ahlai,”’ and in ver. 34, “Sheshan had no sons, but daugh- ters.’”” In ver. 85, Sheshan’s daughter ‘bare him Attai,’? whose grandson was Zabad; and in ch. xi. 41, “Zabad the son of Ahlai.’”? Hence some have imagined that Jarha on his marriage with Sheshan’s daughter had the name of Ahlai (interpreted a ‘ brother-to-me ”’) given him by Sheshan, to signify his adoption into Israel. Others, that Ahlai and Attai are merely clerical variations of the same name. Others, that Ahlai was a son of Sheshan, born after the marriage of his daughter. But the view which the A. V. adopts, as appears by their fe rendering W 33 in ver. 31, the children of She- shan, instead of sons, is undoubtedly the right one? namely, that Ahlai is the name of Sheshan’s daugh- ter. Her descendants were called after her, just as Joab, and Abishai, and Asahel, were always called «the sons of Zeruiah,”’ and as Abigail stands at the head of Amasa’s pedigree, 1 Chr. ii. 17. It may be noticed as an undesigned coincidence that Jarha the Egyptian was living with Sheshan, a Je- rahmeelite, and that the Jerahmeelites had their possessions on the side of Judah nearest to Egypt, 1 Sam. xxvii. 10; comp. 2 Sam. xxiii. 20, 21; Josh. xv. 21; 1 Chr. iv. 18. [JERAHMEEL; JE- HUDIJAH.| The etymology of Jarha’s name is quite unknown (Ges. Thes.; Fiirst, Concord., ete. fin his W6rterb., Egyptian]; Burrington’s Ge- neal.; Beeston, Geneal.; Hervey’s Geneal., p. 34; Bertheau, on 1 Chr. ii. 24, &c.). ASC} Es JA’RIB (A [adhering]: "Iapig; [Vat. Iapew;] Alex. IapesB: Jarib). 1. Named in the list of 1 Chr. iv. 24 only, as a son of Simeon. He occupies the same place as JACHIN in the parallel lists of Gen. xlvi., Ex. vi., and Num. xxvi., and the name is possibly a corruption from that (see Burrington, i. 55). 2. ['IapiB; Vat. ApeB.] One of the ‘chief men”? (OW NS), “heads ’’) who accompanied Ezra on his journey from Babylon to Jerusalem (Kzr. viii. 16), whether Levite or layman is not clear. In 1 Esdras the name is given as JORIBAS. 3 [IapiB; Vat. Ald. "Tapelu3 FA. Iwpeuu. | A priest of the house of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, who had married a foreign wife, and was compelled by Ezra to put her away (Ezr.x. 18). In 1 Esdras the name is JORIBUS. a, Clapp; Alex. IwaptB 3 [Sin. Iwape:B:] 1 Mace. xiv. 29.) A contraction or corruption of the name JOARIB, which occurs correctly in ch. ii. 1. JAR’IMOTH Clapiudd [ Vat. -pew-]: Lari- meth), 1 Esdr. ix. 28. [JEREMOTH. | JARMUTH (VA [height, hill]). 1. (‘Iepyov, [‘lepuov8; Vat. in Josh. x. and xii. “pels Alex. in Josh. xii. it, Teptjuou; in Neh., Vat. Alex. FA.1 omit, FA.3 Ipiuovd: Jerimoth, Jerimuth.]) A town in the Shefelah or low coun- try of Judah, named with Adullam, Socoh, and pthers (Josh. xv. 35). Its king, PRAM, was one a Bertheau’s remark, that none of the persons named in this long genealogy recur elsewhere, is sin- yularly misplaced. [AZARIAH | who were routed at Beth-horon and put to by Joshua at Makkedah (ver. 23). In this tive, and also in the catalogue of the “ royal 4 destroyed by Joshua, Jarmuth is named n, Hebron, which, however, was quite in the tains. In Neh. xi. 29 it is named as havin the residence of some of the children of after the return from captivity. Eusebius a rome either knew two places of this name,| error has crept into the text of the Onoma) for under “Jarimuth”’ they state it to | Eshtaol, 4 miles from Eleutheropolis; while! “Jirmus’’ they give it as 10 miles from tl opolis, om the road going up to Jerusalem. | named Yarmuk, with a contiguous eminence Tell-Ermvid, was visited by Robinson (ii. 1i: Van de Velde (ii. 193; Memoir, p. 324). | about 14 miles from Bezt-netif, which again i 8 miles from Beit-yibrin, on the left of the | § Jerusalem. Shuweikeh (the ancient Socoh) a neighboring hill. We have yet to disco principles on which the topographical divisi the ancient Hebrews were made. Was the | lah —the “low country’? —a district whic its designation from the plain which forn major portion, but which extended over some{ hill-country? In the hill-country Jarmuth) doubtedly situated, though specified as in ee Yarmiuk has been last visited by Tobler (3¢e! derung, pp- 120, 462, 463). 2. (i) ‘Peupdd; Alex. [Ald.] "lepudd: ‘ moth.]) A city of Issachar, allotted with i: urbs to the Gershonite Levites (Josh. xxi. 2!) the specification of the boundaries of Issacr mention is made of Jarmuth (see Josh. xix. ~ but a REMETH is mentioned there (ver. 2] in the duplicate list of Levitical cities (1 (r 73) RAmorH occupies the place of Jarmuth two names are modifications of the same rc, might without difficulty be interchanged,'! Jarmuth does not appear to have been yeil tified. [RAmoru.] G JARO’AH (man [moon]: "Sat; Ales\ [Comp. "Iapové:] Jara), a chief man of tit of Gad (1 Chr. v. 14). JAS‘AEL (‘Iacajaos; [Vat.] Alex A naos: Azcbus), 1 Esdr. ix. 30. [SHEAL.] JA’/SHEN (qs [sleeping]: ’Aody; © ‘lucév:] Jassen). Bene-Jashen — “sons shen ” — are named in the catalogue of e of David’s guard in 2 Sam. xxiii. 32. Hebrew, as accented by the Masorets, thw have no necessary connection with the nats ceding or following them; but in the A. '' are attached to the latter — “ of the sons of Jonathan.’”? The passage has every appeal}¢ being imperfect, and accordingly, in the! list in Chronicles, it stands, “the sons of the Gizonite’? (1 Chr. xi. 384). Kenni(t examined it at length (Dissertation, pp. 1! and, on grounds which cannot here be sta; shown good cause for believing that a nié escaped, and that the genuine text was, Bene-Hashem, Gouni; Jonathan ben-S! b * This design of the translators is not cei” the A. V. often renders D2 children,” 2°! should be * sons.” 7 a JASHER, BOOK OF ie list given by Jerome in his Queestiones He- we, Jashen and Jonathan are both omitted. A/SHER, BOOK OF (wan 750), or, e margin of the A. V. gives it, the book of the ght, a record alluded to in two passages only ie Q. T. (Josh. x. 13, and 2 Sam. i. 18), and quently the subject of much dispute. The er passage is omitted in the LXX., while in latter the expression is rendered BiBAlov Tov gs: the Vulgate has liber justorum in both nees. The Peshito Syriac in Josh. has “the of praises or hymns,” reading WT for ‘7J, and a similar transposition will account for rendering of the same version in Sam., “the of Ashi.’ The Targum interprets it “the of the law,’’ and this is followed by Jarchi, gives, as the passage alluded to in Joshua, the hecy of Jacob with regard to the future great- of Ephraim (Gen. xlviii. 19), which was ful- when the sun stood still at Joshua's bidding. ‘same Rabbi, in his commentary on Samuel, 3 to Genesis ‘the book of the upright, Abra- Tsaac, and Jacob,” to explain the allusion to book of Jasher; and Jerome, while discussing etymology of “Israel,’’ which he interprets as tus Dei,” @ incidentally mentions the fact that sis was called “the book of the just’’ (liber sis appellatur ev@éwy, id est, justorum), from ontaining the histories of Abraham, Isaac, and 1 (Comm. in Jes. xliv. 2). The Talmudists bute this tradition to R. Johanan. Rk. Eliezer ‘ght that by the book of Jasher was signified book of Deuteronomy, from the expressions in 3. Vi. 18, xxxiii. 7, the latter being quoted in f of the skill of the Hebrews in archery. In pinion of R. Samuel ben Nachman, the book udges was alluded to as the book of Jasher ‘da Zara, c. ii.); and that it was the book of twelve minor prophets was held by some He- ‘writers, quoted without name by Sixtus Se- is (Bibl. Sanct. lib. ii.). R. Levi ben Gershom gnizes, though he does not follow, the tradition a by Jarchi, while Kimchi and Abarbanel adopt rendering of the Targum. ‘This diversity of fons proves, if it prove nothing more, that no | was known to have survived which could lay /1 to the title of the book of Jasher. sephus, in relating the miracle narrated in |iua x., appeals for confirmation of his account Wee documents deposited in the Temple (Ant. ‘ §17), and his words are supposed to contain ‘vert allusion to the book of Jasher as the source lis authority. But in his treatise against Apion 1.) he says the Jews did not possess myriads | ooks, discordant and contradictory, but twenty- only; from which Abicht concludes that the ‘sof Scripture were the sacred books hinted at te former passage, while Masius understood by tsame the Annals which were written by the ‘hets or by the royal scribes. ‘Theodoret ( Quest. im Jesum Nave) explains the words in Josh. “3, which he quotes as rb BiBAlov rd ebpebev 9. an error for ed@és, as he has in Quest. iv. " Reg.), as referring to the ancient record from h the compiler of the book of Joshua derived le of his history, and applies the passage | Sam. ii. 18 to prove that other documents, _ Dr. Donaldson had overlooked this passage when es that his own analysis of the word “ Israel ”’ { ? JASHER, BOOK OF 121 written by the prophets, were made use of in the composition of the historical books. Jerome, of rather the author of the Questiones Hebraice, understood by the book of Jasher the books of Samuel themselves, inasmuch as they contained the history of the just prophets, Samuel, Gad, and Nathan. Another opinion, quoted by Sixtus Se- nensis, but on no authority, that it was the book of eternal predestination, is scarcely worth more than the bare mention. That the book of Jasher was one of the writings which perished in the Captivity was held by R. Levi ben Gershom, though he gives the traditional explanation above mentioned. His opinion has been adopted by Junius, Hottinger (Z'hes. Phil. ii. 2, § 2), and many other modern writers (W olfii Bibl. Heb. ii. 223). What the nature of the book may have been can only be inferred from the two passages in which it is mentioned and their context, and, this being the case, there is clearly wide room for conjecture. The theory of Masius (quoted by Abicht) was, that in ancient times whatever was worthy of being recorded for the instruction of pos- terity, was written in the form of Annals by learned men, and that among these Annals or records was the book of Jasher, so called from the trustworthiness and methodical arrangement of the narrative, or because it contained the relation of the deeds of the people of Israel, who are elsewhere spoken of under the symbolical name Jeshurun. Of the later hypothesis Fiirst approves (Handw. s. v.). Sanctius (Comm. ad 2 Reg. i.).conjectured that it was a collection of pious hymns written by differ- ent authors and sung on various occasions, and that from this collection the Psalter was compiled. That it was written in verse may reasonably be in- ferred from the only specimens extant, which exhibit unmistakable signs of metrical rhythm, but that it took its name from this circumstance is not sup- ported by etymology. Lowth, indeed (Prel. pp. 306, 807), imagined that it was a collection of na- tional songs, so called because it probably com- menced with WY TR, dz ydshir, “then sang,” etc., like the song of Moses in Ex. xv. 1; his view of the question was that of the Syriac and Arabic translators, and was adopted by Herder. But, granting that the form of the book was poetical, a difficulty still remains as to its subject. That the book of Jasher contained the deeds of national he- roes of all ages embalmed in verse, among which Davyid’s lament over Saul and Jonathan had an ap- propriate place, was the opinion of Calovius. A fragment of a similar kind is thought to appear in Num. xxi. 14. Gesenius conjectured that it was an anthology of ancient songs, which acquired its name, “the book of the just or upright,”’ from being written in praise of upright men. He quotes but does not approve, the theory of Illgen that like the Hamasa of the Arabs, it celebrated the achievements of illustrious warriors, and from this derived the title of “the book of valor.’ But the idea of warlike valor is entirely foreign to the root ydshar, Dupin contended from 2 Sam. i. 18, that the contents of the book were of a military nature; but Montanus, regarding rather the etymology, considered it a collection of political and moral pre- cepts. Abicht, taking the lament of David as a sample of the whole, maintained that the fragment Da I I ea Sh ea had hitherto escaped the notice of all commentatora (Jashar, p. 23). 1216 JASHER, BOOK OF quoted in the book. of Joshua was part of a funeral ode composed upon the death of that hero, and narrating his achievements. At the same time he uoes not conceive it necessary to suppose that one book only is alluded to in both instances. It must be admitted, however, that there is very slight ground for any conclusion beyond that which af- fects the form, and that nothing can be confidently asserted with regard to the contents. But, though conjecture might almost be thought to have exhausted itself on a subject so barren of premises, a scholar of our own day has not despaired of being able, not only to decide what the book of Jasher was in itself, but to reconstruct it from the fragments which, according to his theory, he traces throughout the several books of the O. T. In the preface to his Jashar, or Fragmenta Archetypa Carminum Hebraicorum in Masorethico Veteris Testamenti textu passim tesselata, Dr. Donaldson advances a scheme for the restoration of this ancient record, in accordance with his own idea of its scope and contents. Assuming that, during the tranquil and prosperous reign of Solomon, an unwonted im- pulse was given to Hebrew literature, and that the worshippers of Jehovah were desirous of possessing something on which their faith might rest, the book of “ Jashar,” or ‘ uprightness,’”’ he asserts, was written, or rather compiled, to meet this want. Its object was to show that in the beginning man was upright, but had by carnal wisdom forsaken the spiritual law; that the Israelites had been chosen to preserve and transmit this law of upright- ness; that David had been made king for his relig- ious integrity, leaving the kingdom to his son Solomon, in whose reign, after the dedication of the Temple, the prosperity of the chosen people reached its culminating point. The compiler of the book was probably Nathan the prophet, assisted perhaps by Gad the seer. It was thus “the first offspring of the prophetic schools, and ministered spiritual food to the greater prophets.’’ Rejecting, therefore, the authority of the Masoretic text, as founded entirely on tradition, and adhering to his own theory of the origin: and subject of the book of Jasher, Dr. Donaldson proceeds to show that it contains the religious marrow of Holy Scripture. In such a case, of course, absolute proof is not to be looked for, and it would be impossible here to discuss what measure of probability should be assigned to a scheme elaborated with considerable ingenuity. Whatever ancient fragments in the sacred books of the Hebrews exhibit the nature of uprightness, celebrate the victories of the true Israelites, predict their prosperity, or promise future blessedness, have, according to this theory, a claim to be considered among the relics of the book of Jasher. Following such a principle of selection, the fragments fall into seven groups. The first part, the object of which is to show that man was created upright (TW, yashar), but fell into sin by carnal wisdom, contains two fragments, an Elohistic and a Jehovistic, both poetical, the latter being the more full. The first of these includes Gen. i. 27, 28, vi. 1, 2, 4, 5, vill. 21, vi. 6,3; the other is made up of Gen. ii. 7-9, 15-18, 25, iii. 1-19, 21, 23, 24. The second part, consisting of four fragments, shows how the descendants of Abraham, as being upright (OUWs, yesharim), were adopted by God, while the neighboring nations were rejected. Fragment (1) Gen. ix. 18-27; fragment (2) Gen. iv. 2-8 ) JASHER, BOOK OF 8-16; fragment (3) Gen. xvi. 1-4, 15, 16, 9-16, 18-26, xxi. 1-14, 20, 21; fragment (4) xxv. 20-34, xxvii. 1-10, 14, 18-20, 25-40, iy 19, xxvi. 34, xxxvi. 2, iv. 23, 24, xxxvi. 8 x 9, xxvi. 85, xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1-4, 11-19, xxi &c., 24, 29, xxxv. 22-26, xxxiv. 25-29, xxxy, ( 15, xxxii. 31. In the third part is related » the figure of the deluge how the Israelites esc from Egypt, wandered forty years in the wilder and finally, in the reign of Solomon, built a te to Jehovah. The passages in which this is f are Gen. vi. 5-14, vii. 6, 11, 12, viii. 6, 7, vi 12, v. 29, viii. 4; 1 K. vi., viii. 48; Deut, yil Ps. y. 8. The three fragments of the fourth, contain the divine laws to be observed by thi right people, and are found (1) Deut, v. 1-22) vi. 1-5; Lev. xix. 18; Deut. x. 12-21, xi. 1-5, | (3) viii. 1-3, vi. 6-18, 20-25. ‘The blessings o} upright and their admonitions are the subje the fifth part, which contains the songs of i (Gen. xlix.), Balaam (Num. xxiii., xxiv.), and }\ (Deut. xxxii., xxxiii.). The wonderful victories deliverances of Israel are celebrated in the | part, in the triumphal songs of Moses and Mh (Ex. xv. 1-19), of Joshua (Josh. x. 12-13), ar! Deborah (Judg. vy. 1-20). The seventh is ‘i lection of various hymns composed in the ri of David and Solomon, and contains Dayid’s | of triumph over Goliath (1 Sam. ii. 1-10): lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 19] and for Abner (2 Sam. iii. 33, 84); his psali thanksgiving (Ps. xviii., 2 Sam. xxii.); his triun): ode on the conquest of the Edomites (Ps. is his prophecy of Messiah’s kingdom (2 Sam. ii 1-7), together with Solomon's epithalamium? xly.), and the hymn sung at the dedication o! Temple (Ps. lxviii.). j Among the many strange results of this arr ment, Shem, Ham, and Japhet are no longe' sons of Noah, who is Israel under a figure, bi Adam; and the circumstances of Noah’s life ree in Gen. ix. 18-27 are transferred to the le Cain and Abel are the sons of Shem, Abrahi | the son of Abel, and Esau becomes Lamech th} of Methuselah. | There are also extant, under the title of ‘b Book of Jasher,”’ two Rabbinical works, one a r treatise, written in A. D. 1894 by R. Shab Carmuz Levita, of which a copy in MS. exis’ the Vatican Library; the other, by R. Tham, tt of the laws of the Jews in eighteen chapters was printed in Italy in 1544, and at Cracc} 1586. An anonymous work, printed at Venicin Prague in 1625, and said to have made its} appearance at Naples, was believed by some |W to be the record alluded to in Joshua. It con the historical narratives of the Pentateuch, Jo} and Judges, with many fabulous addin Jacob translated it into German, and printeiMl version at Frankfort on the Maine in 1674. li said in the preface to the 1st,ed. to have beer)s covered at the destruction of Jerusalem, by Sit one of the officers of Titus, who, while search‘ house for the purpose of plunder, found in a ste chamber a vessel containing the books of the |W the Prophets, and Hagiographa, with many ot? which a venerable man was reading. Sidrus'0! the old man under his protection and built fori a * The song in 1 Sam. ii. 1-10 is not Dayid’s i Hannah’s thanksgiving song for the birth of Sa 7 a 4 JASHOBEAM use at Seville, where the books were safely sited. The book in question is probably the uction of a Spanish Jew of the 13th century cht, De Libr. Recti, in Thes. Nov. Theol.-Phil. 5-534). A clumsy forgery in English, which appeared in 1751 under the title of «the Book sher,’’ deserves notice solely for the unmerited sg with which it was palmed off upon the ic. It professed to be a translation from the ew into English by Alcuin of Britain, who yered it in Persia during his pilgrimage. It reprinted at Bristol in 1827, and was again shed in 1833, in each case accompanied by a ious commendatory note by Wickliffe. [On this ry, see Horne’s /ntroduction, iv. 741 ff., 10th -A.] W ook Wi 4SHO’BEAM (Dyaw? [the people re- : 'IereBadd, [ZoBoxdu, "IoBoa¢ (Vat. A); Alex. Ic Baap, lecBaau, IcBoau:] Jes- , [Jesboam]). Possibly one and the same rer of David, bearing this name, is described dachmonite (1 Chr. xi. 11), a Korhite (1 Chr. ), and son of Zabdiel (1 Chr. xxvii. 2). He to David at Ziklag. His distinguishing ex- was that he slew 300 (or 800, 2 Sam. xxiii. 8) at one time. He is named first among the of the mighty men of David (1 Chr. xi. 11); 'e was set over the first of the twelve monthly es of 24,000 men who served the king (xxvii. tn 2 Sam. xxiii. 8, his name seems to be rously transcribed, nya mw (A. Vz 5 sat in the seat ’’), instead of mya ; and \ same place “ Adino the Eznite”’ is possibly cuption either of TTS VY, “he » his spear” (1 Chr. xi. 11), or, as Gesenius tures, of weyn WIT, which he trans- \ he shook it, even his spear.’ [EZNITE.] ] W 24RD: /SHUB (aqwiy [he who returns]: in the mh. vii. 1 it is 2°W9; in the Samaritan if Num. xxvi. AW: ‘lacotp; [Vat. in 1 Taccoup :] Jasub). 1. The third son of ‘ar, and founder of the family of the Jashubites ' xxvi. 24; 1 Chr. vii. 1). In the list of Gen. ie name is given (possibly in a contracted or us form, Ges. Thes. p. 583) as Jos; but in ‘maritan Codex — followed by the LXX. — 1), Vat. Adaacovs, FA. Aaagovd, by union lie preceding word.] One of the sons of Bani, i in the time of Ezra, who had to put away ‘ign wife (Ezr. x. 29). In Esdras the name ? UBUS, )SHUBI-LEHEM (OF) %2Ws, in pies » YAW? [see below]: sa) amor pewerv ) in both MSS.: et qui reversi sunt in ), @ person or a place named among the Jants of Shelah, the son of Judah by Bath- je Canaanitess (1 Chr. iv. 22). The name ‘occur again. It is probably a place, and fuld infer from its connection with Maresha ' ozeba— if Chozeba be Chezib or Achzib — t lay on the western side of the tribe, in or ¢ Shefelah. The Jewish explanations of ' | the following Ls } | | JASON 1217 ‘may be seen in Jerome’s Quest. Heb. on this “passage, and, in a slightly different form, in the Targum on the Chronicles (ed. Wilkins, 29, 30). |The mention of Moab gives the key to the whole. Chozeba is Elimelech; Joash and Saraph are Mahlon and Chilion, who “had the dominion in Moab” from marrying the two Moabite damsels: _Jashubi-Lehem is Naomi and Ruth, who returned (Jashubi, from NW, « to return’’) to bread, or to Beth-lehem, after the famine: and the “ancient words” point to the book of Ruth as the source of the whole. G JA‘SHUBITES, THE (2W557 [patro nym.] ; Samaritan, SAWT: 6 lacovBt [Vat. -Be.|: familia Jasubitarum). The family founded by Jashub the son of Issachar (Num. xxvi. 24), [JAsHUB, 1.] JA/STEL (AQNDYS [God creates]: leoouhas [Vat. EooemA; FA. Eoema;] Alex. Eoora: Jasiel), the last named on the increased list of David's heroes in 1 Chr. xi. 47. He is described as the MEsosaire. Nothing more is known of him. JA’SON ('Idcwy), a common Greek name which was frequently adopted by Hellenizing Jews as the equivalent of Jesus, Joshua (‘Incods; comp. Joseph. Ant. xii. 5, § 1), probably with some ref- ‘erence to its supposed connection with jaca: (2. e. the Healer). A parallel change occurs in Alcimus (Eliakim); while Nicolaus, Dositheus, Menelaus, etc., were direct translations of Hebrew names. 1. JASON THE SON oF ELEAZAR (cf. Ecclus. 1. 27, "Incovs vids Sipax ’EAed(ap, Cod. A.) was one of the commissioners sent by Judas Maccabseus to conclude a treaty with the Romans x. c. 161 (1 Mace. viii. 17; Joseph. Ant. xii. 10, § 6). 2. JASON THE FATHER OF ANTIPATER, who. was an envoy to Rome at a later period (1 Mace. xii. 16, xiv. 22), is probably the same person as No. 1. 3. JASON OF CYRENE, a Jewish historian who wrote ‘in five books’? a history of the Jewish war of liberation, which supplied the chief materials for the second book of the Maccabees. [2 Mac- CABEES.] His name and the place of his residence seem to mark Jason as a Hellenistic Jew, and it is probable on internal grounds that his history was written in Greek. This narrative included the wars under Antiochus Eupator, and he must. therefore have written after B. c. 162; but nothing more is known of him than can be gathered from 2 Mace. ii. 19-23. 4. [In 2 Mace. iv. 13, Alex. Eracwv.] Jason THE HiGu-Prigst, the second son of Simon IL., and brother of Onias III., who succeeded in obtain- ing the high-priesthood from Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 175 B. C.) to the exclusion of his elder brother (2 Mace. iv. 7-26; 4 Mace. iv. 17; Joseph. Ant. xii. 5, § 1). He labored in every way to introduce Greek customs among the people, and that with great success (2 Mace. iv.; Joseph. /. c.). In order to give permanence to the changes which he de- signed, he established a gymnasium at Jerusalem, and even the priests neglected their sacred functions to take part in the games (2 Mace. iv. 9, 14), and at = ES Se eee ee ee a Jason and Jesus cecur together as Jewish names verse are very curious. They | in the history of Aristeas (Hody, De Tezt. p. vii.) 1218 JASPER ast he went so far as to send a deputation to the Tyrian games in honor of Hercules. [H&RCULES.] After three years (cir. B. c. 172) he was in turn supplanted in the king’s favor by his own emissary Menelaus [MENELAUS], who obtained the office of high-priest from Antiochus by the offer of a larger bribe, and was forced to take refuge among the Ammonites (2 Mace. iv. 26). On a report of the death of Antiochus (c. 170 B. c.) he made a violent attempt to recover his power (2 Mace. v. 5-7), but was repulsed, and again fled to the Ammonites. Afterwards he was compelled to retire to Egypt, and thence to Sparta, whither he went in the hope of receiving protection ‘in virtue of his being con- nected with them by race” (2 Mace. v. 9; comp. 1 Mace. xii. 7; Frankel, Monatsschrift, 1858, p. 456), and there “perished in a strange land’’ (2 Mace. J. c. ; ef. Dan. xii. 80 ff; 1 Mace. i. 12 ff.). B. BW: 5. JASON THE THESSALONIAN, who entertained Paul and Silas, and was in consequence attacked by the Jewish mob (Acts xvii. 5, 6, 7, 9). He is probably the same as the Jason mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21, as a companion of the Apostle, and one of his kinsmen or fellow-tribesmen. Lightfoot con- jectured that Jason and Secundus (Acts xx. 4) were the same. Wea ay JASPER ap) iy domis: jispis), a pre- cious stone frequently noticed in Scripture. It was the last of the twelve inserted in the high- priest’s breastplate (Ex. xxviii. 20, xxxix. 13), and the first of the twelve used in the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rey. xxi. 19): the difference in the order seems to show that no emblematical im- portance was attached to that feature. It was the stone employed in the superstructure (évddunors) of the wall of the new Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. 18). it further appears among the stones which adorned the king of Tyre (Ez. xxviii, 13). Lastly, it is the emblematical image of the glory of the Divine 3eing (Rev. iv. 3). The characteristics of the stone, as far as they are specified in Scriptur (Rey. xxi. 11), are that it was ‘ most precious,”’ and “like crystal”’ (kpvoradAlCwy); not exactly “clear as crystal,’ as in A. V., but of a crystal hue; the term is applied to it in this sense by Dioscorides (v. 160; AlOos idomis, 6 pev Tis eore cuapaydi- Cav, 6 5€ KpvoTahAwdys): : we may also infer from Key. iv. 3, that it was a stone of brilliant and trans- parent light. The stone which we name “jasper ”’ does not accord with this description: it is an opaque species of quartz, of a red, yellow, green, or mixed brownish-yellow hue, sometimes striped and sometimes spotted, in no respect presenting the characteristics of the crystal. ‘The only feature in the stone which at all accords with the Scriptu- ral account is that it admits of a high polish, and this appears to be indicated in the Hebrew name. With regard to the Hebrew term, the LXX. and Vulg. render it by the “onyx”? and “beryl” re- spectively, and represent the jasper by the term yahalom (A. V. *emerald’’). There can be no doubt that the diamond would more adequately answer to the description in the book of Revela- tion, and unless that beautiful and valuable stone is represented by the Hebrew yashpheh and the Greek idg7mis, it does not appear at all in the pas- sages quoted; for the term rendered “ diamond ” in Ex. xxviii. 18 really refers to the emerald. We are disposed to think, therefore, that though the names yrshpheh, pats: and jasper are identical, JATTIR the stones may have been different, and the) diamond is meant. [See CHALCEDONY.] é Wa. | JASU’BUS (lacodBos: Jasub), 1 Esd j 30. [JASHUB, 2.] JA’TAL (Ardp, both MSS.; [rather, ) Alex.; Vat. is corrupt; Ald. ‘Nardual Az, Esdr. v. 28; but whence was the form in | adopted? [From the Aldine edition, aftey Genevan version and the Bishops’ Bible. : [ATER, 1.] JATH/NIEL (© SPI [whom God be "Ievouha: Alex. Nadava; [Comp. *ladavana || Nadavefha:] Jathanaél), a Korhite Levite, 1) doorkeeper (A. V. “ porter ’’) to the house of | vah, 2. é. the tabernacle; the fourth of the i of Meshelemiah (1 Chr. xxvi. 2). | JAT’TIR (AS, i in Josh. xv. 483 else “WAY [eminent, extraordinary]: "leOép, A i Teddy, "LeOdp [Vat. 1e00ap]; Alex. leep, E« : 1 Jether), a town of Judah in the mountain dri (Josh. xv. 48), one of the group containing Eshtemoa, etc.; it was among the nine cities with their suburbs were allotted out of Jud | the priests (xxi. 14; 1 Chr. vi. 57), and wo of the places in the south in which Dayid uli haunt in his freebooting days, and to his fries: which, he sent gifts from the spoil of the eri of Jehovah (1 Sam. xxx. 27). By Eusebivar Jerome (Onomasticon, Jether) it is spoken o's very large place in the middle of Daromaie: Malatha, and 20 miles from Eleutheropolis. named by hap-Parchi; the Jewish travelleib the passage is defective, and little can be gavr from it (Zunz in Asher’ 8 Beng. of Tudela, ic By Robinson (i. 494-95) it is identified with ‘iti 6 miles N. of Molada, and 10 miles S. of Hiro and having the probable sites of Socho, Esh‘i0 and other southern towns within short distice This identification may be accepted, notwith ing the discrepancy in the distance of ’ Atti’ra Eleutheropolis (if Beit-Jibrin be Pe —which is by road nearer 30 than 20 miles. We may suspect an error in the text/ tl Onomast., often very corrupt; or Eusebiusma have confounded ’ Atti’ with Jutta, which di | exactly 20 miles from B. Jibrin. And it isy! means absolutely proved that B. Jibrin is Hehe opolis. Robinson notices that it is not usi f the Jod with which Jattir commences to ang into the Avn of ’ Attir (Bibl. Res. i. 494, note — The two Ithrite heroes of David’s gu: a probably from Jattir, living memorials te It his early difficulties. * Ruins still exist on the ancient site. “It s! uated on a green knoll, in an amphitheatre of }0" rocky hills, ‘studded with natural caves. . «|W counted upwards of thirty arched erypts - : larger and some shorter; but most of them v end walls, and having perhaps been merely p: or streats with houses over them. ‘The arel) #! round, slightly domed, or sometimes a little p|t® built. of well-dressed stones, generally two ohn feet square. Those which had the gable er) # tact had square beveled doorways, at one en al headed, about 6 feet high, and 34 feet wide. Th tunnels are generally 18 or 20 feet long, th measured one upwards of 40 feet. Some ‘pel carvings remain on the doorways. . - - Ld JAVAN f the hill lay the under stone of a very large 233 — an undeniable evidence of the existence ye-trees of old, where neither trace of tree or ‘remains. In several places we could perceive jeient terracing in the hills, and there were wells, all run dry, and partially choked with sh. The eastern face of the knoll consisted 7 of natural caves once used as dwellings, ved, and with outside extensions of arched jin front. . . . The only modern building in was a little Wely, or tomb of a Moslem on the crest of the hill” (Tristram, Land ael, p. 388 f., 2d ed.). H. VAN lak *Iwday; [in Is. and Ez., ‘EA- 'n Dan. and Zech.“EAAnves: Grecia, Grect] ‘). 1. A son of Japheth, and the father of hand Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim (Gen. :). The name appears in Is. Ixvi. 19, where coupled with Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, aud jparticularly with Tubal and the ‘isles afar 's representatives of the Gentile world: again . xxvii. 13, where it is coupled with Tubal eshech, as carrying on considerable commerce }he Tyrians, who imported from these coun- ayes and brazen vessels: in Dan. viii. 21, x. i 2, in reference to the Macedonian. empire; istly in Zech. ix. 13, in reference to the Graco- jempire.¢ From a comparison of these vari- | ssages there can be no doubt that Javan was (2d as the representative of the Greek race: yailarity of the name to that branch of the i family with which the Orientals were best tated, namely, the Ionians, particularly in the orm in which their name appears (Idwy), is se to be regarded as accidental: and the oc- ve of the name in the cuneiform inscriptions _ time of Sargon (about B. c. 709), in the 'f Yavnan or Yunan, as descriptive of the |Cyprus, where the Assyrians first came in t| with the power of the Greeks, further W shat its use was not confined to the Hebrews, \3 Widely spread throughout the East. The Was probably introduced into Asia by the ‘ians, to whom the Jonians were naturally snown than any other of the Hellenic races, punt of their commercial activity and the Hosperity of their towns on the western coast | Minor. The extension of the name west- > the general body of the Greeks, as they 4) known to the Hebrews through the Phceni- vas but a natural process, analogous to that Gye have already had to notice in the case of tt’. It can hardly be imagined that the early bis themselves had any actual acquaintance h 2 Greeks: it is, however, worth mentioning tative of the communication which existed "the Greeks and the East, that among the S\who contributed to the ornamentation of ‘don’s palaces the names of several Greek Si yppear in one of the inscriptions (Rawlin- Serod. i. 483). At a later period the He- Wiiust have gained considerable knowledge of “ks through the Egyptians. Psammetichus 64-610) employed Ionians and Carians as “nes, and showed them so much favor that ‘caste of Egypt forsook him in a body: the “were settled near Bubastis, in a part of the nM with which the Jews were familiar (Herod. / i sues ne A. V. has “ Javan” in all the passages re- ~ €xcept those in Daniel, where it is * Grecia,”’ y JAVAN, SONS OF 1219 ii. 154). The same policy was followed by the succeeding monarchs, especially Amasis (571-525), who gave the Greeks Naucratis as a commercial emporium. It is tolerably certain that any infor- mation which the Hebrews acquired in relation to the Greeks must have been through the indirect means to which we have adverted: the Greeks themselves were very slightly acquainted with the southern coast of Syria until the invasion of Alex- ander the Great. The earliest notices of Palestine occur in the works of Hecatzeus (Bb. ©. 549-486 ), who mentions only the two towns Canytis and Car- dytus; the next are in Herodotus, who describes the country as Syria Palestina, and notices inci- dentally the towns Ascalon, Azotus, Ecbatana (Bataneea?), and Cadytis, the same as the Canytis of Hecateeus, probably Gaza. These towns were on the border of Egypt, with the exception of the uncertain Ecbatana; and it is therefor highly probable that no Greek had, down to this late pe- riod, travelled through Palestine. 2. [Rom. Vat. Alex. omit; Comp. "Iaovdv; Ald. "Iwvdy: Grecia.| A town in the southern part of Arabia (Yemen), whither the Pheenicians traded (Ez. xxvii. 19): the connection with Uzal decides in favor of this place rather than Greece, as in the Vulg. The same place may be noticed in Joe] iii. 6: the parallelism to the Sabseans in ver. 8, and the fact that the Pheenicians bought instead of selling slaves to the Greeks (Ex. xxvii. 13), are in favor of this view. W.-LSB: * JA’VAN, SONS OF (2y7 dats viol Tav ‘EAAhvwv: filit Grecorum), in the A. ve “the Grecians,”’ and in the margin, “sons of the Grecians,”’ Joel iii. 6 (iv. 6 Hebr.). That the Ioni- ans or Greeks are meant in this passage of Joel, and not a place or tribe in Arabia (see JAVAN, 2), is the generally adopted view of scholars (Hitzig, Hiivernick, Riietschi, Delitzsch). According to this supposition, it is true, the Sidonians and Tyr- ians are said by Joel to sell their Jewish captives to the Greeks, and by Ezekiel (xxvii. 13), to pur- chase slaves, probably among them Greek slaves, from the Greeks themselves. The one statement, how- ever, does not exclude the other. ‘he traffic of the Phoenician slave-dealers, like that of modern slave-dealers, would consist almost inevitably of both the buying and selling of slaves. Greek female slaves were in great. request among the ori- ental nations, especially the Persians (see Herod. iii. 134), and Tyre and Sidon were the ports to which they would naturally be brought in the pros- ecution of this trade. ‘The Greeks loved liberty for themselves, but, especially in the ante-historic times to which Joel belonged, were not above en- slaving and selling those of their own race for the sake of gain. On the other hand, it is notorious that the Greeks at all periods were accustomed to capture or buy men of other nations as slaves, either for their own use, or to sell them to foreign- ers. Qn the slave-traffic of the Phoenicians and the Greeks, see the statements of Dr. Pusey, Joel, p-. 134 f. The name of the Arabian Javan (Ez. xxvii. 19) had no doubt the same origin as the Ionian or Greek Javan. But what that origin was is not certain. Some conjecture that Javan in Arabia was originally a Greek colony which had gone and Zech. ix. 18, where it is ‘ Greece,” while in Amos ili. 6 (which also belongs here) it is ‘t Grecians.” H. 1220 JAVELIN thither by the way of Egypt at an early period, and hence were known from the country whence they emigrated (Tuch, Genesis, p. 210 f., and Ha- vernick, Lzechiel, p. 469). Some think that Javan (as an Indo-Germanic word, Sansk. jwvan, comp. juvenis) meant “new”’ or “ young,’”’ and was ap- plied to the later or new branches of this Indo- Germanic stock in the west as distinguished from the old parent-stock in the remoter east. (See Riietschi in Herzog’s Real-Encyk. vi. 482, and Pott, Ltymol. Forschungen, i. xli.) Javan in the ethnographic table (Gen. x. 4) may be taken, if necessary, as the name of the race, and not of its founder, and thus, consistently both with the view last stated, and with history, the Ionians or Greeks are said to spring from the Japheth branch of Noah’s family. All the modern researches in eth- nography and geography, as Ritter has remarked, tend moie and more to confirm this “table of the nations’? in the 10th ch. of Genesis. H. JAVELIN. [Arms.] JA’ZAR (fh ’la¢hp; [so Sin.; Comp. Ta¢np; Alex. Ia¢nv: Gazer), 1 Macc. v. 8. [JAAZER. | JA’ZER ['laChp; 2 Sam., EAré(ep; Alex. in 2 Sam. EAra(ys3 in 1 Chr., Vat. Tacep, Pia¢np (Alex. Ta¢np): Jazer, Jaser, Jezer], Num. xxxil. 1, 3; Josh. xxi. 39; 2 Sam. xxiv. 5; 1 Chr. vi. 81, xxvi. 31; Is. xvi. 8, $; Jer. xlviii. 82. [JAAZER.] JA/ZIZ (39 [shining, brilliant]: Ia¢i¢; [Vat. IaCer(;] Alex. Iwo(i¢: Jaziz), a Hagarite who had charge of the “ flocks,” 7. e. the sheep and goats (JSEM), of king David (1 Chr. xxvii. 31), which were probably pastured on the east of Jor- dan, in the nomad country where the forefathers of Jaziz had for ages roamed (comp. ver. 19-22). JE’ARIM, MOUNT (OYUTI: wars "laptv; [Vat. Iapew;] Alex. Iapip: Mons Jarim), a place named in specifying the northern boundary of Judah (Josh. xv. 10). The boundary ran from Mount Seir to “the shoulder of Mount Jearim, which is Cesalon’’ — that is, Cesalon was the landmark on the mountain. Kesla stands, 7 miles due west of Jerusalem, “on a high point on the north slope of the lofty ridge between Wady Ghurdb and W. Ismail. The latter of these is the south- western continuation of W. Beit Hanina, and the former runs parallel to and northward of it, and they are separated by this ridge, which is probably Mount Jearim’’ (Rob. iii. 154). If Jearim be taken as Hebrew it signifies ‘forests.’’ Forests in our sense of the word there are none; but we have the testimony of the latest traveller that “such thorough woods, both for loneliness and obscurity, he had not seen since he left Germany ”’ (Tobler, Wanderung, 1857, p. 178). Kirjath- Jearim (if that be Kurtet el-Fnab) is only 2$ miles off to the northward, separated by the deep and wide hollow of Wady Ghurab. [CHESALON.] G. JEATERAL [3 syl.] CDI, [whom Je- hovah leads]: TeOpt [ Vat. -pet] : Jethrai), a Ger- shonite Levite, son of Zerah (1 Chr. vi. 21); appa- rentiy the head of his family at the time that the service of the Tabernacle was instituted by David (comp. ver. 31). In the reversed genealogy of the Jescendants of Gershom, Zerah’s son is stated as Erunt (S218, ver. 41). The two names have JEBUS | quite similarity enough to allow of the one a corruption of the other, though the fact j ascertainable. J EBERECHY’AH Crab)! with th i [whom Jehovah blesses] : Bapaxlas: Barac father of a certain Zechariah, in the reign of | mentioned Is. viii. 2. As this form oceurs no else, and both the LXX. and Vulgate have | chiah, it is probably only an accidental corru Possibly a * was in some copy by mistake att to the preceding }2, so as to make it plura thence was transferred to the following word, chiah. Berechiah and Zechariah are both co, names among the priests (Zech. i. 1). The not the Zacharias and Barachias mention father and son, Matt. xxiii. 35, as it is certail| Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, in the reign of | is there meant. They may, however, be | same family; and if Berechiah was the fat] the house, not of the individuals, the same } might be meant in Is. viii. 2 and Matt.) 35. It is singular that Josephus (B. J. iv. | mentions another Zacharias, son of Barucl; was slain by the Jews in the Temple shortly the last siege of Jerusalem began. (See Wh note, ad loc.) A. 3 JE’BUS (072) [see infra]: "LeBovs: «| one of the names of Jerusalem, the city of ‘ usites, also called JEBusI. It occurs only: first in connection with the journey of the » and his unhappy concubine from Bethel Gibeah (Judg. xix. 10, 11); and secondly, | narrative of the capture of the place by Davii Chr. xi. 4,5. In 2 Sam. v. 6-9 the name. lem is employed. By Gesenius (Thes. 189, ' and Fiirst (Handwb. 477) Jebus is interpr mean a place dry or down-trodden like a thrii floor; an interpretation which by Ewald (i and Stanley (S. g P. p. 177) is taken to a Jebus must haye been the southwestern 1: ‘dry rock’? of the modern Zion, and “1 Mount Moriah, the city of Solomon, in whose! arose the perennial spring.’”’ But in the or certainty which attends these ancient m= | i is, to say the least, very doubtful. Jebus ¥ city of the Jebusites. Either the name of tli is derived from the name of the tribe, or the /@ If the former, then the interpretation just’ falls to the ground. If the latter, then thi” of the name of Jebus is thrown back tot} beginning of the Canaanite race — so far | rate as to make its connection with a Hebr ! extremely uncertain. * Jebus and Jerusalem need not be unc as interchangeable or coextensive names in > v. 6, but differing only as a part from thy like Zion and Jerusalem in Joel ii. 32 (iii. 5, # For evidence that Jebus was the southw) afterward called Mount Zion or the City 0i/* see Dr. Wolcott’s addition to JERUSALEM ed.). It has seemed hitherto almost incredi { the Jebusites could have kept this acropol!® long a time, while the Hebrews dwelt «lmoi?! its shadow (Judg. i. 21). Recent excarati¢ thrown light on this singular fact. place of extraordinary strength; for thou / appears at present almost on a level wil 4 parts of the city, it is now proved beyond 4 JEBUSI hat it was originally an isolated summit, pre- as implied in the account of its capture by |. It was protected not only by the deep » of Hinnom on the south and west, and the eon on the east, but by a valley which ran the Jaffa gate to the Tyropceon on the north of the mount. This last valley has been laid showing at different points a depth of 26 and et below the present surface, and in one in- 3a depth of nearly 80 feet below the brow of At one spot a fragment of the ancient erm rampart of Zion was brought to light. vas built close against the cliff, and though rising to the top of the rock behind, it was 9 feet high toward the ravine in front”’ mt Researches in Jerusalem, reprinted from ritish Quarterly Review, October, 1867, in the |. Eclectic, v. 393; and Ordnance Survey of alem, p. 61, Lond. 1865). It is not surprising, ore, that the subjugation of this stronghold 1 be reserved for the prowess of David, and be led as one of his greatest exploits (2 Sam. b). e occurrence of this name in the account of evite’s homeward journey (Judg. xix. 10 ff) sts a remark or two on the local allusions occur in the narrative. Jebus or Jerusalem hort 2 hours from Bethlehem, and hence, the leaving the latter place somewhat late in the oon (as appears more clearlv from the Hebrew in the A. V., see Judg. .1x. 9, 11), they would against Jebus near the close of the day, as in ver. 11. Their journey lay along the tide of that city: and this may be a reason tis spoken of as Jebus rather than Jerusalem. ervant proposed that they should remain here tight, as the time now left was barely sufficient able them to reach the next halting-place. he Levite objected to this, and insisted that should proceed further and lodge either in /h or in Ramah, an association of the places implies that they were near each other and 2 rqute of the travellers. One of these exists nder its ancient name /r-Ram, and the other, explorers as Robinson, Van de Velde, Porter, fy with Twuleil el-Ful: both of them on 8 which overlook the road, nearly opposite ‘ther, 2} or 3 hours further north from Jebus. idingly we read that as the Levite and his “ny drew near Gibeah “the sun went down them,” in precise accordance with the time je distance. Here occurred the horrible crime | stands almost without a parallel in Jewish ‘y. Shiloh was the Levite’s destination, and ‘morrow, pursuing still further this northern he would come in a few hours to that seat Tabernacle, or “ house of the Lord,”’ as it is {yer 18. ‘ BUSI (DAD =the Jebusite: teBovcal, 5, [so Tisch.; ImBods, Holmes, Bos; Alex. s:] Jebuseus, [Jebus]), the name employed | city of Jesus, only in the ancient document oing the landmarks and the towns of the ent of Judah and Benjamin (Josh. xv. 8, 16, 28). In the first and last place the ex- ! ory words, “ which is Jerusalem,”’ are added. ? first, however, our translators have given it he Jebusite.”’ ‘arallel to this mode of designating the town inhabitants is found in this very list in JEBUSITE 1221 Zemaraim (xviii. 22), Avim (23), Ophni (24), and Japhletite (xvi. 3), &e. G. JEB’USITE, JEB’USITES, THE. Al though these two forms are indiscriminately em ployed in the A. V., yet in the original the name, whether applied to individuals or to the nation, is never found in the plural; always singular. The usual form is YOVD5i7; but in a few places — namely, 2 Sam. v. 6, xxiv. 16, 18; 1 Chr. xxi. 18 only —it is ‘DDN. Without the article, 1D), it occurs in 2 Sam. v. 8; 1 Chr. xi. 6; Zech. ix. 7. In the two first of these the force is much increased by removing the article introduced in the A. V., and reading ‘“‘and smiteth a Jebusite.”’ We do not hear of a progenitor to the tribe, but the name which would have been his, had he existed, has attached itself to the city in which we meet with the Jebusites in historic times. [JEBus.] ‘The LXX. give the name "IeBoveatos; [in Judg. xix. 11, "IeBovol, Vat. -cew; in Ezr. ix. 1, "IleBoust, Vat. Alex. -ve::] Vulg. Jebusceus. 1. According to the table in Genesis x. ‘the Jebusite’’ is the third son of Canaan. His place in the list is between Heth and the Amorites (Gen. x. 16; 1 Chr. i. 14), a position which the tribe maintained long after (Num. xiii. 29; Josh. xi. 3); and the same connection is traceable in the words of Ezekiel (xvi. 3, 45), who addresses Jerusalem as the fruit of the union of an Amorite with a Hittite. But in the formula by which the Promised Land is so often designated, the Jebusites are uniformly placed last, which may have arisen from their small number, or their quiet disposition. See Gen. xv. 21; Ex. iii. 8, 17, xiii. 5, xxiii. 23, xxxili. 2, xxxiv. 11; Deut.-vii. 1, xx. 17; Josh. iii. 10, ix. 1, xii. 8, xxiv. 11; 1 K. ix. 20; 2 Chr. viii. 7; Ezr. ix. 1; Neh. ix. 8. 2. Our first glimpse of the actual people is in the invaluable report of the spies — ‘the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite dwell in the mountain”? (Num. xiii. 29). This was forty years before the entrance into Palestine, but no change in their habitat had been made in the interval; for when Jabin organized his rising against Joshua he sent amongst others “to the Amorite, the Hittite, the Ferizzite, and the Jebusite in the mountain” (Josh. xi. 3). A mountain-tribe they were, and a mountain-tribe they remained. ‘Jebus, which is Jerusalem,” lost its king in the slaughter of Beth- horon (Josh. x. 1, 5, 26; comp. xii. 10) — was sacked and burnt by the men of Judah (Judg. i. 21), and its citadel finally scaled and occupied by David (2 Sam. v. 6); but still the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem, the “ inhabitants of the land,’ could not be expelled from their mountain- seat, but continued to dwell with the children of Judah and Benjamin to a very late date (Josh. xv. 8,63; Judg. i. 21, xix. 11). This obstinacy is characteristic of mountaineers, and the few traits we possess of the Jebusites show them as a warlike people. Before the expedition under Jabin, Adoni- Zedek, the, king of Jerusalem, had himself headed the attack on the Gibeonites, which ended in the slaughter of Beth-horon, and cost him his life on that eventful evening under the trees at Makkedah.4 That they were established in the strongest natural @ In ver. 5 the king of Jerusalem is styled one 01 the “five kings of the Amorites.” But the LXX (both MSS.) have ray IeBoveaiwy “ of the Jebusites ’ 1222 JECAMIAH fortress of the country in itself says much for their courage and power, and when they lost it, it was through bravado rather than from any cowardice on their part. [JERUSALEM.] After this they emerge from the darkness but once, in the person of Araunah? the Jebusite, “ Araunah the king” (on M2728), who appears before us in true kingly dignity in his well- known transaction with David (2 Sam. xxiy. 23; 1 Chr. xxi. 23). The picture presented us in these well-known passages is a very interesting one. We see the fallen Jebusite king and his four sons on their threshing-floor on the bald top of Moriah, treading out their wheat (Wsy > A. V. “threshing ’’) by driving the oxen with the heavy sledges (4°27, A. V. “threshing instruments’) over the corn, round the central heap. We see Araunah on the approach of David fall on his face on the ground, and we hear him ask, ‘ Why is my lord the king come to his slave?”’ followed by his willing sur- render of all his property. But this reveals no traits peculiar to the Jebusites, or characteristic of them more than of their contemporaries in Israel, or in the other nations of Canaan. The early Judges and kings of Israel threshed wheat in the wine-press (Judg. vi. 11), followed the herd out of the field (1 Sam. xi. 5), and were taken from the sheep-cotes (2 Sam. vii. 8), and the pressing courtesy of Araunah is closely paralleled by that of Ephron the Hittite in his negotiation with Abraham. We are not favored with further traits of the Jebusites, nor with any clew to their religion or rites. Two names of individual Jebusites are preserved. In ADONI-ZEDEK the only remarkable thing is its Hebrew form, in which it means “ Lord of justice.”’ That of ARAUNAH is much more uncertain — so much so as to lead to the belief that we possess it more nearly in its original shape. In the short nar- rative of Samuel alone it is given in three forms — “the Avarnah ”’ (ver. 16); Araneah (18); Aravnah, or Araunah (20, 21). In Chronicles it is Arnan, while by the LXX. it is "Opyd, and by Josephus ‘Opdvva. [ARAUNAH; ORNAN.] In the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles the ashes of Barnabas, after his martyrdom in Cyprus, are said to have been buried: in a cave, “where the race of the Jebusites formerly dwelt;’’ and_previ- ously to this is mentioned the arrival in the island of a “pious Jebusite, a kinsman of Nero’ (Act. Apost. Apocr. pp. 72, 73, ed. Tisch.). G. JECAMI’AH (TINO, i. é. Jekamiah, as the name is elsewhere given [he who assembles the people]: "lexeuta, [Vat.] Alex. lexevia: Jecemia), one of a batch of seven, including Salathiel and Pedaiah, who were introduced into the royal line, on the failure of it in the person of Jehoiachim (1 Chr. iii. 18). They were all apparently sons of Neri, of the line of Nathan, since Salathiel certainly was so (Luke iii. 27). [GENEALOGY OF JESUS Curist, p. 885 b.] A. C.H: JECHOLVAH (MDD [Jehovah is mighty], with the final i: ‘leyeAfa, [Vat. XaAeva, | Alex. Ieyeua: Joseph. ’AxiddAas: Jechelia), wife a By Josephus (Ant. vii. 18, § 9) Araunah is said to have been one of David’s chief friends (év rots ud- \uora Aavidov), and to have been expressly spared by sim when the citadel was taken. If there is any truth JEDAIAR of Amaziah king of Judah, and mother of A; or Uzziah his successor (2 K. xy. 2). Bot) queen and Jehoaddan, the mother of her hus are specified as “¢of Jerusalem.’’ In the A. Chronicles her name is given as JECOLIAH. — JECHONVAS ('‘Iexovias: Jechonias’ The Greek form of the name of king Jecno) followed by our translators in the books ren from the Greek, namely, Esth. xi. 4; Bar. i. Matt. i. 11, 12. | | 2. 1 Esdr. viii. 92. [SuecHANIAH.] * 3. 1 Esdr. i. 9. So A. V. ed. 1611, ete. rectly. Later editions read Jecontas. The as CONANIAH, q. y. JECOLI’AH (ASDD° [see above]: "ley [Vat. Xaaa :] Jechelia), 2 Chr. xxvi. 3. the original the name differs from its form j parallel passage in Kings, only in not hayin final %. [JECHOLIAH.] JECONY AH (7D) ; excepting 232%, with the final d, Jer. xxiv. 1; and! in Cetib, 11ND, Jer. xxvii. 20 [Jehovah | lishes]: "lexovtas: Jechonias), an altered for the name of JEHOIACHIN, last but one of the } of Judah, which is found in the following pass: 1 Chr. iii. 16, 17; Jer. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20, xxv xxix. 2; Esth. ii. 6. It is still further abbrer! to ContAH. See also JECHONIAS and JoAc, i] JECONVAS (‘lexovias: Jechonias), 1 | i. 9. [JECHONIAS, 3.] JEDATIAH [8 syl.] (DVT | knows]: [’ledla,] ’Iwdaé, "Iedoud, "ladid, [is Jedet, Jadaia, [ldaia, Jodaia]). 1. Head ¢} second course of priests, as they were divided i time of David (1 Chr. xxiv. 7). Some of | survived to return to Jerusalem after the Babyli Captivity, as appears from Ezr. ii. 36, Neh. v: — “the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeu 973.”” The addition “of the house of Jes indicates that there were two priestly families «|! name of Jedaiah, which, it appears from Nel 6, 7, 19, 21, was actually the case. If these) of Jedaiah had for their head Jesnva, the priest in the time of Zerubbabel, as the Ji tradition says they had (Lewis’s Orig. Heb. 11 ch. vii.), this may be the reason why, in 1 a 10, and Neh. xi. 10, the course of Jedaiah is nie before that of Joiarib, though Joiarib’s was thir course. But perhaps Jeshua was another @ descended from Jedaiah, from whom this bi ¢ sprung. It is certainly a corrupt reading in & xi. 10 which makes Jedaiah son of Joiarib. 1h ix. 10 preserves the true text. In Esdras the is JEDDU. ecg 2. [of éyvwrdres abtiy: Idaia.] i the time of Jeshua the high-priest (Zech. vil 14). A. @. | JEDA‘TAH [8 syl.] (YT? [praise oJ! hovah, Ges.]). This is a different name fron’l last, though the two are identical in the A. \ 1. (‘Iedid; [Vat. 18:03] Alex. Edia: Je A man named in the genealogies of Simeors: forefather of Ziza, one of the chiefs of the in this, David no doubt made his friendship 4!" his wanderings, when he also acquired that of the Hittite, Ahimelech, Sibbechai, and others ( associates who belonged to the old nations. ~ JEDDU ently in the time of king Hezekiah (1 Chr. 1). Pcie: [FA. Ieddera:] Jedaia.) Son of maph; a mah who did his part in the rebuild- f the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 10). BD'DU (‘Ied5ov: Jeddus), 1 Esdr. v. 24. VATAH, 1.] : WDE’US (‘Iedatos: Jeddeus), 1 Esdr. 1x. 30. AIAH, 5.] BDVAEL (OSD) [hnown of God] : fr; [Vat. AdemA, Apna; Alex. Iadima, Ay *Adinp:] Jadiel, [Jadihel]). 1. A chief arch of the tribe of Benjamin, from whom 1g many Benjamite houses of fathers, number- 17,200 mighty men of valor, in the days of d (1 Chr. vii. 6,11). It is usually assumed Jediael is the same as Ashbel (Gen. xlvi. 21; . xxvi. 38; 1 Chr. viii. 1). But though this be so, it cannot be affirmed with certainty. MER; BELA.] Jediael might be a later de- lant of Benjamin not mentioned in the Penta- , but who, from the fruitfulness of his house the decadence of elder branches, rose to the rank. PIadina; Vat. 1Sepnd: Jadihel.] Second of Meshelemiah, a Levite, of the sons of aph the son of Korah. One of the door- ts of the Temple in the time of David (1 Chr. 1, 2). Au Ci. [‘Iediha; Vat. FA. EAGeinaA: Jedihel. | Son imri; one of the heroes of David’s guard in mlarged catalogue of Chronicles (1 Chr. xi. In the absence of further information, we it decide whether or not he is the same 2 as— (Pwdifd; Alex. [Ald.] Iedifa: [Jedihel]). of the chiefs (lit. “‘heads’’) of the thousands amasseh who joined David on his march from & to Ziklag when he left the Philistine army eeve of Gilboa, and helped him in his revenge we marauding Amalekites (1 Chr. xii. 20; {1 Sam. xxix., xxx.). (DIDAH (TIN, darling [or only one]: 15 [Vat. TeSera;] Alex. ES:5a; [Comp. ’Ied- | ddids), queen of Amon, and mother of the king Josiah (2 K. xxii. 1). She was a native ‘kath near Lachish, the daughter of a certain h. By Josephus (Ant. x. 4, § 1) her name Mas "Tedis. ‘DIDI’ AH ‘her Bo ig [darling of Jehovah): at; [Vat. 1d To us these plays on words have little or no signifi- cance; but to the old Hebrews, as to the modern Orientals, they were full of meaning. To David himself, the “darling” of his family and his peo- ple, no more happy omen, no more precious seal of his restoration to the Divine favor after his late fall, could have been afforded, than this announce- ment by the prophet, that the name of his child was to combine his own name with that of Jeho- vah — JEDID-J AH, ‘darling of Jehovah.” The practice of bestowing a second name on children, in addition to that given immediately on birth — such second name having a religious bear- ing, as Noor-ed-Din, Saleh-ed-Din (Saladin), ete. — still exists in the East. G. * JEDV’'THUN. [Jepuruun.] JEDU/THUN (JANA, except in 1 Chr. xvi. 88; Neh. xi. 17; Ps. xxxix. title; and Ixxvii. title, where it is JUV TY, 2. ¢. Jedithun [prais- ing, or he who praises]: "l8ov0éy and ’1d.0ovv, or -o¥u; [ Vat. ldeOwy, -Pwu, Soup, ete.:] Ldi- thun; [1 Kisdrc i. iD; "Edd.vovs, Vat. EdSdeuvovs: Jeddimus]), a Levite of the family of Merari, who was associated with Heman the Kohathite, and Asaph the Gershonite, in the conduct of the musi- cal service of the tabernacle, in the time of David; according to what is said 1 Chr. xxiii. 6, that David divided the Levites ‘into courses among the sons of Levi, namely, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.”’ The proof of his being a Merarite depends upon his identification with Ethan in 1 Chr. xv. 17, who, we learn from that passage as well as from the genealogy in vi. 44 (A. V.), was a Merarite [H«- MAN]. But it may be added that the very cireum- stance of Ethan being a Merarite, which Jeduthun must have been (since the only reason of there being three musical chiefs was to have one for each division of the Levites), is a strong additional proof of this identity. Another proof may be found in the mention of Hosah (xvi. 38, 42), as a son of Jeduthun@ and a gatekeeper, compared with xxvi. 10, where we read that Hosah was of the children of Merari. Assuming then that, as regards 1 Chr. vi. 44, xv. 17, 19, JSS is a mere clerical variation for {1,17 — which a comparison of xv. 17, 19 with xvi. 41, 42, xxv. 1, 3, 6, 2 Chr. xxxv. 15, makes almost certain—we have Jeduthun’s de- scent as son of Kishi, or Kushaiah, from Mahli, the son of Mushi, the son of Merari, the son of Levi, being the fourteenth generation from Levi inclusive. His office was generally to preside over the music of the temple service, consisting of the nebel, or nablium, the cinnor, or harp, and the cymbals, together with the human voice (the trum- pets being confined to the priests). But his pecu- liar part, as well as that of his two colleagues Heman and Asaph, was “to sound with cymbals of brass,’’ while the others played on the nablium and the harp. This appointment to the office was by election of the chiefs of the Levites (o»7w) (2 Sam. vi. 10) mentioned in the sanse verse, who was probably a Kohathite (Josh, xxi. 24' 1224 JEELI at David's command, each of the three divisions probably choosing one. The first occasion of Jedu- thun’s ministering was when David brought up the ark to Jerusalem. He then took his place in the procession, and played on the cymbals. But when the division of the Levitical services took place, owing to the tabernacle being at Gibeon and the ark at Jerusalem, while Asaph and his brethren were appointed to minister before the ark, it fell to Jeduthun and Heman to be located with Zadok the priest, to give thanks “ before the tabernacle of the Lord in the high place that was at Gibeon,” still by playing the cymbals in accompaniment to the other musical instruments (comp. Ps. cl. 5). In the account of Josiah’s Passover in 2 Chr. xxxv. reference is made to the singing as conducted in accordance with the arrangements made by David, and by Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun the king’ s seer (sor M31). [Heman.] Perhaps the phrase rather means the king’s adviser in matters connected with the musical service. The sons of Jeduthun were employed (1 Chr. xxv.) partly in music, namely, six of them, who prophesied with the harp — Gedaliah, head of the 2d ward, Zeri, or Izri, of the 4th, Jeshaiah of the 8th, Shimei of the 10th,¢ Hashabiah of the 12th, and Mat- tithiah of the 14th ; and partly as gatekeepers (A. V. “ porters’) (xvi. 42), namely, Obed-Edom and Hosah (vy. 38), which last had thirteen sons and brothers (xxvi. 11). The triple division of the Levitical musicians seems to have lasted as long as the Temple, and each to have been called after their respective leaders. At the dedication of Sol- omon’s temple ‘the Levites which were the sing- ers, all of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun ” performed their proper part. In the reign of Heze- kiah, again, we find the sons of Asaph, the sons of Heman, and the sons of Jeduthun, taking their part in purifying the Temple (2 Chr. xxix. 13, 14); they are mentioned, we have seen, in Josiah’s reign, and so late as in Nehemiah’s time we still find de- scendants of Jeduthun employed about the singing " (Neh. xi. 17; 1 Chr. ix. 16). His name stands at the head of the 39th, 62d, and 77th Psalms, indi- cating probably that they were to be sung by his choir. De Nes bdo *In the title of Ps. xxxix. Jeduthun no doubt appears as the precentor or choir-master under whose lead the psalm was to be sung. But in the titles of Ps. xii. and Ixxvii. (where the preposition is o. and not lek as in the other case) Jeduthun probably denotes a body of singers named after this chorister, and consisting in part, at least, of his sons or descendants (see 2 Chr. xxix. 14), though not. excluding others. The A. V. does not recog- nize this difference of the prepositions. Of all the conjectures, that is least, satisfactory, says Hupfeld, which makes Jeduthun the name of a musical in- strument, or of a particular melody. The ready interchange of ‘7 and 5 accounts for the two-fold orthography of the name. H. JEE’LI (lemai [Vat. -Aec]; Alex. Tenau: Celi), 1 Esdr. y. 33. [JAALAH.] a a cl EE @ Omitted in ver. 3, but necessary to make up the sons. 6 The double account of the origin of Beer-sheba (Gen. xxi. 31, xxvi. 33), the explanation of Zoar (Gen. xix. 20, 22) and of the name of Moses (Ex. ii. 10), are JEGAR SAHADUTHA JEE’LUS (Iefaos; Alex. lena: Jehely Esdr. viii. 92. [JEHIEL.] . JEE’ZER (TID [ father, or author of h "Axiecep: Htezer), the form assumed in the li Numbers (xxvi. 30) by the name of a descen of Manasseh, eldest son of Gilead, and founde one of the chief families of the tribe. [JE RITES.] In parallel lists the name is give ABI-EZER, and the family as the ARiezerr the house of Gideon. Whether this change arisen from the accidental addition or omissio a letter, or is an intentional variation, akin to. in the case of Abiel and Jehiel, cannot be a tained. The LXX. perhaps read WYN, | JEE’ZERITES, THE OST [p nym.]: ’Axceept: [Vat. M. AxreCerper:] fan Hiezeritarum), the family of the foregoing () xxvi. 30). | JE’GAR SAHADU’THA (S Tw i heap of testimony: Bovvds rhs maptuplas [se low]: twmelus testis), the Aramean name give Laban the Syrian to the heap of stones whic erected as a memorial of the compact bet Jacob and himself, while Jacob commemorate(| same by setting up a pillar (Gen. xxxi. 47), as his custom on several other occasions. Gale ‘“‘witness heap,’? which is given as the He: equivalent, does not exactly represent Ta dutha. The LXX. have preserved the distin accurately in rendering the latter by Bovyds) saptuptas [Alex. baprus|, and the former i MapTus [ Alex. bapTupet]. The Vulgate, ( enough, has transposed the two, and trans: Galeed by “acervus testimonii,” and Jegar S dutha by ‘tumulus testis.’’ But in the . the writer they were evidently all but iden} and the manner in which he has adapted the 1 to the circumstances narrated, and to the loct which was the scene of the transaction, is a cut instance of a tendency on the part of the Hebi of which there are many examples in the O.|. so to modify an already existing name that it a convey to a Hebrew an intelligible idea, and a same time preserve essentially its original {1 There is every reason to believe that the namei ead is derived from a root which points. me natural features of the region to which it is apy ¢ and to which it was in all probability attachec)e fore the meeting of Jacob and Laban, or an rate before the time at which the historian writing. In fact it is so used in verses 28 an2 of this chapter. The memorial heap erecte) Laban marked a crisis in Jacob’s life which se\ him from all further intercourse with his Sia kindred, and henceforth his wanderings were mi! confined to the land which his descendants we't inherit. Such a crisis, so commemorated, thought by the historian of sufficient import¢ to have left its impress upon the whole region, in Galeed ‘the witness heap *? was found the g inal name of the mountainous district Gilead. A similar etymology is given for M1zpEn ith parenthetical clause consisting of the latter part illustrations of this ;/and there are many such. | tendency is not peculiar to the Hebrews. It exis every language, but has not yet been recognized ie case of Hebrew. a ‘ 4 JEHALELEEL sand 49, which is not unlikely to have been asted, though it is not so stated, by the sim- y between TIDZID, mitspeh, and M2Z", iscbdh, the ‘standing stone’’ or ‘ statue’’ 1 Jacob set up to be Ais memorial of the tran- m, as the heap of stones was Laban's. On pillar or standing stone he swore by Jehovah, ‘fear of his father Isaac,’’ as Laban over his invoked the God of Abraham, and Nahor, the of their father Terah; each marking, by the solemn form of adjuration he could employ, wn sense of the grave nature of the compact. W.A, W. JHALE’LEEL (Oxddm [he who praises : "AAena; [Vat- Tecenda;] Alex. IlaAAeAnA: eel). Four men of the Bene-Jehaleleél are juced abruptly into the genealogies of Judah w. iv. 16). The name is identical with that red in the A. V. JEHALELEL. Neither form wever, quite correct. THAL/ELEL (Csom [as above]: ’IAa- ; [EAAn:] Alex. IaAAna: Jalaleel), a Mera- Levite, whose son Azariah took part in the ation of the Temple in Hezekiah’s time (2 xxix. 12). IHDE‘IAH [3 syl.] CTY ITT, i. e. Yechde- [whom Jehovah makes joyous]). L. (ledla; Tadeia;| Alex. ladasa, Apadera: Jehedeia.) epresentative of the Bene-Shubael, — descend- of Gershom, son of Moses — in the time of (1 Chr. xxiv. 20). But in xxvi. 24, a man »name of Shebuel or Shubael, is recorded as ad of the house; unless in this passage the ‘itself, and not an individual, be intended. (CIadias: Jadias.) A Meronothite who had 2 of the she-asses — the riding and breeding —of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 30). \HEZEKEL Ospir [whom God makes ‘|: 6’E¢exha: Hezechiel), a priest to whom ven by David the charge of the twentieth of venty-four courses in the service of the house ovah (1 Chr. xxiv. 16). ¢ name in the original is almost exactly sim- | Ezexten, HYAH (FT [perh. = UND, see ) Ges.]: "Ieta; Alex. Ieata: Jehias). He bed-edom were “doorkeepers for the ark” 20, the word elsewhere expressed by “ por- at the time of its establishment in Jerusa- | Chr. xv. 24). The name does not recur, is possible it may be exchanged for the simi- AMIEL Or JEIEL in xvi. 5. HVEL Ow [God lives]: Jahiel). ‘tA [Vat. FA. in xy. 20 corrupt; Vat. xvi. ‘m.J) One of the Levites appointed hy to assist in the service of the house of God |» XV. 18, 20; xvi. 5). ‘Vat. Ija.] One of the sons of Jehosha- ‘ng of Judah, who was put to death by his ' Jehoram shortly after his becoming king } xxi. 2), Tera.) One of the rulers of the house of | the time of the reforms of Josiah (2 Chr. )). [Syxvus.] “ leeqa; [Vat. Ind, BeowndA.]) A Gershon- te, head of the Bene-Laadan in the time of JEHIZKIAH 1235 David (1 Chr. xxiii. 8), who.had charge of the treasures (xxix. 8). His family — JEHIELI, i. e. Jehielite, or as we should say now Jehielites — is mentioned, xxvi. 21. 5. (lend, Alex. IepinA.) Son of Hachmoni, or of a Hachmonite, named in the list of David’s ofti- cers (1 Chr. xxvii. 82) as “with (0) the king’s sons,’’ whatever that may mean. The mention of Ahithophel (83) seems to fix the date of this list as before the revolt. In Jerome’s Questiones He- braice on this passage, Jehiel is said to be David's son Chileab or Daniel; and “ Achamoni,’”’ inter- preted as Sapientissimus, is taken as an alias of David himself. 6. (In the original text, Osim, Jehuel — the A. V. follows the alteration of the Keri: ’Iefa; [Vat. Euna.]) A Levite of the Bene-Heman, who took part in the restorations of king Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 14). 7. [Vat. EmA.] Another Levite at the same period (2 Chr. xxxi. 13), one of the “ overseers’? (2°75) of the articles offered to Jehovah. His parentage is not mentioned. 8. Clethas [ Vat. Teua;] Alex. leeinA.) Father of Obadiah, who headed 218 men of the Bene-Joab in the return from Babylon with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 9). In Esdras the name is JeEZELUS, and the number of his clan is stated at 212. 9. (‘IefA, Alex. Ieemma: Jehiel.) One of the Bene-Elam, father of Shechaniah, who encouraged Kzra to put away the foreign wives of the people (zr. x. 2). In Esdras it is JEELUs. 10. (IainaA ‘ [ Vat. Ianr 3] Alex. Ateina : Jehiel.) A member of the same family, who had himself to part with his wife (Ezr. x. 26). [HrertELvs. | 11. (Tena, Alex. Term: Jehiel.) A priest, one of the Bene-Harim, who also had to put away his foreign wife (Ezr. x. 21). [H1erEx..] JEHVEL,¢ a perfectly distinct name from the * last, though the same in the A. V. 1. (Omsry ; so the Keri, but the Cetib has Ssiy), i. €. Jeuel; "Tena; [Vat. Erina;] Alex. lena: Jehiel), a man described as Abi-Gibeon — father of Gibeon; a forefather of king Saul (1 Chr. ix. 35). In viii. 20 the name is omitted. The presence of the stubborn letter Ain in Jehiel forbids our identifying it with Abiel in 1 Sam. ix. 1, as some have been tempted to do. 2. (Here the name is as given in No. 1; [Vat. FA. Teca.]) One of the sons of Hotham the Aroerite; a member of the guard of David, included in the extended list of 1 Chr. xi. 44. JEHIE'LI (“PSY : tehas Alex. [ver. 22, IenA:] Jehieli), according to the A. V. a Gershonite Levite of the family of LAADAN. The Bene-Jehieli had charge of the treasures of the house of Jehovah (1 Chr. xxvi. 21, 22). In other lists it is given as JEHIEL. The name appears to be strictly a patronymic — Jehielite. JEHIZKVAH (TAIT, i. €, Yechizki- ya’hu; same name as Hezekiah [whom Jehovah @ Here our translators represent Ain by H, unless they simply follow the Vulgate. Comp. JrHusH, MEHUNIM, 1226 JEHOADAH strengthens]: ’E¢extas: Ezechias), son of Shallum, one of the heads of the tribe of Ephraim in the time of Ahaz, who, at the instance of Oded the prophet, nobly withstood the attempt to bring into Samaria a large number of captives and much booty, which the Israelite army under king Pekah had taken in the campaign against Judah. By the exertions of Jehizkiahu and his fellows the captives were clothed, fed, and tended, and returned to Jericho en route for Judah (2 Chr. xxviii. 12; comp. 8, 13, 15). JEHO’ADAH (TID W, 1. e. Jehoaddah [whom Jehovah adorns, Ges. ; J. unveils, Fiirst): "Tadd; Alex. Iwiada: Joada), one of the de- scendants of Saul (1 Chr. viii. 36); great grandson to Merib-baal, 7. e. Mephi-bosheth. In the dupli- cate genealogy (ix. 42) the name is changed to JARAH. JEHOAD’DAN (77179, but in Kings the original text has JY TY WT: and so the LXX. Iwadiu, [Vat. wade, Ald.] Alex. "Iwadeiv; [in 2 Chr.,] "Iwadaév, [Vat. Iwvaa, Alex. Iwad ev:] Joadan, Joadam). ‘Jehoaddan of Jerusalem” was queen to king Joash, and mother of Amaziah of Judah (2 K. xiv. 2; 2 Chr. xxv. 1). JEHO’/AHAZ (IST) [whom Jehovah holds or preserves]: lodyat Sid Mabe AM: 2; Wheg Iwaxus: Joachaz]). 1. The son and successor of Jehu, reigned 17 years B. C. 856-840 over Israel in Samaria. His inglorious history is given in 2 K. xiii. 1-9. Throughout his reign (ver. 22) he was kept in subjection by Hazael king of Damascus, who, following up the successes which he had pre- viously achieved against Jehu, compelled Jehoahaz to reduce his army to 50 horsemen, 10 chariots, and 10,000 infantry. Jehoahaz maintained the idolatry of Jeroboam; but in the extremity of his humiliation he besought Jehovah; and Jehovah gave Israel a deliverer— probably either Jehoash (vv. 23 and 25), or Jeroboam IT. (2 K. xiv. 24, 25) (see Keil, Commentary on Kings). The prophet Elisha survived Jehoahaz; and Ewald (Gesch. /sr. iii. 557) is disposed to place in his reign the incur- sions of the Syrians mentioned in 2 K. v. 2, vi. 8, and of the Ammonites mentioned in Amos i. 13. 2. [Vat. in 2 K., Iwayas, and so Alex. 2 K. xxiii. 34.] Jehoahaz, otherwise called SHALLUM, the fourth (ace. to 1 Chr. iii. 15), or third, if Zede- kiah’s age be correctly stated (2 Chr. xxxvi. 11), son of Josiah, whom he succeeded as king of Judah. He was chosen by the people in preference to his elder (comp. 2 K. xxiii. 31 and 386) brother, B. c. 610, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His anointing (ver. 30) was probably some ad- ditional ceremony, or it is mentioned with peculiar emphasis, as if to make up for his want of the ordinary title to the throne. He is described by his contemporaries as an evil-doer (2 K. xxiii. 32) and an oppressor (Iiz. xix. 3), and such is his tra- ditional character in Josephus (Ant. x. 5, § 2); but his deposition seems to have been lamented by the people (Jer. xxii. 10, and Ez. xix. 1). Pharaoh- necho on his return from Carchemish, perhaps resenting the election of Jehoahaz, sent to Jeru- salem to depose him, and to fetch him to Riblah. There he was cast into chains, and from thence he was taken into Egypt, where he died (see Prideaux, Connection, anno 610; Ewald, Gesch. Jsr. iii. 719; Rosenmiiller, Schol. in Jerem. xxii. 11). JEHOHANAN * The history of Jehoahaz appears to inti more than it records. ‘ Something there had in his character,’’ says Stanley, “ or in the po mode of his election, which endeared him to country. A lamentation, as for his father, up from the princes and prophets of the lan the lion’s cub, that was learning to catch his ° caught in the pitfall, and led off in chains — destiny even sadder than death in battle, ¢| not for the dead, nor bemoan him, but weep for him that goeth away’ (Jer. xxii.10). He the first king of Judah that died in exile.” (J: Church, ii. 582 f.) } 3. The name given (2 Chr. xxi. 17, where, ever, the LXX. have ’Oxo¢ias [Vat. OxoCeras Comp. Ald. "Iwdxa¢]) during his father’s life (Bertheau) to the youngest son of Jehoram of Judah. As king he is known by the nan AHAZIAH, which is written Azariah in the pr Hebrew text of 2 Chr. xxii. 6, perhaps throu transcriber’s error. Wane | JEHO’ASH (2ST) [gift of Jehoi "Iwas: Joas), the original uncontracted form ¢ name which is more commonly found compr) into JoaAsu. The two forms appear to be: quite indiscriminately; sometimes both occ one verse (e. g. 2 K. xiii. 10, xiv. 17). | 1. The eighth king of Judah; son of AHA! (2 K. xis 21, xi. 1,.2,.4, 6, Ty) ies) [Joasu, 1.] 2. The twelfth king of Israel; son of J EHO.. (2 K. xiii. 10, 25, xiv..8, 9, 11, 1; 3iee 16, [JoAsH, 2. ] ! JKEHOHA/NAN GP le se answering to Theodore: "Iwavdy: Johunan), a much in use, both in this form and in thet tracted shape of JOHANAN, in the later = Jewish history. It has come down to us as «! and indeed is rendered by Josephus "Iwayyijs | viii. 15, § 2). Be l. (Iwvddav; [Vat. Iwvas;] Alex. i Levite, one of the doorkeepers (A. V. “ port to the house of Jehovah, 7. e. the Tabernac : cording to the appointment of David (1 Chr. 3; comp. xxv. 1). He was the sixth of they sons of Meshelemiah; a Korhite, that is oa from Korah, the founder of that great Kobi house. He is also said (ver. 1) to have be ‘the Bene-Asaph; but Asaph is a contracti(’ Ebiasaph, as is seen from the genealogy in 1! The well-known Asaph too was not a Kobi but a Gershonite. 2. [Iwavdy.] One of the principal “ Judah, under king Jehoshaphat; he comm 280,000 men, apparently in and about Jeri (2 Chr. xvii. 15; comp. 18 and 19). He is? second on the list, and is entitled TWi,|t captain,” a title also given to Adnah in thp ceding verse, though there rendered “ the cel He is probably the same person as — 3. Father of Ishmael, one of the “¢ Cre. as before) of hundreds”? — evidently 8 ing in or near Jerusalem — whom Jehoia t priest took into his confidence about the rest tl of the line of Judah (2 Chr. xxiii. 1). — . a; PIwavav; FA. Iwvavayv. | One of the IT Bebai [sons of B.], a lay Israelite who was by Ezra to put away his foreign wife (Razr. In Esdras the name is JOHANNES. JEHOIACHIN [Iwavdy. | A priest (Neh. xii. 15,; the rep- tative of the house of Amariah (comp. 2), x the high-priesthood of Joiakim (ver. 12), is to say in the generation after the first return Captivity. (Vat. LXX. omits [so Alex. FA.1; Comp. wavdy|.) A priest who took part in the sal service of thanksgiving, at the dedication e wall of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh. xii. In two other cases this name is given in the . ag JOHANAN. JHOVACHIN (DNV. = appointed of yah; once only, Ez. i. 2, contracted to ra : ings Ywaxlu, Chron. "lexovias, Jer. and Iiz. cel; [Vat.] Alex. Iwarerm throughout [ex- in Chron.}; Joseph. "Iwdximos: Joachin). vyhere the name is altered to JECONIAH, and} AH. See also JECHONIAS, JOIAKIM, and IM. n of Jehoiakim and Nehushta, and for three hs and ten days king of Judah, after the death ; father, being the nineteenth king from David, ventieth, counting Jehoahaz. According to xxiy. 8, Jehoiachin was eighteen years old at ecession; but 2 Chr. xxxvi. 9, as well as 1 i. 43, has the far more probable reading eight ,@ which fixes his birth to the time of his t's captivity, according to Matt. i. 11. hoiachin came to the throne at a time when t was still prostrate in consequence of the ‘y at Carchemish, and when the Jews had for three or four years harassed and distressed e inroads of the armed bands of Chaldzeans, ionites, and Moabites, sent against them by chadnezzar in consequence of Jehoiakim’s re- n. [JeEHoraKim.] Jerusalem at this time, fore, was quite defenseless, and unable to offer resistance to the regular army which Nebu- jezzar sent to besiege it in the 8th year of his , and which he seems to have joined in person the siege was commenced (2 K. xxiv. 10, 11). very short time, apparently, and without any | from famine or fighting which would indicate ‘ous resistance, Jehoiachin surrendered at dis- n; and he, and the queen-mother, and all his ats, captains, and officers, came out and gave selves up to Nebuchadnezzar, who carried 4 with the harem and the eunuchs, to Babylon ixxix. 2; Ez. xvii. 12, xix. 9). All the king’s ares, and all the treasure of the Temple, were |, and the golden vessels of the Temple, which ing of Babylon had left when he pillaged it in vurth of Jehoiakim, were now either cut up or vd away to Babylon, with all the nobles, and of war, and skilled artizans, none but the \st and weakest being left behind (2 K. xxiv. 1 Chr. xxxvi. 19). According to 2 K. xxiv. 5, the number taken at this time into captivity 0,000, namely, 7,000 soldiers, 1,000 craftsmen | miths, and 2,000 whose calling is not specified. ‘according to Jer. lii. 28 (a passage which is edin the LXX.), the number carried away \e at this time (called the seventh of Nebuchad- »t, instead of the eighth, as in 2 K. xxiv. 12) 023. Whether this difference arises from any !ption of the numerals, or whether only a _——__—— tee: Juch is the text of the Vat. LXX.; the A. V. I 8 the Alex. and Vulgate in reading “ eighteen.” | 4 | JEMOIACHIN portion of those originally taken captive were ac- tually carried to Babylon, the others being left with Zedekiah, upon his swearing allegiance to Nebuchad- nezzar, cannot perhaps be decided. ‘The numbers in Jeremiah are certainly very small, only 4,600 in all, whereas the numbers who returned from cap- tivity, as given in Ezr. ii. and Neh. vii. were 42,360. However, Jehoiachin was himself led away captive to Babylon, and there he remained a_ prisoner, 1227 kit | actually in prison (NOD F193), and wearing prison garments, for thirty-six years, namely, till the death of Nebuchadnezzar, when Evil-Merodach, succeed- ing to the throne of Babylon, treated him with much kindness, brought him out of prison, changed his garments, raised him above the other subject or captive kings, and made him sit at his own table. Whether Jehoiachin outlived the two years of Evil- Merodach’s reign or not does not appear, nor have we any particulars of his life at Babylon. The general description of him in 2 K. xxiv. 9, “ He did evil in the sight of Jehovah, according to all that his father had done,’ seems to apply to his character at the time he was king, and but a child; and so does the prophecy of Jeremiah (xxii. 24-30 ; Ez. xix. 5-9). We also learn from Jer. xxviii. 4, that four years after Jehoiachin had gone to Baby- lon, there was a great expectation at Jerusalem of his return, but it does not appear whether Jehoi-. achin himself shared this hope at Babylon. [HAnN- ANIAH, 4.] The tenor of Jeremiah’s letter to the elders of the Captivity (xxix.) would, however, indi- cate that there was a party among the Captivity, encouraged by false prophets, who were at this time looking forward to Nebuchadnezzar’s overthrow and Jehoiachin’s return; and perhaps the fearful death of Ahab the son of Kolaiah (7b. v. 22), and the close confinement of Jehoiachin through Nebu- chadnezzar’s reign, may have been the result of some disposition to conspire against Nebuchadnez- zar on the part of a portion of the Captivity. But neither Daniel nor Ezekiel, who were Jehoiachin’s fellow-captives, make any further allusion to him, except that Ezekiel dates his prophecies by the year “of King Jehoiachin’s captivity’ (i. 2, viil. 1. xxiv. 1, &c.); the latest date being ‘‘ the twenty- seventh year’? (xxix. 17, xl. 1). We also learn from Esth. ii. 6, that Kish, the ancestor of Mor- decai, was Jehoiachin’s fellow-captive. But the apocryphal books are more communicative. Thus the author of the book of Baruch (i. 3) introduces “ Jechonias the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah”’ into his narrative, and represents Baruch as reading his prophecy in his ears, and in the ears of the king’s sons, and the nobles, and elders, and people, at Babylon. At the hearing of Baruch’s words, it is added, they wept, and fasted, and prayed, and sent a collection of silver to Jerusalem, to Joiakim, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum the high- priest, with which to purchase burnt-offerings, and sacrifice, and incense, bidding them pray for the prosperity of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar his son. The history of Susanna and the Elders also apparently makes Jehoiachin an important person- age; for, according to the author, the husband of Susanna was Joiakim, a man of great wealth, and the chief person among the captives, to whose house all the people resorted for judgment, a description The words W*$ and D3, applied to Jehoiakim in Jer. xxii. 28, 80, imply sex rather than age, and are both actually used of infants. See Ges Thes. 8. V¥ = - 1228 JEHOIADA - JEHOIADA which suits Jehoiachin. Africanus (Zp. ad Orig. ; Routh, Fel, Sac. ii. 113) expressly calls Susanna’s husband “king,’’ and says that the king of Babylon nad made him his royal companion (¢iv@povos). He is also mentioned 1 Esdr. y. 5, but the text seems to be corrupt. It probably should be ‘“ Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, the son of Joacim,”’ 2. e. Jehoi- achin. It does not appear certainly from Scripture, whether Jehoiachin was married or had any chil- dren. That Zedekiah, who in 1 Chr. iii. 16 is called “his son,’’ is the same as Zedekiah his uncle (zalled “his brotber,’? 2 Chr. xxxvi. 10), who was his successor on the throne, seems certain. But it high-priest, but it may have been as early a latter part of Jehoshaphat’s reign. Anyho) probably succeeded Amariah. [HiGH-prr He married JEHOSHEBA, or Jehoshabeath, d; ter of king Jehoram, and sister of king Ah (2 Chr. xxii. 11); and when Athaliah slew al seed royal of Judah after Ahaziah had been p death by Jehu, he and his wite stole Joash among the king’s sons, and hid him for six in the Temple, and eventually replaced him o throne of his ancestors. [JOASH; ATHAL] In effecting this happy revolution, by which the throne of David and the worship of the God according to the law of Moses were re; from imminent danger of destruction, Jehoiad: played great ability and prudence. Waiting tiently till the tyranny of Athaliah, and, 4 presume, her foreign practices and preferences produced disgust in the land, he at length, ii 7th year of her reign, entered into secret all with all the chief partisans of the house of | and of the true religion. He also collected a rusalem the Levites from the different citi Judah and Israel, probably under cover of a ing for the Temple services, and then concent! a large and concealed force in the Temple, b expedient of not dismissing the old course priests and Levites when their successors cai relieve them on the Sabbath. By means 0 consecrated shields and spears which Davyidi: taken in his wars, and which were preserved \ treasury of the Temple (comp. 1 Chr. xviii. ' xxvi. 20-28; 1 K. xiv. 26, 27), he suppliec! captains of hundreds with arms for their Having then divided the priests and Levites! three bands, which were posted at the principe) trances, and filled the courts with people fave: to the cause, he produced the young king befo1! whole assembly, and crowned and anointed 1 and presented to him a copy of the Law, acco’ to Deut. xvii. 18-20. [Hitx1an.] The et ment of the moment did not make him forge|l sanctity of God’s house. None but the pest ministering Levites were permitted by him to the Temple; and he gave strict orders that 4) liah should be carried without its precincts i she was put to death. In the same spirit hi augurated the new reign by a solemn coyenai) tween himself, as high-priest, and the people the king, to renounce the Baal-worship whiel'é been introduced by the house of Ahab, ar! serve Jehovah. This was followed up by thin mediate destruction of the altar and temp ‘ Baal, and the death of Mattan his priest.” rb took order for the due celebration of the Tip service, and at the same time for the perfect & tablishment of the monarchy; all which see! have been effected with great vigor and succes? without any cruelty or violence. The young” himself, under this wise and virtuous couns ruled his kingdom well and prosperously, in is not impossible that Assir (1D * = captive), who is reckoned among the “sons of Jeconiah” in 1 Chr. iii. 17, may have been so really, and either have died young or been made an eunuch (Is. xxxix. 7). This is quite in accordance with the term “ childless,” ‘VY, applied to Jeconiah by Jere- miah (xxii. 80). [GENEALOGY oF CuRIsT, vol. i. p. 886 0.] Jehoiachin was the last of Solomon’s line, and on its failure in his person, the right to the succession passed to the line of Nathan, whose descendant, Shealtiel, or Salathiel, the son of Neri, was conse- quently inscribed in the genealogy as of “the sons of Jehoiachin.”’ . Hence his place in the genealogy of Christ (Matt. i. 11, 12). For the variations in the Hebrew forms of Jeconiah’s name see HANAN- IAH, 8; and for the confusion in Greek and Latin writers between Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, ’Iwa- xelu and "Iwakeiu, see GENEALOGY OF JESUS Curist, and Hervey’s Genealogy, pp. 71-73. N. B. The compiler of 1 Esdr. gives the name of Jechonias to Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, who reigned three months after Josiah’s death, and was deposed and carried to Egypt by Pharaoh-Necho (1 Esdr. i. 34; 2 K. xxiii. 80). He is followed in this blunder by Epiphanius (vol. i. p. 21), who says “Josiah begat Jechoniah, who is also called Shal- lum. This Jechoniah begat Jechoniah who is called Zedekiah and Joakim.’’ It has its origin doubtless in the confusion of the names when written in Greek by writers ignorant of Hebrew. A. C. H. JEHOVADA (yy =known of Jehovah: Iwdaé; Alex. Iwadae, Iwiada, Iwiadae, and also as Vat.; Joseph. "Idados: Joiada). In the later books the name is contracted to JoIADA. 1. Father of BENAIAH, David’s well known warrior (2 Sam. viii. 18; 1 K. i. and ii. passim; 1 Chr. xviii, 17, &c.). From 1 Chr. xxvii. 5, we learn that Benaiah’s father was the chief priest, and he is therefore doubtless identical with — 2. (Iwadds; [ Vat. Twadas; FA. Twadae; Alex. Iwdae.]) Leader (792) of the Aaronites (accu- rately ‘of Aaron’’) 7. e. the priests; who joined David at Hebron, bringing with him 3,700 priests (1 Chr. xii. 27). 3. According to 1 Chr. xxvii. 34, son of Benaiah, and one of David’s chief counsellors, apparently having succeeded Ahithophel in that office. But in all probability Benaiah the son of Jehoiada is meant, by a confusion similar to that which has arisen with regard to Ahimelech and Abiathar (1 Chr. xviii. 16; 2 Sam. viii. 17). 4. High-priest at the time of Athaliah’s usurpa- tion of the throne of Judah (B. oc. 884-878), and during the greater portion of the 40 years’ reign of Joash. Jt does not appear when he first became forward in works of piety during the lifetin/® Jehoiada. The reparation of the Temple i/h 23d year of his reign, of which a full and on ing account is given 2 K. xii. and’2 Chr. xxiv one of the most important works at this f At length, however, Jehoiada died, B. 0. 834 though far advanced in years, too soon for thie fare of his country, and the weak, unstable cl ter of Joash. The text of 2 Chr. xxiv. 15, ported by the LXX. and Josephus, makes hin years old when he died. But supposing hit | nae = 7 JEHOIAKIM ved to the 35th year of Joash (which only 5 years for all the subsequent events of the , he would in that case have been 95 at the f the insurrection against Athaliah; and 15 pefore, when Jehoram, whose daughter was fe, was only 32 years old, he would have been yan which nothing can be more improbable. must therefore be some early corruption of meral. Perhaps we ought to read maw ww (83), instead of DWATIND. Even as suggested, Geneal. of our Lord, p. 304) leave an improbable age at the two above- lepochs. If 83 at his death, he would have 33 years old at Joram’s accession. For his services to his God, his king and his coun- hich have earned him a place among the very ost well-doers in Israel, he had the unique of burial among the kings of Judah in the f David. He was probably succeeded by his ‘echariah. In Josephus’s list (Ant. xviil. § e name of INAEA® by an easy corruption is ormed into IAEA, and in the Seder Olam *hadea. Matt. xxiii. 35, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada itioned as the “son of Barachias,”’ 7. e. Be- h@ This is omitted in Luke (xi. 51), and ‘obably been inserted from a confusion between fechariah and 2, the prophet, who was son of hiah; or with the son of Jeberechiah (Is. viii. [Vulg. pro Joiade.] Second priest, or sagan, ‘aiah the high-priest. He was deposed at the aing of the reign of Zedekiah, probably for ing to the prophet Jeremiah; when Zephan- as appointed sagan in his room? (Jer. xxix. '; 2K. xxv. 18). This is a clear instance of tle “the priest’? being applied to the second . The passage in Jeremiah shows the nature »sagan’s authority at this time, when he was less “ruler of the house of Jehovah ” (1°22 ‘S)2). [Hicu-prrest.] Winer (Realw.) ‘uite misunderstood the passage, and makes ‘ida the same as the high-priest in the reign ish. ieee", i. e. Joiada: "Iwidd; [ Vat. Iweraa;] (loeida: Jojada), son of Paseach, who as- to repair the “old gate”’ of Jerusalem (Neh. " FOr ORAS a HOVAKIM (OY) [Jehovah sets up doints] : ‘Iwarlu, or -efu; Joseph. "Iwdkios: ‘m), 18th (or, counting Jehoahaz, 19th) king lah from David inclusive — 25 years old at his ion, and originally called Extakim. He was yn of Josiah and Zebudah, daughter of Pe- | of Rumah, possibly identical with Arumah dg. ix. 41 (where the Vulg. has Rumah), and at case in the tribe of Manasseh. His er brother Jehoahaz, or Shallum, as he is (Jer. xxii. 11), was in the first instance made vy the people of the land on the death of his The words corresponding to “ son of Barachias ” t. xxiii. 35 are omitted in the Sinaitic manu- 1 @ prima manu, and a few other authorities. ‘ey are retained in the text by Tischendorf (8th od are in all probability genuine. A. is, however, possible that Jehoiada vacated the 'y death JEHOIAKIM 1223 father Josiah, probably with the intention of fol- lowing up Josiah’s policy, which was to side with Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt, being, as Prideaux thinks, bound by oath to the kings of Babylon (i. 50). Pharaoh-Necho, therefore, having borne down all resistance with his victorious army, inimediately deposed Jehoahaz, and had him brought in chains to Riblah, where, it seems, he was on his way to Carchemish (2 K. xxiii. 33, 34; Jer. xxii. 10-12). He then set Eliakim, his elder brother, upon the throne, changed his name to Jehoiakim, and havy- ing charged him with the task of collecting a trib- ute of 100 talents of silver, and 1 talent of gold = nearly 40,000/., in which he mulcted the land for the part Josiah had taken in the war with Babylon, he eventually returned to Egypt taking. Jehoahaz with him, who died there in captivity (2 K. xxiii. 34; Jer. xxii. 10-12; Ez. xix. 4).¢ Pharaoh-Necho also himself returned no more to Jerusalem, for after his great defeat at Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim he lost all his Syrian possessions (2 K. xxiv. 7; Jer. xlvi. 2), and his successor Psammis (Herod. ii. elxi.) made no attempt to recover them. Egypt, therefore, played no part in Jewish politics during the seven or eight years of Jehoiakim’s reign. After the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar came into Palestine as one of the Egyptian tributary kingdoms, the capture of which was the natural fruit of his victory over Necho. He found Jehoiakim quite defenseless. After a short siege he entered Jerusalem, took the king prisoner, bound him in fetters to carry him to Bab- ylon, and took also some of the precious vessels of the Temple and carried them to the land of Shinar to the temple of Bel his god. It was at this time, in the fourth, or, as Daniel reckons, in the third year of his reign,“ that Daniel, and Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were taken captives to Bab- ylon; but Nebuchadnezzar seems to have changed his purpose as regarded Jehoiakim, and to have ac- cepted his submission, and reinstated him on the throne, perhaps in remembrance of the fidelity of his father Josiah. What is certain is, that Jehoi- akim became tributary to Nebuchadnezzar after his invasion of Judah, and continued so for three years, but at the end of that time broke his oath of alle- giance and rebelled against him (2 K. xxiv. 1). What moved or encouraged Jehoiakim to this re- bellion it is difficult to say, unless it were the rest- less turbulence of his own bad disposition and the dislike.of paying tribute to the king of Babylon, which he would have rather lavished upon his own luxury and pride (Jer. xxii. 13-17), for there is nothing to bear out Winer's conjecture, or Jcse- phus’s assertion, that there was anything in the attitude of Egypt at this time to account for such a step. It seems more probable that, seeing Egypt entirely severed from the affairs of Syria since the battle of Carchemish, and the king of Babylon wholly occupied with distant wars, he hoped to make himself independent. But whatever was the motive of this foolish and wicked proceeding, which was contrary to the repeated warnings of the prophet Jeremiah, it is certain that it brought ec It does not appear from the narrative in 2 K xxiii. (which is the fullest) whether Necho went straight to Egypt from Jerusalem, or whether the calamitous campaign on the Euphrates intervened. d It is possible that this diversity of reckoning may be caused by some reckoning a year for Jehoahag’ reign, while some omitted it. 1230 JEHOIAKIM misery and ruin upon the king and his country. Though Nebuchadnezzar was not able at that time to come in person to chastise his rebellious vassal, he sent against him numerous bands of Chaldeans, with Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, who were all now subject to Babylon (2 K. xxiv. 7), and who | It was per- | cruelly harassed the whole country. haps at this time that the great drought occurred described in Jer. xiv. (comp. Jer. xv. 4 with 2 K. xxiv. 2,3). The closing years of this reign must have been a time of extreme misery. The Am- monites appear to have overrun the land of Gad (Jer. xlix. 1), and the other neighboring nations to have taken advantage of the helplessness of Israel to ravage their land to the utmost (Iz. xxv.). ‘There was no rest or safety out of the walled cities. We are not acquainted with the details of the close of the reign. Probably as the time approached for Nebuchadnezzar himself to come against Judea the desultory attacks and invasions of his troops became more concentrated. Hither in an engage- ment with some of these forces, or else by the hand of his own oppressed subjects, who thought to con- ciliate the Babylonians by the murder of their king, Jehoiakim came to a violent end in the 11th year of his reign. His body was cast out igno- miniously on the ground; perhaps thrown over the walls to convince the enemy that he was dead; and then, after being left exposed for some time, was dragged away and buried “with the burial of an ass,’’ without pomp or lamentation, “beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer. xxii. 18, 19, xxxvi. 30). Within three months of his death Nebuchadnezzar arrived, and put an end to his dynasty by carrying Jehoiachin off to Babylon. [Jenotacuin.] All the accounts we have of Jehoiakim concur in as- cribing to him a vicious and irreligious character. The writer of 2 K. xxiii. 87 tells us that “he did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah,” a statement which is repeated xxiv. 9, and 2 Chr. xxxvi. 5. The latter writer uses the yet stronger expression, ‘the acts of Jehoiakim, and the abom- inations which he did” (ver. 8). But it is in the writings of Jeremiah that. we have the fullest por- traiture of him. If, as is probable, the 19th chap- ter of Jeremiah belongs to this reign, we have a detail of the abominations of idolatry practiced at Jerusalem under the king’s sanction, with which K:zekiel’s vision of what was going on six years later, within the very precincts of the Temple, ex- actly agrees; incense offered up to “abominable beasts;’’ ‘“ women weeping for Thammuz;’’ and men in the inner court of the Temple “ with their backs towards the temple of the Lord” worshipping “the sun towards the east’ (Ez. viii.). The vin- dietive pursuit and murder of Urijah the son of Shemaiah, and the indignities offered to his corpse by the king’s command, in revenge for his faithful prophesying of ‘evil against Jerusalem and Judah, a The passage seems to be corrupt. The words Tov adeApov avTov seem to be repeated from the preced- ing line but one, and Zapaxny is a corruption of Odpiar. 2vAAaBwv aviyayev is a paraphrase of the Alexandrian Codex of Jer. xxxiii. 23 (xxvi. 23, A. V.), ovveAdcBooav AUTOV, kal éfHyayov. 6 Nothing can be more improbable than an invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar at this time. All the Syrian possessions of Egypt fell into the power of Babylon soon after the victory at Carchemish, and the King of Egypt retired thenceforth into his own coun- try. His Asiatic wars seem to have engrossed Nebu- chadnezzar’s attention for the next 7 years; and in JEHOIAKIM are samples of his irreligion and tyranny com Jeremiah only narrowly escaped the same fat) xxvi. 20-24). The curious notice of him Esdr. i. 38, that he put his nobles in chain caught Zaraces his brother in Egypt ¢ and hi him up thence (to Jerusalem), also points. cruelty. His daring impiety in cutting u burning the roll containing Jeremiah’s pro at the very moment when the national fy being celebrated, is another specimen of his ¢ ter, and drew down upon him the sentence shall have none to sit upon the throne of 4 (Jer. xxxvi.). His oppression, injustice, Coy ness, luxury, and tyranny, are most seyen buked (xxii. 13-17), and it has been freq observed, as indicating his thorough selfishne| indifference to the sufferings of his people, t a time when the land was so impoverished | heavy tributes laid upon it by Egypt and Bi in turn, he should have squandered large | building luxurious palaces for himself (xxii. 1 Josephus’s history of Jehoiakim’s reign is ( tent neither with Scripture nor with itself, account of Jehoiakim’s death and Jehoiachi cession appears to be only his own sd the Scripture narrative. According to Jo) (Ant. x. 6) Nebuchadnezzar came against { in the 8th year of Jehoiakim’s reign, and con} him to pay tribute, which he did for three } and then revolted in the 11th year, on hearint the king of Babylon was gone to invade hj He then inserts the account of Jehoiakim’s) ing Jeremiah’s prophecy in his 5th year, anv? cludes by saying, that a little time afterwar! king of Babylon made an expedition against | akim, who admitted Nebuchadnezzar into tle upon certain conditions, which Nebuchadz immediately broke; that he slew Jehoiakim a’ flower of the citizens, and sent 3,000 captis Babylon, and set up Jehoiachin for king, l most immediately afterwards was seized wit! lest the young king should avenge his father’s: and so sent back his army to besiege Jeru that Jehoiachin, being a man of just and gen: position, did not like to expose the city to danr his own account, and therefore surrendered h's his mother, and kindred, to the king of Balo officers on condition of the city suffering no 1 but that Nebuchadnezzar, in direct violati the conditions, took 10,832 prisoners, and}é Zedekiah king in the room of Jehoiachin, he kept in ‘custody —a statement the prineip? tion of which seems to have no foundation} ever in facts. The account given above is (1) from the various statements in Scriptura seems to agree perfectly with the probabili Nebuchadnezzar’s movements and with wh t most recent discoveries have brought to ligl f cerning him. [NeBucHADNEZzAR.] The ne like manner the king of Egypt seems to have eit himself to Ethiopian wars. The first hint w/ of Egypt aiming at recovering her lost influe Syria is at the accession of iy eal A. SS.) 4th of Zedekiah. [Hananran, 4.] He made /@ abortive attempts against Nebuchadnezzar iné kiah’s reign, and detached the Ammonites, Mcit Edomites, Tyrians, and Zidonians from the Bab; alliance (Jer. xxvii.). In consequence, Nebue zar, after thoroughly subduing these ae devoting 18 years to the siege of Tyre, at len ! vaded and subdued Egypt in the 35th year of hil (Ez. xxix. 17). | — | | | 7 JEHOIAKIM JEHOIARIB 1231 hoiakim extends from B. C. 609 to B. C. 598, | again and again, in the persecutions of the fourth some reckon, 599. or of the sixteenth century, yet multiplied by that 1e name of Jehoiakim appears in a contracted | very cause; springing from the flames to do their in JoIAKIM, a high-priest. rear erry: F work, living in the voice and life of men, even when | Hardly any single act of Jehoiakim reveals so | their outward letter seemed to be lost. ‘Then took : of his own character and that of his times | Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the s burning of Jereniah's “roll.” It was the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote therein from ? on which Baruch, the prophet’s amanuensis the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book the sharer of his dungeon, had written the | which Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, had burned ings uttered by Jeremiah, to arouse the king in the fire, and there were added besides unto them xobles to a sense of their danger. An attempt many like words’ (Jer. xxxvi. 82). In this record made to read these warnings to the people, on of the prophet’s feeling, thus emphasized by his of the public fasts. “On that day,” as Stanley | own repetition, is contained the germ of the ‘ Lib abes the scene, “a wintry day in December, erty of Unlicensed Printing,’ the inexhaustible ich appeared in the chamber of a friendly noble, | Vitality of the written word.” (History of the ariah, the son of Shaphan, which was appar- Jewish Church, ii. 591 ff.) a r over the new gateway already mentioned.| JRHOVARIB (29975, 1 Chr. ix. 10, , from the window or balcony of the chamber, | .¥:.. 7 only: elsewhere Lornigh Hresrewand ae om the platform or pillar on which the kings | tn name is abbreviated to JOIARIB UU ehovah a stood on solemn occasions, he recited the long | 7, .,dep) +? j fist Wat oe Al nation of lament and invective to the vast con- hay }: vine fs [’ criaene te earl re ation assembled for the national fast. Micaiah, coh a ins tee ek dit ) ae : 7 ne son of his host, alarmed by what he heard, mh t anne sa Pate reves a 2 om ao. ended the Temple hill, and communicated it to fa ani x4 7 Wy sit . f ah Sra ak k a of srinces who, as usual through these disturbed Captiv Spy ae Paya ie Athy ane 4s, were seated in council in the palace in the , Foartiatsd Loita ae ae eins ct tments of the chief sevretary. dne of them, 7H aed os i arn os ea ot idi, the descendant of a noble house, acted ap- sane toot gers " aighes k cote: attenal ( Pee utly as an agent or spokesman of the rest, and ee Eee hod Bre ably of the house of Eleazar. sent to summon Baruch to their presence. He a ae baa ony Ste pees te rpitaeeeses Jown in the attitude of an eastern teacher (Jer. family (1 Mace. ii. 1), and J osephus, as he informs ij. 15, comp. Luke iv. 20), and as he went on us (Ant. xii. 6, § 1, and Life, § 1). [HiGH- recital struck terror into the hearts of his ers. They saw his danger; they charged him his master to conceal themselves, and deposited PRIEST.] Prideaux indeed (Connection, i. 123), following the Jewish tradition, affirms that only 4 of the courses returned, from Babylon, Jedaiah, SY soroll in. the chamber where they had Immer, Pashur, and Harim — for which last, how- iss : ey “| ever, the Babylonian Talmud has Joiarib — because \e erst ee songunces (to pRethorae ee these 4 only are enumerated in Ezr. ii. 36-39, Neh. be Bing ae fontful contents. A third time it | (i; 39 49.” And he accounts for the mention of . Sad aa aa eA he ea wr other courses, as of Joiarib (1 Mace. ii. 1), and self over the charcoal ranier maid his princes eee aie 5), by saying. that: those 4 courses ding round him. ‘Three or Pica “cat ex. | Were subdivided into 6 each, so as to keep up the t Siathe: royal patience ei knife old number of 24, which took the names of the Biiteriiscribes wear ae the cee of AR original courses, though not really descended from ‘the parchment into strips far ai nik sath them. But this is probably an invention of the brazier till it was burnt to ashes. ‘Those who Ui eas for’ Che, menbion of EN i i Wtom their fathers of ite ae ‘ail families of priests in the list of Ezr. ii. and Neh. a . ‘f ; produced | ii, And however difficult it may be to say with Most wel be ge it. certainty why only those 4 courses are mentioned ‘ia of a cw sions: of nS EE in that particular list, we have the positive authority grief were seen; neither aie sid abttenstulits of 1 Chr. ix. 10, and Neh. xi. 10, for asserting that Hates clothes. I Oa ars nace Bee MES Joiarib did return; and we have two other lists of ° Se me hiding-place sane over- | Courses, one of the time of Nehemiah (Neh. x. 2-8), inne with Bespait (Sens iss 3) i thind failure the other of Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 1-7); the former ds mission. But Jeremiah had now ceased to ME ake! Sa latter 22 courses; and the iH He bade his timid disciple take up the latter naming Joiarib as one of them, and adding, and record once more the terrible messages. = Mig a the name of the z hief of the course of I country was doomed. It was only in dividnals Joiarib in the days of Joiakim. So that there can AP he-saved. . be no reasonable doubt that Joiarib did return. ‘But the Divine oracle could not: be destroyed in bee nals hess ib 1 hd ae ah hie HeEGon- ofits outward framework Tatas firmation from the statement in the Latin version iiiorey of the vision of the ! rae Patetns of Josephus ( Cont. Apion. ii. § 8), that there were eEensinmed’:'a\aacred book ha ied ae 4 courses of priests, as it is a manifest corruption ieht Divine truths vere es Anak SR cate of the text for 24, as Whiston and others have wn, burnt as sacred books have been burnt shown (note to Life of Josephus, § 1), The sub- : joined table gives the three lists of courses which | It is, however, very singular that the names after | order as the first course ; and, moreover, these names naiah in Neh. xii. 6, including Joiarib and Jedaiah, | are entirely omitted in the LXX. till we come to the 2 the appearance of being added on to the previ- | times of Joiakim at ver. 12-21. Still the utmost that Y existing list, which ended with Shemuiah, as | could be concluded from this is, that Joiarib returned >, that in Neh. x. 2-8. For Joiarib’s is introduced | later than the time of Zerubbabel. ‘, che copula “and;” it is quite out of its right 1232 JEHONADAB returned, with the original list in David’s time to/ belonged to a branch of the Kenites; the Ara} compare them by: — COURSES OF PRIESTS. In David's In list in In Nehemiah’s} In Zerubba- reign, Ezy. ii., Neh. time, bel’s time, 1 Chr. xxiv. Vii. Neh. x. Neh. xii. 1. Jehoiarib, _ =_ Joiarib. 1 Chr. ix. 10, Neh. xi. 10. : 2. Jedaiah. Children of = Jedaiah. Jedaiah. 3. Harim. Children of | Harim. Rehum Harim. (Harim,v. 15). 4. Seorim. _ = — 5. Malchijah.} Children of | Malchijah. — Pashur, ] : Chr. ix. 12. 6. Mijamin. = Mijamin. Miamin (Miniamin, y. 17). 7. Hakkoz. _ Meremoth, Meremoth. son of Hak- koz, Neh. ; iii. 4. 8. Abijah. — Abijah Abijah. 9. Jeshuah. ; House of = = Jeshua (? Ezr. ii. 36. Neh. vii. 39. 10. Shecaniah. _ Shebaniah. Shechaniah (Shebaniah, ver. 14). 11. Eliashib. — ors sal 12. Jakim. = ee 2 13. Huppah. — = Be 14. Jeshebeab. — i 3 15. Bilgah. il Bilgai. Bilgah. 16. Immer. Children of | Amariah. Amariah. Immer. 17. Hezir. — — — 18. Aphses. — — — 19. Pethahiah. — —_ = 20. Jehezekel. — — _ 21. Jachin, _- =~ = Neh. xi. 10. 1 Chr. ix. 10. 22. Gamul. _- a _— 23. Delaiah. —- — = 24. Maaziah. _ Maaziah. Maa‘liah (Moadiah, v. 17). Sci ee nr Os ae NW IN AL Pe oe The courses which cannot be identified with the original ones, but which are enumerated as existing after the return, are as follows: — ations bos dy ee Ae ero, Se aang Neh. x. Neh. xii. Neh. xi., 1 Chr. ix. Seraiah. Seraiah. Seraiah (?) Azariah. Ezra. Azariah. Jeremiah. Jeremiah. ae Pashur. es me Hattush. Hattush. om Malluch. Malluch. ESE Obadiah. Iddo. Adaiah (?) Daniel. — —_— Ginnethon. Ginnetho. ss Baruch. oe au Meshullam. pasty Bes Shemaiah. Shemaiah. ae Sallu. Amok. Hilkiah. Jedaiah (2). wn aa le ee ae Is 1 For some account of the courses, see Lewis’s Orig. Hebr. bk. ii. ch. vii. In Esdras the name is given JoARIB. fC. L, JEHON’ADAB, and JON’ADAB (the longer form, 27217}, is employed in 2 K. x. and Jer. xxxv. 8, 14, 16, 18; the shorter one, ne in Jer. xxxv. 6, 10, 19 [Jehovah incites, Ges. }: "IwvadaB: [Jonadab]), the son of Rechab, founder of the Rechabites. It appears from 1 Chr. ii. 55, that his father or ancestor Rechab (“the rider ’’) nized and adopted by travellers of all ages | faiths. It is used by Christians —as Anéf 700 (Early Trav. i. 4), the author of the i JTherusalem, in 1187 (Rob. ii. 562), and Ma in 1697 (Ear. Trav. p. 469); and by dew- Benjamin of Tudela about 1170 (Asher, i. 73 see Reland, Pal. p. 356). By the Moslemi still said to be called Wady Jishafat ae 23, 26), or Shafat, though the name usual to the valley is Wady Sitt’-Maryam. Bot!) lems and Jews believe that the last judgmei take place there. To find a grave there dearest wish of the latter (Briggs, Heath« Holy Lands, p. 290), and the former sho- they have shown for certainly two centuries- place on which Mohammed is to be seated at t | Judgment, a stone jutting out from the e: ' of the Haram area near the south corner, the pillars * which once adorned the chur Helena or Justinian, and of which multitus now imbedded in the rude masonry of th modern walls of Jerusalem. The steep stl ravine, wherever a level strip affords the ¢0 nity, are crowded — in places almost = 8 i at the sepulchres of the Moslems, or the simp! of the Jewish tombs, alike awaiting the asse)] the Last Judgment. | So narrow and precipitous ® a glen is qu suited for such an event; but this incon does not appear to have disturbed the | framed or those who hold the tradition. It h ever implied in the Hebrew terms employe® two cases. That by Joel is Lmek (7722). applied to spacious valleys, draelon or Gibeon (Stanley, S. ¢ P- AD On the other hand the ravine of the Kidri variably designated by Nachal (579), aryél to the modern Arabic Wady. ‘There is no te in the O. T. of these two terms being cor pmmminmemmemere b St. Cyril (of Alexandria) either did not Hs spot, or has another valley in his eye; pro! 4 former. He describes it as not many stadia es rusalem; and says he is told (dnot) that it)” and apt for horses” (yAdv Kat immAaror" ¢ Joel, quoted by Reland, p. 355). Perhaps ' cates that the tradition was not at that fixed. ¥ . JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF JEHOSHEBA 12387 “‘ postern ’’ is evidently of later date than the wak in which it occurs, as some of the enormous stones of the wall have been cut through to admit it:¢ and in so far, therefore, it is a witness to the date of the tradition being subsequent to the time of Herod, by whom this wall was built. It is probably the “little gate ¢ leading down by steps to the valley,” of which Arculf speaks (arly Trav.). Benjamin of Tudela (1163) also mentions the gate of Jehosha- phat, but without any nearer indication of its posi- tion than that it led to the valley and the monu- ments (Asher, i. 71). (c.) Lastly, leading to this gate was a street called the street of Jehoshaphat ( Citez de J. § vii., Rob. ii. 561). The name would seem to be generally confined by travellers to the upper part of the glen, from about the “ Tomb of the Virgin” to the southeast corner of the wall of Jerusalem. [Tomss. ] this fact alone would warrant the inference the tradition of the identity of the Emek of phat and the Nachal Kedron, did not arise ‘Hebrew had begun to become a dead lan- 4 The grounds on which it did arise were ibly two: (1.) The frequent mention through- his passage of Joel of Mount Zion, Jerusalem, the Temple (ii. 32; iii. 1, 6, 16, 17, 18), may led to the belief that the locality of the great nent would be in their immediate neighbor- This would be assisted by the mention of fount of Olives in the somewhat similar pas- in Zechariah (xiv. 3, 4). .) The belief that Christ would reappear in ment on the Mount of Olives, from which He ascended. ‘This was at one time a received le of Christian belief, and was grounded on the s of the Angels, “‘ He shall so come in like ner as ye have seen him go into heaven.’’? ichomius, Theatr. Ter. Sancte, Jerusalem, 2; Corn. a Lapide, on Acts i.) .) There is the alternative that the Valley of shaphat was really an ancient name of the »y of the Kedron, and that from the name, the ection with Joel’s prophecy, and the belief in zing the scene of Jehovah’s last judgment have ved. This may be so; but then we should ‘ot to find some trace of the existence of the > before the 4th century after Christ. It was ‘inly used as a burying-place as early as the , of Josiah (2 K. xxiii. 6), but no inference ‘airly be drawn from this. at whatever originated the tradition, it has ‘its ground most firmly. (a.) In the valley }, one of the four remarkable monuments which ‘at the foot of Olivet was at a very early date lected with Jehoshaphat. At Arculf’s visit it 700) the name appears to have been borne ‘Yat now called “ Absalom’s tomb,’’ but then “tower of Jehoshaphat”? (Har. Trav. p. 4). !e time of Maundrell the “ tomb of Jehoshaphat’ / what it still is, an excavation, with an archi- ‘ral front, in the face of the rock behind “ Ab- o’stomb.”’ A tolerable view of this is given ate 33 of Munk’s Palestine ; and a photograph alzmann, with a description in the Teste (p. lio the same. The name may, as already ob- d, really point to Jehoshaphat himself, though (30 his tomb, as he was buried like the other i; in the city of David (2 Chr. xxi. 1). (6.) ) of the gates of the city in the east wall, open- on the valley, bore the same name. ‘This is from the Citez de Jherusalem, where the “2 de losafus is said to have been a ‘“ postern”’ Ki to the golden gateway (Portez Oiris), and to hvouth of tliat gate (pars devers midi; § iv., ¢ the end, Rob. ii. 559). It was therefore at or ¢ the small walled-up doorway, to which M. de xy has restored the name of the Péterne de Kohat, and which is but a few feet to the south f'2 golden gateway. However this may be, this * Fiirst speaks of the present Valley of Jehosha- phat as on the south of Jerusalem (//andw, i. 497). That must be an oversight. He thinks that the valley was so named from a victory or victories achieved there by Jehoshaphat over heathen ene- mies, but that the name was not actually given to the place till after the time of Joel. The correct view, no doubt, is that the valley to which Joel refers is not one to be sought on any terrestrial map, of one period of Jerusalem’s history or another, but is a name formed to localize an ideal- ized scene. It is an instance of a bold, but truth- ful figure, to set forth the idea that God’s perse- cuted, suffering people have always in Him an Almighty defender, and that all opposition to his kingdom and his servants must in the end prove unavailing. To convey this teaching the more im- pressively the prophet represents Jehovah as ap- pointing a time and a place for meeting his enemies ; they are commanded to assemble all their forces, to concentrate, as it were, both their enmity and their power in one single effort of resistance to his purposes and will. They accept the challenge. Jehovah meets them thus united, and making trial of their strength against his omnipotence. The conflict then follows. The irresistible One scatters the adversaries at a single blow; he overwhelms their hosts with confusion and ruin (iii. 2-17, A. V., and iv. 12-17, Heb.). The prophet calls the scene of this encounter “the Valley of Jehosha- phat” (7. e. where “ Jehovah judges ”’), on account of this display of God’s power und justice, and the pledge thus given to his people of the final issue of all their labors and sufferings for his name’s sake. With the same import Joel interchanges this expression in ver. 14 with “valley of decision,” (YANN), i. e. of a case decided, judgment de- clared. H JEHOSH’EBA (DW WT [Jehovah the oath, by whom one swears]: LXX. "IwoaBée} Joseph. "IwraBédn), daughter of Joram king of Is- rael, and wife of Jehoiada the high-priest (2 K. xi. 2). Her name in the Chronicles is given JEHO- ' it appears in the Targum on Cant. viii. 1. ‘n Sir John Maundeville a different reason is si) for the same. ‘Very near this”? — the place ? Christ wept over Jerusalem — ‘is the stone on 1 our Lord sat when He preached; and on that / Stone shall He sit on the day of doom, right as ‘id himself.” Bernard the Wise, in the 8th cen- Speaks of the church of St. Leon, in the valley, re our Lord will come to judgment” (Early c To this fact the writer can testify from recen# observation. It is evident enough in Salzmann’s pho tograph, though not in De Saulcy s sketch (Atlas, pl. 24). d Next to the above “little gate,” Arculf namee the gate “t Thecuitis.” Can this strange name contais an allusion to Thecoa, the valley in which Jehosha phat’s great victory was gained ? 1238 JEHUSHUA SHABEATH. It thus exactly resembles the name of the only two other wives of Jewish priests who are known to us, namely, ELisHeBA (LXX. and N. ‘I. ‘EAicaBér, whence our Elisabeth), the wife of Aaron, Ix. vi. 23, and the wife of Zechariah, Luke i. 7. In the former case the word signifies “ Jeho- vah’s oath; ’’ in the second “ God’s oath.” As she is called, 2 K. xi. 2, “the daughter of Joram, sister of Ahaziah,’’ it has been conjectured that she was the daughter, not of Athaliah, but of Joram, by another wife; and Josephus (Ant. ix. 7, § 1) calls her ’Oyo ia duomdrpios adeAph. may be; but it is also possible that the omission of Athaliah’s name may have been occasioned by the detestation in which it was held — in the same way as modern commentators have, for the same reason, eagerly embraced this hypothesis. That it is not absolutely needed is shown by the fact that the worship of Jehovah was tolerated under the reigns both of Joram and Athaliah — and that the name of Jehovah was incorporated into both of their names. She is the only recorded instance of the marriage of a princess of the royal house with a high-priest. On this occasion it was a providential circumstance (‘for she was the sister of Ahaziah,’’ 2 Chr. xxi. 11), as inducing and probably enabling her to rescue the infant Joash from the massacre of his brothers. By her, he and his nurse were concealed in the pal- ace, and afterwards in the Temple (2 K. xi. 2, 3; 2 Chr. xxii. 11), where he was brought up prob- ably with her sons (2 Chr. xxiii. 11), who assisted at his coronation. One of these was Zechariah, who succeeded her husband in his office, and was afterwards murdered (2 Chr. xxiv. 20). A. P. S. JEHOSH’UA (YW W7 [Jehovah a helper]: ‘Incods: Josue). In this form—contracted in the Hebrew, but fuller than usual in the A. V.— is given the name of Joshua in Num. xiii. 16, on the occasion of its bestowal by Moses. ‘The addi- tion of the name of Jehovah probably marks the recognition by Moses of the important part taken in the affair of the spies by him, who till this time had been Hoshea, ‘help,’? but was henceforward to be Je-hoshua, ‘help of Jehovah’? (Ewald, ii. 306). Once more only the name appears in its full form in the A. V.—this time with a redundant letter — as — JEHOSH’UAH (the Hebrew is as above: "Incove, in both MSS.: Josue), in the genealogy of Ephraim (1 Chr. vii.27). We should be thank- ful to the translators of the A. V. for giving the first syllables of this great name their full form, if only in these two cases; though why in these only it is difficult to understand. Nor is it easier to see whence they got the final / in the latter of the two. [The final is not found in the original edition of the A. V., 1611.— A.] G. JEHO’VAH (TMM, usually with the vowel points of STS | but when the two occur together the former is pointed PTs, that is, with the vowels of O°TT 788. as in Obad. i. 1, Hab. ii. 19: she LXX. generally render it by Kupios, the Vul- gate by Dominus; and in this respect they have been followed by the A. V., where it is translated “The Lord’’). The true pronunciation of this name, by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost, the Jews themselves scrupu- This’ JEHOVAH lously avoiding every mention of it, and sub ting in its stead one or other of the words whose proper vowel-points it may happen written. This custom, which had its orig reverence, and has almost degenerated into a s stition, was founded upon an erroneous renc¢ of Ley. xxiv. 16, from which it was inferred the mere utterance of the name constituted a eapit fense. In the rabbinical writings it is distingr by various euphemistic expressions; as simply name,” or ‘the name of four letters’? (the ( tetragrammaton); ‘the great and terrible nar “the peculiar name,” 7. e. appropriated to: alone; “the separate name,”’ 7. e. either the | which is separated or removed from human k edge, or, as some render, “the name whicl been interpreted or revealed ”’ (WIEN shém hammephordsh). The Samaritans fol] the same custom, and in reading the Pate substituted for Jehovah (D9, shémd) | name,”’ at the same time perpetuating the pr: in their alphabetical poems and later wr (Geiger, Urschrift, etc. p. 262). Accordir Jewish tradition, it was pronounced but on year by the high-priest on the day of Ae when he entered the Holy of Holies; but o1 point there is some doubt, Maimonides (Mor. | i. 61) asserting that the use of the word = fined to the blessings of the priests, and rest to the sanctuary, without limiting it still fl to the high-priest alone. On the same | we learn that it ceased with Simeon the Just | Chaz. c. 14, § 10), having lasted through two) erations, that of the men of the Great Synay and the age of Shemed, while others incluc generation of Zedekiah among those who pos: the use of the shém hammephéordsh (Midrai Ps. xxxvi. 11, quoted by Buxtorf in Reland’s . Lzxercit.). But even after the destruction ¢ second temple we meet with instances of iniji uals who were in possession of the mysterioi's cret. A certain Bar Kamzar is mentioned it Mishna ( Yoma, iii. § 11) who was able to} this name of God; but even on such eviden may conclude that after the siege of Jerue the true pronunciation almost if not entirel:| appeared, the probability being that it had» lost long before. Josephus, himself a priest.) fesses that on this point he was not permitt speak (Ant. ii. 12, § 4); and Philo states (di Mos. iii. 519) that for those alone whose ear tongue were purged by wisdom was it lawf hear or utter this awful name. It is evident, #r fore, that no reference to ancient writers ¢ expected to throw any light upon the que? and any quotation of them will only rendetl darkness in which it is involved more pall At the same time the discussion, though barr] actual results, may on other accounts be interes and as it is one in which great names are rite on both sides, it would for this reason alone bit pertinent to dismiss it with a cursory notice)! the decade of dissertations collected by Rei Fuller, Gataker, and Leusden do battle for ther nunciation Jehovah, against such formidable a onists as Drusius, Amama, Cappellus, Buxto Altingius, who, it is scarcely necessary to say; i! beat their opponents out of the field; the™ argument, in fact, of any weight, which is ployed by the advocates of the pronunciation ‘ é Hf] JEHOVAH as it is written being that derived from the n which it appears in proper names, such as baphat, Jehoram, etc. Their antagonists make ‘g point of the fact that, as has been noticed ‘two different sets of vowels are applied to the sonsonants under certain circumstances. To eusden, of all the champions on his side, but replies. The same may be said of the argu- derived from the fact that the letters 25279, prefixed to F117, take, not the vowels which yould regularly receive were the present punc- n true, but those with which they would be n if 2TH, ddéndi, he letters ordinarily taking dagesh lene when were the reading; and ng W1W1 would, according to the rules of lebrew points, be written without dagesh, is it is uniformly inserted. Whatever, there- e the true pronunciation of the word, there little doubt that it is not Jehovih. Greek writers it appears under the several of Iam (Diod. Sic. i. 94; Irenzeus, i. 4, § 1), (Porphyry in Eusebius, Prep. Lvan. i. 9, "Taov (Clem. Alex. Strom. y. p. 666), and in ja to the Pentateuch in a MS. at Turin ’Id oth Theodoret (Quest. 15 in Exod.) and wmius (Her. xx.) give ‘IaBé, the former dis- shing it as the pronunciation of the Samari- while ’Aia represented that of the Jews. But i these writers were entitled to speak with ity, their evidence only tends to show in how lifferent ways the four letters of the word could be represented in Greek characters, rows no light either upon its real pronuncia- ‘its punctuation. In like manner Jerome Viil.), who acknowledges that the Jews con- it an ineffable name, at the same time says ‘be read Jaho,—of course, supposing the ‘in question to be genuine, which is open to In the absence, therefore, of anything satis- ‘from these sources, there is plainly left a Id for conjecture. What has been done in ‘d the following pages will show. It will be verhaps to ascend from the most improbable ’ses to those which carry with them more _ reason, and thus prepare the way for the vations which will follow. on Bohlen, at once most skeptical and most 4s, whose hasty conclusions are only paral- | the rashness of his assumptions, unhesita- ‘sserts that beyond all doubt the word Je- ‘S$ not Semitic in its origin. Pinning his pon the Abraxas gems, in which he finds it xm Jao, he connects it with the Sanskrit evo, the Greek Aids, and Latin Jovis. or | But, apart from the consideration that his is at least questionable, he omits to ex- striking phenomenon that the older form as the d should be preserved in the younger 2s, the Greek and ancient Latin, while not of it appears in the Hebrew. It would be also that, before a philological argument H ature can be admitted, the relation between itie and Indo-Germanic languages should ( clearly established. In the absence of this, ences which may be drawn frora apparent meces (the resemblance in the present case '§ even apparent) will lead to certain error. Hebrews learned the word from the JEHOVAH 1239 Egyptians is a theory which has found some advo- cates. The foundations for this theory are sufti- ciently slight. As has been mentioned above, Diodorus (i. 94) gives the Greek from ‘Ia@; and from this it has been inferred that ’Ia@ was a deity of the Egyptians, whereas nothing can be clearei from the context than that the historian is speak- ing especially of the God of the Jews. Again, in Macrobius (Sat. i. c. 18), a line is quoted from an oracular response of Apollo Clarius — Ppacgeo Tov TavtTwv Unatov Oedv éupev’ “law, which has been made use of for the same purpose. But Jablonsky (Panth. 2g. ii. § 5) has proved incontestably that the author of the verses from which the above is quoted, was one of the Judaiz- ing Gnostics, who were in the habit of making the names ’Ia@ and SeBawé@ the subjects of mystical speculations. The Ophites, who were Egyptians, are known to have given the name ‘Iaé to the Moon (Neander, Gnost. 252), but this, as Tholuck suggests, may have arisen from the fact that in Coptic the Moon is called ioh (Verm. Schriften, i. 385). Movers (Phén. i. 540), while defending the genuineness of the passage of Macrobius, connects "Ia, which denotes the Sun or Dionysus, with the root STITT, so that it signifies “the life-giver.” In any case, the fact that the name ’Ia@ is found among the Greeks and Egyptians, or among the Orientals of Further Asia, in the 2d or 3d century, cannot be made use of as an argument that the Hebrews derived their knowledge of the word from any one of these nations. On the contrary, there can be but little doubt that the process in reality was reversed, and that in this case the Hebrews were, not the borrowers, but the lenders. We have indisputable evidence that it existed among them, whatever may have been its origin, many centuries before it is found in other records; of the contrary we have no evidence whatever. Of the singular manner in which the word has been introduced into other languages, we have a remarkable instance in a passage quoted by M. Rémusat, from one of the works of the Chinese philosopher Lao-tseu, who flourished, according to Chinese chronology, about the 6th or 7th century B. C., and held the opinions commonly attributed to Pythagoras, Plato, and others of the Greeks. This passage M. Rémusat translates as follows: “Celui que vous regardez et que vous ne voyez pas, se nomme 7 ; celui que vous écoutez et que vous n’entendez pas, se nomme fi ; celui que votre main cherche et qu’elle ne peut pas saisir, se nomme Wei. Ce sont trois étres qu’on ne peut comprendre, et qui, confondus, n’en font qu’un.’’ In these three letters J H V Rémusat thinks that he recognizes the name Jehovah of the Hebrews, which might have been learnt by the philosopher himself or some of his pupils in the course of his travels; or it might have been brought into China by some exiled Jews or Gnostics. The Chinese interpreter of the passage maintains that these mystical letters signify “ the void,’ so that in his time every trace of the origin of the word * had in all probability been lost. And not only does it appear, though perhaps in a questionable form, in the literature of the Chinese. In a letter from the missionary Plaisant to the Vicar Apostolic Boucho, dated 18th Feb. 1847, there is mention made of a tradition which existed among a tribe in the jungles of Burmah, that the divine being was called Jova or Kara-Jova, and that the peculiarities {340 JEHOVAH of the Jehovah of the Old Testament were attrib- uted to him (Reinke, Beitrdge, iii. 65). But all this is very vague and more curious than convin- cing. The inscription in front of the temple of Isis at Sais quoted by Plutarch (de Is. et Os. § 9), “I am all that hath been, and that is, and that shall be,”’ which has been employed as an argument to prove that the name Jehovah was known among the Egyptiaus, is mentioned neither by Herodotus, Diodorus, nor Strabo; and Proclus, who does allude to it, says it was in the adytum of the temple. But, even if it be genuine, its authority is worth- less for the purpose for which it is adduced. For, supposing that Jehovah is the name to which such meaning is attached, it follows rather that the Egyptians borrowed it and learned its significance from the Jews, unless it can be proved that both in Egyptian and Hebrew the same combination of letters conveyed the same idea. Without, however, having recourse to any hypothesis of this kind, the peculiarity of the inscription is sufficiently explained by the place which, as is well known, Isis holds in the Egyptian mythology as the universal mother. The advocates of the Egyptian origin of the word have shown no lack of ingenuity in summoning to their aid authorities the most unpromising. A passage from a treatise on interpretation (cep) Epunvelas, § 71), written by one Demetrius, in which it is said that the Egyptians hymned their gods by means of the seven vowels, has been tor- tured to give evidence on the point. Scaliger was in doubt whether it referred to Serapis, called by Hesychius “ Serapis of seven letters” (7d érra- ypduparov Sapdmis), or to the exclamation SVT TUT, hi yehdvdh, “He is Jehovah.” Of the latter there can be but little doubt. Gesner took the seven Greek vowels, and arranging them in the order IEHQOYA, found therein Jehovah. But he was triumphantly refuted by Didymus, who main- tained that the vowels were merely used for musical notes, and in this very probable conjecture he is supported by the Milesian inscription elucidated by Barthelemy and others. In this the invocation of God is denoted by the seven vowels five times repeated in different arrangements, Aeniouw, Eniovwa, Hiouwae, louwaen, Ouwaens: each group of vowels precedes a ‘‘ holy’? (@y1e), and the whole concludes with the following: “the city of the Milesians and all the inhabitants are guarded by archangels.’? Miiller, with much probability, con- cludes that the seven vowels represented the seven notes of the octave. One more argument for the Egyptian origin of Jehovah remains to be noticed. It is found in the circumstance that Pharaoh changed the name of Eliakim to Jehoiakim (2 K. xxiii. 34), which it is asserted is not in accordance with the practice of conquerors towards the con- quered, unless the Egyptian king imposed upon the king of Judah the name of one of his own gods. But the same reasoning would prove that the origin of the word was Babylonian, for the king of Baby- *lon changed the name of Mattaniah to Zedekiah (2 K. xxiv. 17). But many, abandoning as untenable the theory of an Egyptian origin, have sought to trace the name among the Pheenicians and Canaanitish tribes. In support of this, Hartmann brings forward a passage from a pretended fragment of Sanchoniatho quoted by Philo Byblius, a writer of the age of Nero. But it is now generally admitted that the JEHOVAH so-called fragments of Sanchoniatho, the Pheenician chronicler, are most impudent f concocted by Philo Byblius himself. Besic passage to which Hartmann refers is not f Philo Byblius, but is quoted from Porph Eusebius (Prep. Evan. i. 9, § 21), and, gen not, evidently alludes to the Jehovah of thi It 1s there stated that the most trustwor thority in matters connected with the Je Sanchoniatho of Beyrout, who received his ii tion from Hierombalos (Jerubbaal) the pr the god ’Ievé, From the occurrence of J as a compound in the proper names of ma were not Hebrews, Hamaker (Misc. Phen. | &c.) contends that it must have been known heathen people. But such Knowledge, if it. was no more than might have been obtai their necessary contact with the Hebrews names of Uriah the Hittite, of Araunah or / the Jebusite, of Tobiah the Ammonite, and Canaanitish town Bizjothjah, may be all ex\ without having recourse to Hamaker’s hyp Of as little value is his appeal to 1 K. v. 7 we find the name Jehovah in the mouth of | king of Tyre. Apart from the considerati Hiram would necessarily be acquainted w name as that of the Hebrews’ national ¢ occurrence is sufficiently explained by the { Solomon’s message (1 K. v. 8-5). Anothe on which Hamaker relies for support is th ’ABSdatos, which occurs as that of a Tyrian in Menander (Joseph. c. Apion. i. 21), anc he identifies with Obadiah (TIJ2Y). B) Furst and Hengstenberg represent it in Ik characters by *72Y, ’abdai, which even Hi thinks more probable. II. Such are the principal hypotheses whi! been constructed in order to account for | Hebraic origin of Jehovah. To attributes value to them requires a large share of fai remains now to examine the theories on the ci0 side; for on this point authorities are by no\ agreed, and have frequently gone to the ciil extreme. §S. D. Luzzatto (Anim. in Jes, Rosenmiiller’s Compend. xxiv.) advances wil: gular naiveté the extraordinary statement Jehovah, or rather TTT divested of pos compounded of two interjections, 17), vah, and ‘19, ydhd, of joy, and denotes the aut good and evil. Such an etymology, from oneli unquestionably among the first of modern |i scholars, is a remarkable phenomencn. ¥ referring to Gen. xix. 24, suggests as the or Jehovah, the Arab. sf ¢, which signifies i heaven; ’’ a conjecture, of the honor of which): will desire to rob him. But most have a” the basis of their explanations, and the di methods of punctuation which they ste 0 passage in Ex. iii. 14, to which we must na look for a solution of the question. When received his commission to be the deliyerer a the Almighty, who appeared in the burning! communicated to him the name which he} give as the credentials of his mission: ‘ Al said unto Moses, I Am THAT I AM (aes iV TIMTTN, ehyeh dsher ehyeh); and he said! il JEHOVAH thou say unto the children of Israel, I am sent me unto you.” ‘That this passage is ded to indicate the etymology of Jehovah, as rstood by the Hebrews, no one has ventured ubt: it is in fact the key to the whole mystery. though it certainly supplies the etymology, nterpretation must be determined from other derations. According to this view then, MT171° be the 3d sing. masc. fut. of the substantive 111, the older form of which was TT, ound in the Chaldee TT, and Syriac JOO}, t which will be referred to hereafter in dis- ig the antiquity of the name. If this ety- ry be correct, and there seems little reason to , in question, one step towards the true punc- m and pronunciation is already gained. Many xd men, and among them Grotius, Galatinus, us, and Leusden, in an age when such fancies rife, imagined that, reading the name with owel points usually attached to it, they dis- xd an indication of the eternity of God in the that the name by which He revealed himself 2 Hebrews was compounded of the present iple, and the future and preterite tenses of ubstantive verb. The idea may have been sted by the expression in Rev. iv. 8 (6 Fv Kal «al 6 épxduevos), and received apparent con- ion from the Targ. Jon. on Deut. xxxii. 39, varg. Jer. on Ex. iii. 14. These passages, er, throw no light upon the composition of ‘me, and merely assert that in its significance races past, present, and future. But having | to reject the present punctuation, it is use- 9 discuss any theories which may be based ‘it, had they even greater probability in their shan the one just mentioned. As one of the in which Jehovah appears in Greek characters 3, it has been proposed by Cappellus to punc- t m1, yahvoh, which is clearly contrary analogy of m4 verbs. Gussetius suggested |, yehéveh, or MTN, yihveh, in the former eh he is supported by the authority of Fiirst; fereer and Corn. a Lapide read it MT, (+ but on all these suppositions we should iT for VT in the terminations of com- proper names. The suffrages of others are } and TTT or MTT, which Fiirst holds \the "levé gf Porphyry, or the ’Iaov of ts Alexandrinus. Caspari (Micha, p. 5, &.) in favor of the former on the ground that m only would give rise to the contraction } proper names, and opposes both Fiirst’s ation TTT) or TTT}, as well as that of I or mim, which would be contracted into : ‘Gesenius punctuates the word TTT, from or from MM, are derived the Sihroviated e, yah, used in poetry, and the form m7 = y. : mm (so sid becomes 5, which occurs vommencement of compound proper names JEHOVAH 1241 (Hitzig, Jesaja, p. 4). Delitzsch maintains that, whichever punctuation be adopted, the quiescent sheva under 7T is ungrammatical, and Chateph Pathach is the proper vowel. He therefore writes it TWAT, yahdvah, to which he says the ’Aid of Theodoret corresponds; the last vowel being Kametz instead of Segol, according to the analogy of proper names derived from TT’ yerbs (€. g- T1299, TTD, TD, and others). opinion the form f* is not an abbreviation, but a concentration of the Tetragrammaton (Con. liber den Psalter, Einl.). There remains to be noticed the suggestion of Gesenius that the form i1}s7, which he adopted, might be the Hiph. fut. of the substantive verb. Of the same opinion was Reuss. Others again would make it Piel, and read In his M1. Fiirst (Handw. s. vy.) mentions some other etymologies which affect the meaning rather than the punctuation of the name; such, for instance, as that it is derived from a root TTT, “to over- throw,” and signifies “the destroyer or storm- sender; or that it denotes “ the light or heaven,” from a root FTT=TTD%, “to be bright,’ or “the life-giver,”’ from the same root =1TW1, « to live.” or bales and accept the former, i. e. Yahdveh, as the more probable punctuation, continuing at the same time for the sake of convenience to adopt the form “ Jehovah ’’ in what follows, on account of its familiarity to English readers. If. ‘The next point for consideration is of vastly more importance: what is the meaning of Jehovah, and what does it express of the being and nature of God, more than or in distinction from the other names applied to the deity in the O. T.? That there was some distinction in these different appel- lations was early perceived, and various explanations were employed to account for it. Tertullian (adv. Hermog. ¢. 3) observed that God was not called Lord (xtpios) till after the Creation, and in conse- quence of it; while Augustine found in it an indi- cation of the absolute dependence of man upon God (de Gen. ad Lit. viii. 2). Chrysostom (Hom. xiv. im Gen.) considered the two names, Lord and God, as equivalent, and the alternate use of them arbi- trary. But all their arguments proceed upon the supposition that the kvpuos of the LX X. is the true rendering of the original, whereas it is merely the translation of ‘278, adéndi, whose points it bears. With regard to OTR, élohim, the other chief name by which the Deity is designated in the O. T., it has been held by many, and the opinion does not even now want supporters, that in the plural form of the word was shadowed forth the plurality of persons in the godhead, and the mystery of the Trinity was inferred therefrom. Such, according to Peter Lombard, was the true significance of Elohim. But Calvin, Mercer, Drusius, and Bel- larmine have given the weight of their authority against an explanation so fanciful and arbitrary. Among the Jewish writers of the Middle Ages the question much more nearly approached its solution. R. Jehuda Hallevi (12th cent.), the author of the 1242 JEHOVAH book Cozri, found in the usage of Elohim a protest against idolaters, who call each personified power TORS, él6ah, and all collectively Elohim. He in- terpreted it as the most general name of the Deity, distinguishing Him as manifested in the exhibition ot his power, without reference to his personality or moral qualities, or to any special relation which He bears to man. Jehovah, on the contrary, is the revealed and known God. While the meaning of the former could be evolved by reasoning, the true significance of the latter could only be apprehended “by that prophetic vision by which a man is, as it were, separated and withdrawn from his own kind, and approaches to the angelic, and another spirit enters into him.’ In like manner Maimonides (Mor. Neb. i. 61, Buxt.) sawin Jehovah the name which teaches of the substance of the Creator, and Abarbanel (quoted by Buxtorf, de Nom. Dei, § 39) distinguishes Jehovah, as denoting God according to what He is in himself, from Elohim which con- veys the idea of the impression made by his power. In the opinion of Astrue, a Belgian physician, with whom the documentary hypothesis originated, the alternate use of the two names was arbitrary, and determined by no essential difference. Hasse (/ni- deckungen) considered them as historical names, and Sack (de Usu Nom. Dei, ete.) regarded Elohim as a vague term denoting “a certain infinite, om- nipotent, incomprehensible existence, from which things finite and visible have derived their origin,” while to God, as revealing himself, the more definite title of Jehovah was applied. Ewald, in his tract on the composition of Genesis (written when he was nineteen), maintained that Elohim denoted the Deity in general, and is the common or lower name, while Jehovah was the national god of the Israelites. But in order to carry out his theory he was compelled in many places to alter the text, and was afterwards induced to modify his statements, which were opposed by Gramberg and Stihelin. Doubtless Elohim is used in many cases of the gods of the heathen, who included in the same title the God of the Hebrews, and denoted generally the Deity when spoken of as a supernatural being, and when no national feeling influenced the speaker. It was Elohim who, in the eyes of the heathen, delivered the Israelites from Egypt (1 Sam. iv. 8), and the Egyptian lad adjured David by Elohim, rather than by Jehovah, of whom he would have no knowledge (1 Sam. xxx. 15). So Ehud announces to the Moabitish king a message from Elohim (Judg. ili. 20); to the Syrians the Jehovah of the Hebrews was only their national God, one of the Elohim (1 K. xx. 23, 28), and in the mouth of a heathen the name Jehovah would convey no more intelligible meaning than this. It is to be observed also that when a Hebrew speaks with a heathen he uses the more general term Elohim. Joseph, in addressing Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 16), and David, in appealing to the king of Moab to protect his family (1 Sam. xxii. 3), designate the Deity by the less specific title; and on the other hand the same rule is generally followed when the heathen are the speakers, as in the case of Abimelech (Gen. xxi. 23), the Hittites (Gen. xxiii. 6), the Midianite (Judg. vii. 14), and Joseph in his assumed character as an Egyptian (Gen. xlii. 18). But, although this distinction between Elohim, as the general appella- tion of Deity, and Jehovah, the national God of the Israelities, contains some superficial truth, the real nature of their difference must be sought for JEHOVAH far deeper, and as a foundation for the arg which will be adduced recourse must again to etymology. 1V. With regard to the derivation of BM éléhim, the pl. of TNs, etymologists are | in their opinions ; some connecting it with ‘ and the unused root San, ail, “to be st =z , ality | | while others refer it to the Arabic xt oa --f5 be astonished,”’ and hence xJ F alaha, “tow adore,”’ Elohim thus denoting the Supreme who was worthy of all worship and adorati dread and awful One. But Fiirst, with’ greater probability, takes the noun in | the primitive from which is derived the j worship contained in the verb, and gives | true root TO — Lass, “to be strong.” Dj would prefer a root, ae = TON — as ad Psalm. illustr. p. 29). From whateve however, the word may be derived, most | opinion that the primary idea contained || that of strength, power; so that Elohim) proper appellation of the Deity, as manife) his creative and universally sustaining agen in the general divine guidance and governr the world. Hengstenberg, who adheres derivation above mentioned from the Araki and alaha, deduces from this etymology his) that Elohim indicates a lower, and Jet higher stage of the knowledge of God, | ground that “the feeling of fear is the lowesy can exist in reference to God, and merely in of this feeling is God marked by this desigii But the same inference might also be dr the supposition that the idea of simple yi strength is the most prominent in the wo it is more natural that the Divine Being slil conceived of as strong before He became th of fear and adoration. To this view Ges cedes, when he says that the notion of wor: and fearing is rather derived from the powe)f Deity which is expressed in his name. Tq tion now arises, What is the meaning to be ia to the plural form of the word? As bi! already mentioned, some have discovered jié the mystery of the Trinity, while others 1in that it points to polytheism. ‘The Rabbis ¢@ explain it as the plural of majesty; Rabbilet as signifying the lord of all powers. Abarb:l Kimchi consider it a title of honor, in ac with the Hebrew idiom, of which example xlii. 30. In Prov. ix. 1, the plural F chocméth, “ wisdoms,”’ is used for wisdom} abstract, as including: all the treasures .of IS and knowledge. Hence it is probable {it himself the fullness of all power, and unil perfect degree all that which the name /?! and all the attributes which the heathen alib the several divinities of their pantheon. gular TONS, éléah, with few exceptions ( 17; 2 Chr. xxxii. 15), occurs only in poe: — JEHOVAH » found, upon examination of the passages in Flohim occurs, that it is chiefly in places God is exhibited only in the plenitude of his , and where no especial reference is made to ity, personality, or holiness, or to his relation vel and the theocracy. (See Ps. xvi. 1, xix. 3.) Hengstenberg’s etymology of the word puted by Delitzsch (Symb. ad Pss. illustr. p. , who refers it, as has been mentioned above, yt indicating power or might, and sees in it yression not of what men think of God, but it He is in Himself, in so far as He has life otent in Himself, and according as He is the ting and end of all life. For the true ex- ion of the name he refers to the revelation mystery of the Trinity. But it is at least iely doubtful whether to the ancient Israelites ea of this nature was conveyed by Elohim; making use of the more advanced knowledge 1d by the New Testament, there is some » of discovering more meaning and a more significance than was ever intended to be sed. ‘But while Elohim exhibits God displayed in wer as the creator and governor of the phys- niverse, the name Jehovah designates his _as He stands in relation to man, as the only, ity, true, personal, holy Being, a spirit, and father of spirits’? (Num. xvi. 22; comp. 'y. 24), who revealed himself to his people, \ covenant with them, and became their law- md to whom all honor and worship are due. etymology above given be accepted, and the ve derived from the future tense of the sub- e verb, it would denote, in accordance with neral analogy of proper names of a similar “He that is,” “the Being,’ whose chief te is eternal existence. Jehovah is repre- as eternal (Gen. xxi. 33; comp. 1 Tim. vi. ‘changeable (Ex. iii. 14; Mal. iii. 6), the only (Josh. xxii. 22; Ps. 1. 1), creator and lord ‘things (Ex. xx. 11; comp. Num. xvi. 22 ‘xvii. 16; Is. xlii. 5). It is Jehovah who the covenant with his people (Gen. xv. 18; «x. 33, &.). In this connection Elohim occurs be (Ps. Ixxviii. 10), and even with the article, iim, which expresses more personality than ‘alone, is found but seldom (Judg. xx. 27; . ly. 4). ‘The Israelites were enjoined to ' the commandments of Jehovah (Lev. iv. 27, )> keep his law, and to worship Him alone. lthe phrase “to serve Jehovah” (Ex. x. 7, i is applied to denote true worship, whereas ‘tve ha-Elohim *’ is used but once in this ex. iii. 12), and Elohim occurs in the same (ion only when the worship of idols is spoken jit. iv. 28; Judg. iii. 6). As Jehovah, the (1e God, is the only object of true worship, 1 belong the sabbaths and festivals, and all imances connected with the religious services I Israelites (Ex. x. 9, xii. 11; Lev. xxiii. 2). | the altars on which offerings are made to ,& God; the priests and ministers are his - ti, 11, xiv. 3), and so exclusively that a ‘ Hohim is always associated with idolatrous - To Jehovah alone are offerings made i. 8), and if Elohim is ever used in this 1on, it is always qualified by pronominal » or some word in construction with it, so as Nate the true God; in all other cases it refers 0. (Ex. xxii. 20, xxxiv. 15). It follows nat- I, tat the Temple and Tabernacle are Jehovah's, JEHOVAH 1943 and if they are attributed to Elohim, the latter is in some manner restricted as before. ‘he prophets are the prophets of Jehovah, and their announces ments proceed from him, seldom from Elohim. The Israelites are the people of Jehovah (Ex. xxxvi. 20), the congregation of Jehovah (Num. xvi. 3), as the Moabites are the people of Chemosh (Jer. xlviii. 46). Their king is the anointed of Jehovah; their wars are the wars of Jehovah (Ex. xiv. 25; 1 Sam. xviii. 17); their enemies are the enemies of Jehovah (2 Sam. xii. 14); it is the hand of Jehovah that delivers them up to their foes (Judg. vi. 1, xiii. 1, &c.), and he it is who raises up for them deliverers and judges, and on whom they call in times of peril (Judg. ii. 18, iii. 9, 15; Josh. xxiv. 7; 1 Sam. xvii. 37). In fine, Jehovah is the theocratic king of his people (Judg. viii. 23), by him their kings reign and achieve success against the national enemies (1 Sam. xi. 13, xiv. 23). Their heroes are inspired by his Spirit (Judg. iii. 10, vi. 34), and their hand steeled against their foes (2 Sam. vii. 23); the watchword of Gideon was “ The Sword of Jehovah, and of Gideon! ’’ 4 (Judg. vii. 20). The day on which God executes judgment on the wicked is the day of Jehovah (Is. ii. 12, xxxiv. 8; comp. Rev. xvi. 14). As the Israelites were in a remarkable manner distin- guished as the people of Jehovah, who became their lawgiver and supreme ruler, it is not strange that He should be put in strong contrast with Chemosh (Judg. xi. 24), Ashtaroth (Judg. x. 6), and the Baalim (Judg. iii. 7), the national deities of the surrounding nations, and thus be preéminently dis- tinguished as the tutelary deity of the Hebrews in one aspect of his character. Such and no more was He to the heathen (1 K. xx. 23); but all this and much more to the Israelites, to whom Jehovah was a distinct personal subsistence, — the living God, who reveals himself to man by word and deed, helps, guides, saves, and delivers, and is to the Old what Christ is to the New Testament. Jehovah was no abstract name, but thoroughly practical, and stood in intimate connection with the religious life of the people. While Elohim represents God only in his most outward relation to man, and dis- tinguishes him as recognized in his omnipotence, Jehovah describes him according to his innermost being. In Jehovah the moral attributes are pre- sented as constituting the essence of his nature, whereas in Elohim there is no reference to person- ality or moral character. The relation of Elohim to Jehovah has been variously explained. The for- mer, in Hengstenberg’s opinion, indicates a lower, and the latter a higher, stage of consciousness of God; Elohim becoming Jehovah by an historical process, and to show how he became so being the main object of the sacred history. Kurtz considers the two names as related to each other as power and evolution; Elohim the God of the beginning, Jehovah of the development; Elohim the creator, Jehovah the mediator: Elohim is God of the be- ginning and end, the creator and the judge; Jeho- vah the God of the middle, of the development which lies between the beginning and end (Die Einheit der Gen.). That Jehovah is identical with Elohim, and not a separate being, is indicated by the joint use of the names Jehovah-Elohim. VI. The antiquity of the name Jehovah among a * “For Jehovah and for Gideon ” is the strict translation. The A. V interpolates * the sword of.” H. 1244 JEHOVAH the Hebrews has formed the subject of much dis- cussion. That it was not known before the age of Moses has been inferred from Ex. vi. 8; while Von Bohlen assigns to it a much more recent date, and contends that we have “no conclusive proof of the worship of Jehovah anterior to the ancient hymns of David” (Jnt. to Gen. i. 150, Eng. tr.). But, on the other hand, we should be inclined to infer from the etymology of the word that it orig- inated in an age long prior to that of Moses, in whose time the root my = my was already antiquated. From the Aramaic form in which it appears (comp. Chald. ‘TT, Syr. JOST), Jahn refers to the earliest times of Abraham for its date, and to Mesopotamia or Ur of the Chaldees for its birthplace. Its usage in Genesis cannot be ex- plained, as Le Clerc suggests, by supposing it to be employed by anticipation, for it is introduced where the persons to whom the history relates are speak- ing, and not only where the narrator adopts terms familiar to himself; and the same difficulty remains whatever hypothesis be assumed with regard to the original documents which formed the basis of the history. At the same time it is distinctly stated in Ex. vi. 3, that to the patriarchs God was not known by the name Jehovah. If, therefore, this passage has reference to the first revelation of Jeho- vah simply as a name and ‘title of God, there is clearly a discrepancy which requires to be explained. In renewing his promise of deliverance from Egypt, ‘God spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am Jehovah; and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by (the name of) God Al- mighty (Zl Shaddai, YW On), but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.’ It follows then that, if the reference were merely to the name as a name, the passage in question would prove equally that before this time Elohim was unknown as an appellation of the Deity, and God would ap- pear uniformly as El Shaddai in the patriarchal history. But although it was held by Theodoret ( Quest. xv. in Ex.) and many of the Fathers, who have been followed by a long list of moderns, that the name was first made known by God to Moses, and then introduced by him among the Israelites, the contrary was maintained by Cajetan, Lyranus, Calvin, Rosenmiiller, Hengstenberg, and others, who deny that the passage in Ex. vi. alludes to the introduction of the name. Calvin saw at once that the knowledge there spoken of could not refer to the syllables and letters, but to the recognition of God’s glory and majesty. It was not the name, but the true depth of its significance which was unknown to and uncomprehended by the patriarchs. They had known God as the omnipotent, 7 Shad- dai (Gen. xvii. 1, xxviii. 3), the ruler of the phys- ical universe, and of man as one of his creatures; as a God eternal, immutable, and true to his prom- ises he was yet to be revealed. In the character expressed by the name Jehovah he had not hitherto been fully known; his true attributes had not been recognized (comp. Jarchi on Ex. vi. 3) in his work- ing and acts for Israel. Aben Ezra explained the occurrence of the name in Genesis as simply indi- eating the knowledge of it as a proper name, not as a qualificative expressing the attributes and qual- ities of God. Referring to other passages in which the phrase “the name of God” occurs, it is clear shat something more is intended by it than a mere appellation, and that the proclamation of the name of God is a revelation of his moral attribute of his true character as Jehovah (Ex. xxx} xxxiv. 6, 7) the God of the covenant. Main (Mor. Neb. i. 64, ed. Buxtorf ) explains the, of God as signifying his essence and his trut, Olshausen (on Matt. xviii. 20) interprets «n (dvoua) as denoting “ personality and eg being, and that not as it is incomprehensi| unknown, but in its manifestation.” The\ of a thing represents the thing itself, so fa can be expressed in words. That Jehovah y) a new name Hayernick concludes from Ex. | where “ the name of God Jehovah is evident! supposed as already in use, and is only exp, interpreted, and applied. . . . It is cote is new name that is introduced; on the contra): TTS WS TTS (I am that I fe unintelligible, if the’ name itself were not 1 posed as already known. The old name of | uity, whose precious significance had been 1; ten and neglected by the children of Israe as it were rises again to life, and is again b home to the consciousness of the people” (,) to the Pent. p. 61). The same passage supp argument to prove that by “‘ name” we are} understand merely letters and syllables, for Ji) appears at first in another form, ehyeh mn The correct collective view of Ex. vi. 3, Hert berg conceives to be the following — Pe that Being, who in one aspect was Jehoyah, : other had always been Elohim. The grear now drew nigh in which Jehovah Elohim vl changed into Jehovah. In prospect of thisy God solemnly announced himself as Jehoval Great stress has been laid, by those while the antiquity of the name Jehovah, upon tf that proper names compounded with it oce!| seldom before the age of Samuel and Dayid.| undoubtedly true that, after the revival of titi faith among the Israelites, proper names _ pounded did become more frequent, but if it! shown that prior to the time of Moses ars! names existed, it will be sufficient to prove t))| name Jehovah was not entirely unknown. those which have been quoted for this me Jochebed the mother of Moses, and daugl Levi, and Moriah, the mountain on which Alii was commanded to offer up Isaac. Agaii ! former it is urged that Moses might have ei her name to Jochebed after the name Jehov' } been communicated by God; but this is vi 1 probable, as he was at this time eighty ye! ° and his mother in all probability dead. |t only be admitted as a genuine instance of #al compounded with Jehovah, it takes us at oni? into the patriarchal age, and proves that ¥¢ which was employed in forming the propel of Jacob’s grand-daughter could not haye b¢ " known to that patriarch himself. The name: (TPT) is of more importance, for in one’ in which it occurs it is accompanied by ie mology intended to indicate what was then a stood by it (2 Chr. iii. 1). Hengstenberg ™ it as a compound of FTN VD, the Hophia so that, according to this etymology, it wov nify “shown by Jehovah.” Gesenius, adopts meaning of FTN7 in Gen. xxii. 8, renders — JEHOVAH Jehovah.” but suggests at the same time | e considers a more probable derivation, ac- -to which Jehovah does not form a part of pound word. But there is reason to believe rious allusions in Gen. xxii. that the former rarded as the true etymology. ing thus considered the origin, significance, tiquity of the name Jehovah, the reader will ition to judge how much of truth there he assertion of Schwind (quoted by Reinke, iii. 135, n. 10) that the terms Elohim, Jcho- ohim, and then Jehovah alone applied to iow “to the philosophic inquirer the progress human mind from a plurality of gods to a r god, and from this to a single Almighty : and ruler of the world.”’ principal authorities which have been made in this article are Hengstenberg, On the icity of the Pentateuch, i. 213-307, Eng. Reinke, Phil. histor. Abhandlung tiber den ramen Jehova, Beitrdge, vol. iii.; Tholuck, schte Schriften, th. i. 377-405; Kurtz, Die 4 der Genesis xliii.-liii.; Keil, Ueber die wamen im Pentateuche, in Rudelbach and ke’s Zeitschrift ; Ewald, Die Composition mesis; Gesenius, Thesaurus ; Bunsen, Bibel- ‘and Reland, Decas exercitationum philo- um de vera pronuntiatione nominis Jehova, , those already quoted. W.A. W. regard to the use of Te finite in the O. T., lly in the Pentateuch and the Psalms, con- .asa mark of antiquity and authorship, the is referred to the articles on those books. ticle by Dr. Tholuck (see above) first pub- in his Litterarischer Anzeiger (1832, May, s translated by Dr. Robinson in the Bibl. Re- y, iv. 89-108. It examines “the hypoth- the Egyptian and Indian origin of the name ‘h,” and shows that it has no proper founda- It is held that “the true derivation of the ‘is that which the earliest Hebrew records i, namely, from the verb 71) *.”” Prof. E. tine discusses the significancy of the name in ne periodical (iii. 730-744), under the head sterpretation of Ex. vi. 2, 3.’ Of the eleven fit explanations which he reviews, he adopts = which supposes Jehovah “to imply simply (vistence, that which is, as distinguished from nich is not.”” Hence, when it is said that God 2d to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as 1 Shad- ie Almighty), but was not known to them as (h, it is “a formal declaration by God him- the commencement of a new dispensation of {1 and providence, the grand design of which }; make known God as Jehovah, the only id living God,” in opposition to idols and all ‘alse gods. It is not meant that the name If Jehovah was unknown to the patriarchs; ‘at the object of God’s dealing with them was tnt from that of the Mosaic dispensation, i’, to vindicate the truth concerning Him [ised by mim), that He alone is the living ‘Dr. Wordsworth’s view of the introduction ) 7 4 (t is justly urged that a more exact translation ‘Hebrew (Ex. vi. 3) guides us more directly to S)\se than does that of the A. V.: “I appeared to m, to Isaac, and to Jacob in El-Shaddai ” (7. e. ‘character as God Almighty); ‘and my name JEHOVAH-JIREH 1245 of the name is very similar to this. There is not a contrast in the passage (Ex. vi. 2, 3) betwee the two names (Shaddai and Jehovah); but a com- parison of attributes, and of the degrees of clearness with which they were revealed. Hence the asser tion is not that ‘the name Jehovah was not known before, but that its full meaning had not be u made known’ (Holy Bible, with Notes, ii. 216).¢ The more common view (stated in the preceding article), restricts the idea of this fuller revelation to God’s immutability as the one ever faithful to his promises. This explanation is preferred by Rev. J. Quarry, in his able work on Genesis and its Authorship (Lond., 1866). ‘The Vatriarchs had only the promises unfulfilled; in respect to the fulfillment of them they received not the prom- ises.’” God is now about to fulfill the great promise to give the land of Canaan to their seed, and so He announces himself to Moses in the words, ‘I am Jehovah,’ and tells him that while the Patriarchs had manifestations of God in his character as El-Shad- dai, they had no experience of him as regards this name, which implied the continuousness and un- changeableness of his gracious purpose toward them (p. 296). Ebrard (Historische Theol. Zeitschrift, 1849, iv.) agrees with those who infer the later ori- gin of the name from Ex. vi. 2, 3. He maintains that “Jehovah”? occurs in Genesis only as prolep- tic, and on that ground denies that its use there affords any argument against the unity of the au- thorship of that book. Recent discussions have rendered this latter branch of the subject specially important. (For the fuller literature which belongs here, see under PENTATEUCH, Amer. ed.) In regard to the representation of mi by kvpios in the Septuagint, we refer the reader to Prof. Stuart’s article on Képuos in the Bibl. Repository, i. 736. ff. It is shown that this Greek title is employed in the great majority of instances to designate that most sacred of all the Divine appellations. H. JEHO’VAH-JVREH (TAS mT : Kupios eldev: Dominus videt), i. e. Jehovah wilt see, or provide, the name given by Abraham to the place on which he had been commanded to offer Isaac, to commemorate the interposition of the angel of Jehovah, who appeared to prevent the sacrifice (Gen. xxii. 14) and provided another victim. The immediate allusion is to the expression in the 8th verse, * God will look out for Himself a lamb for a burnt offering,” but it is not unlikely that there is at the same time a covert reference to Moriah, the scene of the whole occurrence The play upon words is followed up in the latter clause of ver. 14, which appears in the form of a popular proverb: “as it is said this day, In the mountain of Jehovah, He will be seen,” or ‘provision shall be made.”? Such must be the rendering if the received punctuation be accepted, but on this point there is a division of opinion. The text from which the LXX. made their translation must have been m7) mm WIA, ev 7G per Kipios &pOn, “on the mountain Jehovah appeared,” and the same, with the exception of FIN) for the last Jehovah” (i. ¢. as regards my name Jehovah) “ was I not known to them.” The A. V. interpolates ‘ the name of” in the first part of the verse, and then, a4 it for the sake of correspondence, says, ‘ by my name” in the second part. : H. 1246 JEHOVAH-NISST JEHU word, must have been the reading of the Vulgate | 6 and xxxiii. 10, where the text has « The Lo and Syriac. The Targum of Onkelos is obscure. W. A. W. JEHO'VAH-NISSI (DI TT: Képios KaTtapuyh jou: Dominus cxaltatio mea), i.e. Je- hovah my banner, the name given by Moses to the altar which he built in commemoration of the dis- comfiture of the Amalekites by Joshua and his chosen warriors-at Rephidim (Ex. xvii. 15). It was erected either upon the hill overlooking the battle-field, upon which Moses sat with the staff of God in his hand, or upon the battle-field itself. According to Aben Ezra it was on the Horeb. The Targum of Onkelos paraphrases the verse thus: “Moses built an altar and worshipped upon it before Jehovah, who had wrought for him miracles (}°D%3, nisin)” Such too is Jarchi’s explanation of the name, referring to the miraculous interposi tion of God in the defeat of the Amalekites. The LXX. in their translation, “ the Lord my refuge,’ evidently supposed néssi to be derived from the Toot DAI, niis, “to flee,” and the Vulgate traced it to NW), “to lift up.” The significance of the name is probably contained in the allusion to the staff which Moses held in his hand as a banner during the engagement, and the raising or lowering of which turned the fortune of battle in favor of the Israelites or their enemies. God is thus recognized in the memorial altar as the deliverer of his people, who leads them to victory, and is their rallying point in time of peril. On the figurative use of ‘‘ banner,”’ see Ps. Ix. 4; Is. xi. 10. WB We JEHO’VAH-SHA’LOM (D990) mm: eiphyn Kuplov: Domini pax), i. e. Jehovah (is) peace, or, with the ellipsis of 77 ON, Jehovah, the God of peace.’’ The altar erected by Gideon in Ophrah was so called in memory of the salutation addressed to him by the angel of Jehovah, “ Peace be unto thee’’ (Judg. vi. 24), Piscator, however, following the Hebrew accentuation, which he says requires. a different translation, renders the whole passage, without introducing the proper name, ‘‘when Jehovah had proclaimed peace to him;” but his alteration is harsh and unnecessary. ‘The LXX. and Vulg. appear to have inserted the words as they stand in the present Hebrew text, and to have read m7 oir’, but they are supported by no MS. authority. W. A.W. * JEHO'VAH-SHAMMAH = (75775 TDW : Kupios éxet: Dominus ibidem), i. e. Je- hovah there, or lit. thither, is the marginal reading (A. V.) of Ezek. xlviii. 35. In the text the trans- lators have put “The Lord is there.’’ In both respects the A. V. has followed the Bishops’ Bible. It is the name that was to be given to the new city which Ezekiel saw in his Vision, and has so gorgeously described (chap. xl.-xlviii.). Compare Rey. xxii. 3, 4. Hi * JEHOVAH -TSIDKENU (737 WITS, Jehovah our righteousness: in Jer. xxii. 6, kdpios "Iwoedéx, FA. k. Iwoestenu; in Xxxlii. 16, Rom. Vat. Alex. FA. Ald. omit, Comp. KUpLOS biddroopyh nuav: Dominus Justus noster') 8 the marginal reading of the A. V. in Jer. xxiii. Righteousness.’ It will be seen that the makes a proper name of V2)T3 (our rig ness) in the first of the above passages, hesitation of our translators whether they | render or transfer the expression may have be greater from their supposing it to be one Messianic titles. The long exegetical note margin of the Bishops’ Bible (Jer. xxxiii. curious and deserves to be read. JEHOZ/ABAD (Tam [whom Ji gave]: "Iw(aBa6; [Alex. IwCuBas: ] Jozaba A Korachite Levite, second son of Obed-edor one of the porters of the south gate of the t and of the storehouse there (OYEDN M23) time of David (1 Chr. xxvi. 4, 15, compare: Neh. xii. 25). 2.0 Iw(aBdd;] Joseph. ’OxéBaros.) | jamite, captain of 180,000 armed men, in th of king Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xvii. 18). 3. {In 2 K., "Iw(aB¢éd; in 2 Chr., "Ly Vat. Zw(aBed; ‘Adext ZaBed.| Son of Sho; Shimrith, a Moabitish woman, and _ possibly scendant of the preceding, who with — spired against king Joash and slew him in ]) (2 K. xii. 21; 2 Chr. xxiv. 26). [Joasu.]! similarity in the names of both conspirato their parents is worth notice. This name is commonly abbreviated i in t) brew to JOZABAD. ACE JEHOZADAK (Pp TET [whom J makes just]: "lwoaddn3 Alex. lwoedex: Jo I son of the high-priest SERAIAH (1 Chr. vi. in the reign of Zedekiah. When his fath slain at Riblah by order of Nebuchadnezzar, | 11th of Zedekiah (2 K. xxv. 18, 21), Jehozad) led away captive to Babylon al Chr. vi. 15), i | ° he doubtless spent the remainder of his days himself never attained the high-priesthoo Temple being burnt to the ground, and s tinuing, and he himself being a captive all I'l But he was the father of JESHUA the high-pit who with Zerubbabel headed the Return fror' tivity — and of all his successors till the pon of Alcimus (Izr. iii, 2; Neh. xii. 26, &e.). [/¢ PRIEST.] Nothing more is known about hi is perhaps worth remarking that his name 1 pounded of the same elements, and has exac’t same meaning, as that of the contemporaril Zedekiah — ‘God is righteous;’’ and th'' righteousness of God was signally displayed |t simultaneous suspension of the throne of Daya the priesthood of Aaron, on account of a Judah. This remark perhaps acquires weig the fact of his successor Jeshua, who resto! ! priesthood and rebuilt the Temple, having a name as Joshua, who brought the nation i t land of promise, and JESUS, a name signi of salvation. In Haggai and Zechariah, though the : the original is exactly as above, yet our trarit have chosen to follow the Greek form, and js it as JOSEDECH. In Ezra and Nehemiah it is abbreviatebo in Hebrew and A. V., to JozADAK. CAG JEHU. 1. (ST =Jenovan ts A | 1 K., 2 K.,] ee [Vat. Erov; in 2 Chr.,n0 ate Iov; in Hos., "Iov5d;] Alex. [comm ! 7 JEHU Joseph. "Inots.) The founder of the fifth ty of the kingdom of Israel. His history was : the lost “ Chronicles of the Kings of Israel ”’ x. 34). His father’s name was Jehoshaphat ix. 2); his grandfather's (which, as being known, was sometimes affixed to his own — ix.) Was Nimshi. In his youth he had been f the guards of Ahab. His first appearance tory is when, with a comrade in arms, Bidkar, Dakar (Ephrem. Syr. Opp. iv. 540), he rode ¢ j Ahab on the fatal journey from Samaria to J, and heard, and laid up in his heart, the ug of Elijah against the murderer of Naboth ix. 25). But he had already, as it would been known to Elijah as a youth of promise, cordingly, in the vision at Horeb he is men- ‘as the future king of Israel, whom Elijah is jint as the minister of vengeance on Israel xix. 16, 17). This injunction, for reasons wn to us, Elijah never fulfilled. It was re- long afterwards for his successor Elisha. u meantime, in the reigns of Ahaziah and am, had risen to importance. ‘The same ac- ‘and vehemence which had fitted him for his » distinctions still continued, and he was , far and wide as a charioteer whose rapid ig, as if of a madman? (2 K. ix. 20), could stinguished even from a distance. He was, ' the last-named king, captain of the host in »ge of Ramoth-Gilead. According to Ephraim “(who omits the words “saith the Lord” in ix. 26, and makes “I”? refer to Jehu) he had, dream the night before, seen the blood of hand his sons (Ephrem. Syr. Opp. iv. 540). tin the midst of the officers of the besieging a youth suddenly entered, of wild appearance ix. 11), and insisted on a private interview Jehu. They retired into a secret chamber. outh uncovered a vial of the sacred oil (Jos. ix. 6, 1) which he had brought with him, J it over Jehu’s head, and after announcing athe message from Elisha, that he was ap- \.d to be king of Israel and destroyer of the of Ahab, rushed out of the house and disap- i ; ws countenance, as he reéntered the assembly ‘cers, showed that some strange tidings had ‘d him. He tried at first to evade their ques- i but then revealed the situation in which he himself placed by the prophetic call. Ina nt the enthusiasm of the army took fire. ‘threw their garments — the large square , similar to a wrapper or plaid — under his 40 as to forma rough carpet of state, placed nthe top of the stairs,“ as on an extempore 2, blew the royal salute on their trumpets, aus ordained him king. He then cut off all I unication between Ramoth-Gilead and Jez- ‘he Hebrew word is DTS ; usually employed r}e coupling together of oxen. This the LXX. stand as though the two soldiers rode in sep- chariots — ériBeBykdtes em gevyn (20K ix. 25) ; us (Ant. ix. 6, § 3) as though they sat in the shariot with the king (xae¢ouévous Omiabev Tov Os ToD ’AxdBov). his is the force of the Hebrew word, which, as ‘K. ix. 11, the LXX. translate éy mapaddayy. * ius (Ant. ix. 6, § 8) says cxoAatrepov Te Kai wer’ as wdever, ‘he expression translated “on the top of the ” is one the clew to which is lost. The word is JEHU 1247 reel, and set off, full speed, with his ancient comrade Bidkar, whom he had made captain of the host in his place, and a band of horsemen. From the tower of Jezreel a watchman saw the cloud of dust (AYSw, kovloproy ; A ae Vie aks company ’’) and announced his coming (2 K. ix. 17). The mes- sengers that were sent out to him he detained, on the same principle of secrecy which had guided all his movements. It was not till he had almost reached the city, and was identified by the watch- man, that alarm was taken. But even then it seems as if the two kings in Jezreel anticipated news from the Syrian war rather than a revolution at home. It was not till, in answer to Jehoram’s question, “Is it peace, Jehu?” that Jehu’s fierce denunciation of Jezebel at once revealed the danger. Jehu seized his opportunity, and taking full aim at Jehoram, with the bow which, as captain of the host, was always with him, shot him through the heart (ix. 24). The body was thrown out on the fatal field, and whilst his soldiers pursued and killed the king of Judah at Beth-gan (A. V. “the garden-house’’), probably Engannim, Jehu himself advanced to the gates of Jezreel and fulfilled the divine warning on Jezebel as already on Jehoram. [JEZEBEL.| He then entered on a work of exter- mination hitherto unparalleled in the history of the Jewish monarchy. All the descendants of Ahab that remained in Jezreel, together with the officers of the court, and hierarchy of Astarte, were swept away. His next step was to secure Samaria. [very stage of his progress was marked with blood. At the gates of Jezreel he found the heads of seventy princes of the house of Ahab, ranged in two heaps, sent to him as a propitiation by their guardians in Samaria, whom he had defied to withstand him, and on whom he thus threw the responsibility of destroying their own royal charge. Next, at “the shearing-house ”’ (or Beth-eked) between Jezreel and Samaria he encountered forty-two sons or nephews (2 Chr. xxii. 8) of the late king of Judah, and therefore connected by marriage with Ahab, on a visit of compliment to their relatives, of whose fall, seemingly, they had not heard. ‘These also were put to the sword at the fatal well, as, in the later history, of Mizpah, and, in our own days, of Cawn- pore (2 K. x. 14). [IsuMmaAr., 6.] As he drove on he encountered a strange figure, such as might have reminded him of the great Elijah. It was Jehonadab, the austere Arabian sectary, the son of Rechab. In him his keen eye discovered a ready ally. He took him into his chariot, and they con- cocted their schemes as they entered Samaria (x. 15,16). [JEHONADAB. | Some stragglers of the house of Ahab in that city still remained to be destroyed. But the great stroke was yet to come; and it was conceived and gerem, (A i.e. a bone, and the meaning appears to be that they placed Jehu on the very stairs them selves — if midoyrn be stairs — without any seat or chair below him. “The stairs doubtless ran round the inside of the quadrangle of the house, as they do still, for instance, in the ruin called the house of Zacchzeus at Jericho, and Jehu sat where they joined the flat platform which formed the top or roof of the house. Thus he was conspicuous against the sky, while the captains were below him in the open quadrangle. The old Versions throw little or no light on the passage : the LXX. simply repeat the Hebrew word, émt ré yapéu Tav davaBadpov. By Josephus it is avoided 1248 JEHU executed with that union of intrepid daring and! profound secrecy which marks the whole career of Jehu. Up to this moment there was nothing which showed anything beyond a determination to exter- minate in all its branches the personal adherents of Ahab. He might still have been at heart, as he seems up to this time to have been in name, dis- posed to tolerate, if not to join in, the Pheenician worship. ‘Ahab served Baal a little, but Jehu shall serve him much.’? There was to be a new inauguration of the worship of Baal. A solemn assembly, sacred vestments, innumerable victims, were ready. The vast temple at Samaria raised by Ahab (1 K. xvi. 32; Jos. Ant. x. 7, § 6) was crowded from end to end. - The chief sacrifice was offered, as if in the excess of his zeal, by Jehu him- self. Jehonadab joined in the deception. There was some apprehension lest worshippers of Jehovah might be found in the temple; such, it seems, had been the intermixture of the two religions. As soon, however, as it was ascertained that all, and none but, the idolaters were there, the signal was given to eighty trusted guards, and a sweeping massacre removed at one blow the whole heathen population of the kingdom of Israel. The inner- most sanctuary of the temple (translated in the A. V. “the city of the house of Baal’’) was stormed, the great stone statue of Baal was de- molished, the wooden figures of the inferior divin- ities sitting round him were torn from their places and burnt (Ewald, Gesch. iii. 526), and the site of the sanctuary itself became the public resort of the inhabitants of the city for the basest uses. This is the last public act recorded of Jehu. The re- maining twenty-seven years of his long reign are passed over in a few words, in which two points only are material: He did not destroy the calf- worship of Jeroboam: The trans-Jordanic tribes suffered much from the ravages of Hazael (2 K. x. 29-33). He was buried in state in Samaria, and was succeeded by his son JEHOAHAZ (2 K. x. 385). His name is the first of the Israelite kings which appears in the Assyrian monuments.2 It is found on the black obelisk discovered at Nimroud (Layard, Nineveh, i. 396), and now in the British Museum, amongst the names of kings who are bringing tribute (in this case gold and silver, and articles manufactured in gold) to Shalmaneser I.; His name is given as “Jehu’’ (or ‘“Yahua’’) “‘the son of Khumri’’ (Omri). This substitution of the name of Omri for that of his own father may be accounted for, either by the importance which Omri had assumed as the second founder of the northern kingdom, or by the name of “ Beth- Khumri,” only given to Samaria in these monu- ments as ‘the House or Capital of Omri’? (Lay- ard, Nin. and Bab., 643; Rawlinson’s Herod. i. 465), [and Ancient Monarchies, ii. 365.] The character of Jehu is not difficult to under- stand, if we take it as a whole, and judge it from a general point of view. a * This statement respecting Jehu is to be canceled as incorrect. It is founded on an error of Prof. Raw- linson in deciphering an Assyrian inscription (Ancient Monarchies, ii. 865, note 8) which he corrects, vol. iv. p- 576. The true reading “ gives the interesting infor- mation that among Benhadad’s allies, when he was attacked by the Assyrians in B. c. 858, was ‘Ahab of Jezreel.’ It appears that the common danger of sub- jection by the Assyrian arms, united in one, not only the Hittites, Hamathites, Syrians of Damascus, Phoe- nicians, and Egyptians, but the people of Israel also. JEHU He must be regarded, like many others j tory, as an instrument for accomplishing purposes rather than as great or good in hi In the long period during which his ¢& though known to others and perhaps to hi lay dormant; in the suddenness of hig r power; in the ruthlessness with which he ¢ out his purposes; in the union of profound s and dissimulation with a stern, fanatie, wa’ zeal, —he has not been without his likenes modern times. The Scripture narrative, alt] it fixes our attention on the services which h dered to the cause of religion by the extermi: of a worthless dynasty and a degrading wo yet on the whole leaves the sense that it | reign barren in great results. His dynasty, ir was firmly seated on the throne longer tha other royal house of Israel (2 K. x.), and ea boam If. it acquired a high name among; oriental nations. But Elisha, who had raise to power, as far as we know, never saw him other respects it was a failure; the original ; Jeroboam’s worship continued; and in the P) Hosea there seems to be a retribution exact the bloodshed by which he had mounted the tl “ J will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the of Jehu” (Hos. i. 4), as in the similar cond: tion of Baasha (1 K. xvi. 2). Seea He 4 to this effect on the character of Jehu in the Apostolica. 2. [In 1 K., "lot, Vat. siov, Alex. 31; Chr., "Inod, Vat. Tov, Inoov. | Jehu, son a nani: a prophet of Judah, but whose ministr were chiefly directed to Israel. His fathe probably the seer who attacked Asa (2 Chil 7). He must have begun his career as a pil when very young. He first denounced Bj both for his imitation of the dynasty of Jer and also (as it would seem) for his cruelty | stroying it (1 K. xvi. 1, 7), and then, afi) interval of thirty years, reappears to der! Jehoshaphat for his alliance with Ahab (9) xix. 2, 3). He survived Jehoshaphat and} his life (xx. 34). From an obscurity in tht of 1 K. xvi. 7 the Vulgate has represented } killed by Baasha. But this is not required |t words, and (except on the improbable hype of two Jehus, both sons of Hanani) is contrat by the later appearance of this prophet. 3. (Inov; | Vat. Inoovs:] Jehu.) A m) Judah of the house of Hezron (1 Chr. iis! He was the son of a certain Obed, descendec the union of an Egyptian, JARHA, with the cg ter of Sheshan, whose slave Jarha was (com]> 4. (Inov; [ Vat. ovTos. |) A Simeonite, i i Josibiah (1 Chr. iv. 35). He was one of thew! men of the tribe, apparently in the reign of: kiah (comp. 41). | 5. (InotaA.) Jehu the Antothite, 2 e w of Anathoth, was one of the chief of the of Benjamin, who forsook the cause of Sa! Ahab, king of Samaria, seeing the importance tl crisis, sent a contingent of 10,000 men, andj? chariots to the confederate force ; a yao took part in the first great battle between the of Syria and Assyria. Thus the first known (@ between the Assyrians and the Israelites is al from the accession of Jehu (ab. B. c. 841) to tila year, or last year but one, of Ahab (B. ¢. a Ahab — not Jehu — is the first Israelite aa whom we have mention in the Assyrian records) JEHUBBAH ’ David when the latter was at Ziklag (1 Chr. He does not reappear in any of the later ASP: 8: HUB/BAH (TAM? [he will be hidden]: [Vat. corrupt ;] Alex. O8a: Haba), a man er; son of Shamer or Shomer, of the house iah (1 Chr. vii. 34). HU’CAL (O29 [ potent, Ges.]: 6 "Iwd- Alex. Iwaxa; [FPA Iwayay:] Juchl), son lemiah; one of two persons sent by king ah to Jeremiah, to entreat his prayers and (Jer. xxxvii. 3). His name is also given as , and he appears to have been one of the es of the king ’’ (comp. xxxviii. 1, 4). HUD (7) [praise]: ’A¢ép; Alex. Iové: me of the towns of the tribe of Dan (Josh. ), named between Baalath and Bene-berak. tr of these two places, however, has been ed. By Eusebius and Jerome Jehud is not _ Dr. Robinson (ii. 242) mentions that a ulled el-Yehddiyeh exists in the neighbor- Lydd, but he did not visit it. It is, how- iserted on Van de Velde’s map at 7 miles Jaffa and 5 north of Lydd. This agrees e statement of Schwarz (141) that “ Jehud illage Jehudie, 74 miles S. E. of Jaffa,” ex- to the direction, which is nearer E. than i G. UDI (STATS = Jew: 6 ‘Iovdiv; Alex. _ Judi), son of Nethaniah, a man employed orinces of Jehoiakim’s court to fetch Baruch ' Jeremiah’s denunciation (Jer. xxxvi. 14), n by the king to fetch the volume itself and to him (21, 23). ([UDVJAH (AST [the Jewess] : ‘[Vat. Adeia;] Alex. Idia: Judaia). There no such name in the Heb. Bible as that sur A. V. exhibits at 1 Chr. iv. 18. If it Sper name at all it is Ha-jehudijah, like alech, Hak-koz, etc.; and it seems to be /M appellative,.‘ the Jewess.”” As far ag an can be formed of so obscure and apparently 4 passage, Mered, a descendant of Caleb of Jephunneh, and whose towns, Gedor, nd Eshtemoa, lay in the south of Judah, | two wives —one a Jewess, the other an |1, @ daughter of Pharaoh. The Jewess er of Naham, the father of the cities of jnd Eshtemoa. The descendants of Mered (WO Wives are given in wv. 18, 19, and per- Jhe latter part of ver. 17. Hodijah in ver. tbtless a corruption of Ha-jehudijah, “ the é the letters ‘771 having fallen out from 1 of SWS and the beginning of the fol- ford; and the full stop at the end of ver. (1 be removed, so as to read as a recapitu- _what precedes: “ These are the sons of ; the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered } his wife), and the sons of his wife, the ‘he sister of Naham (which Naham was) ? of Keilah, whose inhabitants are Gar- sid of Eshtemoa, whose inhabitants are utes;” the last being named _ possibly tachah, Caleb’s concubine, as the Ephra- ‘ire from Ephrata. Bertheau ( Chronik) , the Same general result, by proposing to closing words of ver. 18 before the words 79 about contemporary with king Ahaz. JEKAMIAH 1249 “And she bare Miriam,” etc., in ver. 17. See also Vatablus. A.' GH. JEHUSH (WAY? [collecting, bringing to- gether, Fiirst, Dietr.]:° Ids; [Vat. Tay;] Alex. Iaias: Us), son of Eshek, a remote descendant of Saul (1 Chr. viii. 39). The parallel genealogy in ch. ix. stops short of this man. For the representation of Ain by H, see JEHIEL, MEHUNIM, ete. JEVEL CM? [perh. treasure of God, Ges.]: Jehiel). 1. (Iwha.) A chief man among the Reubenites, one of the house of Joel (1 Chr. y 7). 2. (Leta; Alex. once 1@:nA; [Vat. FA. in xvi. 5, Everna.}) A Merarite Levite, one of the gate- keepers (OVW A. V. “ porters,” and « door- keepers ’’) to the sacred tent, at the first establish- ment of the Ark in Jerusalem (1 Chr. xv. 18). His duty was also to play the harp (ver. 21), or the psaltery and harp (xvi. 5), in the service before the Ark. 3. (VEAecinA, [Vat. EAeana,] Alex. EAenA.) A Gershonite Levite, one of the Bene-Asaph [sons of A.], forefather of JAHAZIEL in the time of king Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xxi. 14). 4. (Nyy, a. e. Jeuel, but the A. V. follows the correction of the Keri: ’IeshA.) The Scribe (n5>907) who kept the account of the numbers of king Uzziah’s irregular predatory warriors (OY TTA, A. V. “bands,” 2 Chr. xxvi. 11). 5. (Jeuel, as in the preceding; but the A. V. again follows the Keri: *lejA: Jahiel.) A Ger- shonite Levite, one of the Bene-Elizaphan, who assisted in the restoration of the house of Jehovah under king Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 13). 6. Clea, [Vat. E:inA,] Alex. Tein.) One of the chiefs Ow) of the Levites in the time of Josiah, and an assistant in the rites at his great Passover (2 Chr. xxxy. 9). 7. (Jeuel as above, but in Keri and A. V. Jeiel: "Tena, [Vat. Evea,] Alex. Erna.) One of the Bene-Adonikam who formed part of the caravan of Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ez. viii. 13). In Esdras the name is JEUEL. 8. (Iand, Alex. Ieerma.) A layman, of the Bene Nebo, who had taken a foreign wife and had to relinquish her (Ezr. x. 43). In Esdras it is omitted from the Greek and A. V., though the Vulgate has Jdelus. JEKAB’/ZEEL (ONeap? [God who assem bles, brings together]: Vat. [Alex. FA.1 omit; FA.3 Comp.] KaBoend: Cabseel), a fuller form of the name of KABZEEL, the most remote city of Judah on the southern frontier. This form occurs only in the list of the places reoccupied after the Captivity (Neh. xi. 25). JEKA’/MEAM (DYN [who assembles the people]: "lereulas, lexuodu; Alex. [in xxiv. 23,] Texeuia: Jecmaam, Jecmaan), a Levite in the time of King David: fourth of the sons of Hebron, the son of Kohath (1 Chr. xxiii. 19, xxiv. 23). JEKAMI’AH (7D) [Jehovah collects, or endures] : "lexeulas [Vat. -wet-] 3 Alex. lexomas: Icamias), son of Shallum, in the line of Ahlai, In another 1250 JEKUTHIEL passage the same name, borne by a different person, is given JRCAMIAH (1 Chr. ii. 41). ee A. C. H JEKU’THIEL (OSAP? [perh. fear of God, preety, Dictr. Ges. ]: 6 Xetiha; Alex. TexOuna; [Comp. "Iexoutina:] Lcuthiel), a man recorded in the genealogies of Judah (1 Chr. iy. 18) as the son of a certain Ezrah by his Jewish wife (A. V. Jehu- dijah), and in his turn the father, or founder, of the town of Zanoah. This passage in the Targum is not without a certain interest. Jered is inter- preted to mean Moses, and each of the names fol- lowing are taken as titles borne by him. Jekuthiel — * trust in God ’’ — is so applied “ because in his days the Israelites trusted in the God of heaven for forty years in the wilderness.” In a remarkable prayer used by the Spanish and Portuguese Jews in the concluding service of the Sabbath, Elijah is invoked as having had “ tidings of peace delivered to him by the hand of Jekuthiel.”’ This is explained to refer to some transaction in the life of Phineas, with whom Elijah is, in the traditions of the Jews, believed to be identical (see the quotations in Modern Judaism, p. 229). JEMIMA (FV3"S* [dove]: ‘Hudpa: Dies, as if from DD, “a day”’), the eldest of the three daughters born to Job after the restoration of his prosperity (Job xlii. 14). Rosenmiiller compares the name to the classical Diana; but Gesenius iden- tifies it with an Arabic word signifying “ dove.” The Rev. C. Forster (Historical Geography of Ara- bia, ii. 67), in tracing the posterity of Job in Arabia, considers that the name of Jemima survives in Jemama, the name of the central province of the Arabian peninsula, which, according to an Arabian tradition (see Bochart, Phaleg, ii. § 26), was called after Jemama, an ancient queen of the Arabians. W..sT? B: JEM’NAAN (‘Teuvady; [Sin.! Aupay, Sin.c? Ieuvaa:] Vulg. omits), mentioned among the places on the sea-coast of Palestine to which the panic of the incursion of Holofernes extended (Jud. ii. 28). No doubt JABNEEL — generally called Jamnia by the Greek writers — is intended. The omission of Joppa however is remarkable. G. JEMU’EL (ONIN [God is light, First; wink, assenting, Dietr. ; but uncertain | : "Tewouna; [Vat. in Ex., lewna:] Jamuel), the eldest son of Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10; Ex. vi. 15). In the lists of Num. xxvi. and 1 Chr. iv. the name is given as NEMUEL, which Gesenius decides to be the cor- more form. JEPH’THAE Clep@ae: Jephte), Heb. xi. 32. The Greek form of the name JEPHTHAH. JEPH’THAH (TID, i. e. Yiphtah [he, i. e. God, will open, free]: Tepode: Jephte), a judge, about B. C. 1143-1137. His history is contained in Judg. xi. 1-xii. 7. He was a Gileadite, the son of Gilead ¢ and a concubine. Driven by the legiti- mate sons from his father’s inheritance, he went to Tob, and became the head of a company of free- booters in a debatable land probably belonging to Ammon (2 Sam. x. 6). The idolatrous Israelites in Gilead were at that time smarting under the oppression of an Ammonitish king; and Jephthah a * Probably a patronymic there —a native of that tountry ; see GILEAD, 4, note (Amer. ed.), H. JEPHTHAH was led, as well by the unsettled character , age as by his own family circumstances, to a kind of life unrestrained, adventurous, and in as that of a Scottish border-chieftain in the r ages. It was not unlike the life which David wards led at Ziklag, with this exception, that thah had no friend among the heathen in: land he lived. His fame as a bold and gue captain was carried back to his native Gilead when the time was ripe for throwing off the of Ammon, the Gileadite elders sought in ya any leader, who in an equal degree with the born outcast could conimand the confidence , countrymen. Jephthah consented to become captain, on the condition — solemnly ratified | the Lord in Mizpeh—that in the event | success against Ammon he should still rem; their acknowledged head. Messages, urging respective claims to occupy the trans-Jordan gion, were exchanged between the Ammonitis| and Jephthah. ‘Then the Spirit of the Lord “force of mind for great undertakings, and strength,” Tanchum: comp. Judg. iii. 10, xl. 29, xiv. 6, xv. 14) came upon Jephthah collected warriors throughout Gilead and Man the provinces which acknowledged his aut And then he vowed his vow unto the Lord, “) soever cometh forth [7. e. first] of the | house to meet me, when I return in peace fro! children of Ammon, shall surely be Jehovah’: I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.” Th monites were routed with great slaughter. 1) cities, from Aroer on the Arnon to Minnith ; Abel Keramim, were taken from them. J, the conqueror returned to Mizpeh there car’ to meet him a procession of damsels with 1} and timbrels, and among them — the first § from his own house — his daughter and only! “Alas! my daughter, thou hast brought my low,”’ was the greeting of the heart-stricken ‘} But the high-minded maiden is ready for arp sonal suffering in the hour of her father’s tril Only she asks for a respite of two months tol draw to her native mountains, and in their rs to weep with her virgin-friends over the ear appointment of her life. When that ti ended she returned to her father; and “! unto her. his vow.” But Jephthah had not long leisure, even! were disposed, for the indulgence of domestic! The proud tribe of Ephraim challenged his to go to war, as he had done without their ¢ rence, against Ammon; and they proceeded ' dicate the absurd’ claim by invading Jepht! Gilead. They did but add to his triumph they envied. He first defeated them, then’! cepted the fugitives at the fords of Jordan, andié having insultingly identified them as Ephr:ji by their peculiar pronunciation, he put - i thousand men to the sword. a The eminent office for which Jephthah bait ulated as the reward of his exertions, and thi! which he had won, did not long abide wit ul He judged Israel six years and died. } It is generally conjectured that his juris4 was limited to the trans-Jordanic region. | The peculiar expression, xi. 34, faithfully lated in the margin of the A. V., has beentt preted as signifying that Jephthah had ste dren. - That the daughter of Jephthah was really @ up to God in sacrifice, slain by the hand | JEPHTHAH id then burned — is a horrible conclusion; vhich it seems impossible to avoid. ‘This rstood to be the ineaning of the text by _ the paraphrast, and Rashi, by Josephus, , § 10, and by perhaps all the early Chris- ers, a8 Origen, in Joannem, tom. vi. cap. sostom, Hom. ad pop. Antioch. xiv. 3, 145: Theodoret, Qawst. in Jud. xx.; ip. wd Jul. 118, Opp. i. 791, &e.; Augus- est. in Jud. viii. § 49, Opp. iii. 1, p. 610. irst eleven centuries of the Christian era he current, perhaps the universal opinion ad Christians. Yet none of them exten- act of Jephthah. Josephus calls it neither r pleasing to God. Jewish writers say ight to have referred it to the high-priest; r he failed to do so, or the high-priest mitted to prevent the rash act. Origen nfines his praise to the heroism of Jeph- ighter. r interpretation was suggested by Joseph He supposed that, instead of being sacri- was shut up in a house which her father ae purpose, and that she was there visited ighters of Israel four days in each year ‘she lived. This interpretation has been y many eminent men, as by Levi ben od Bechai among the Jews} and by Dru- us, Estius, de Dieu, Bishop Hall, Water- Hales, and others. More names of the d, and of not less authority, might how- duced on the other side. Lightfoot once Erubhin, § 16) that Jephthah did not vughter; but upon more mature reflection \ the opposite conclusion (Harmony, ete. ; ‘ Works, i. 51). ‘these two opinions is supported by argu- inded on the original text and on the ‘the Jews. (1.) In Judg. xi. 31, the tated in the A. V. “ whatsoever’ knows ion of gender, and may as correctly be “whosoever; ’’ and in favor of the latter is urged that Jephthah could not have / be met by an ox or other animal fit for ‘ming forth from the door of his house; “Was obviously his intention to signalize ‘giving for victory by devoting some ig to destruction, to that end perverting ‘Ley. xxvii. 28, 29 (given with another » which see Jahn, Archwologia, § 294, |Mlterthiimer, 89), to the taking of a life ‘not forfeit to the law. (2.) To J. oposal to translate “ and I will offer,” or Twill offer,” it has been replied that < the conjunction is rare, that it is not |, two vows couched in parallel phrase- (Xxvili. 21, 22, and 1 Sam. i. 11, and | es two alternatives between which there tion. (3.) The word rendered in A. V. ” or “to talk with,” verse 40, is trans- w scholars, as in Judg. y. 11, “to cele- ) It has been said that if Jephthah ighter to death, according to verse 39, ‘ing to add that she “knew no man;”’ ‘ther hand it is urged that this cireum- ‘Hed as setting in a stronger light the | dephthah and the heroism of his 4.) It has been argued that human |'@ opposed to the principles of the Jew- \therefore a Jew could not have intended hank-offering of that sort; but it is 1Gileadite born in a lawless age, living l—4 JEPHTHAH 1251 as a freebooter in the midst of rude and idolatrous people who practiced such sacrifices, was not likely to be unusually acquainted with or to pay unusual respect to the pure and humane laws of Israel. (6.) Lastly, it has been argued that a life of religious celibacy is without injunction or example to favor it in the O. T. Some persons, mindful of the enrollment of J eph- thah among the heroes of faith in Heb. xi. 32, as well as of the expression “the Spirit of the Lord came upon him,” Judg. xi. 29, have therefore scrupled to believe that he could be guilty of such a sin as the murder of his child. But it must be remembered also that deep sius of several other faithful men are recorded in Scripture, sometimes without comment; and as Jephthah had time after- wards, so he may have had grace to repent. of his vow and his fulfillment of it. At least we know that he felt remorse, which is often the foreshadow of retribution or the harbinger of repentance. Doubtless theological opinions have: sometimes had the effect of leading men to prefer one view of Jephthah’s vow to the other. Selden mentions that Genebrard was told by a Jew that Kimchi’s inter- pretation was devised in order to prevent Christians quoting the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter as a type of the sacrifice of the Son of God. And Christians, who desire or fear an example alleged in favor of celibate vows or of the fallibility of in- spired men, may become partial judges of the question. The subject is discussed at length in Augustine, lc. Opp. iii. 1, p. 610; a Treatise by L. Capellus inserted in Crit. Seer. on Judg. xi.; Bp. Hall's ontemplations on O. T., bk. x.; Selden, De jure natural et gentium, iv. § 11; Lightfoot. Sermon on Judg. xi. 39, in Works, ii. 1215; Pfeiffer, De voto Jephte, Opp. 591; Dr. Hales’ Analysis of Chronology, ii. 288; and in Rosenmiiller’s Scholia. Wrest De Ht: * It may be well to remind the reader that Kim- chi’s suggestion (mentioned above) appears as a mar- ginal reading of the A. V.: It “shall surely be the Lord's, or I will offer it up for a burnt-offer- ing.”’ This disjunctive construction makes the vow of Jephthah not absolute, but conditional: it left him at liberty to pursue one course or another, according to the nature of the offering which he ‘might be called to make, on ascertaining who or what should come forth to meet him from his house. But this solution does violence to the Hebrew sen- tence. Prof. Cassel, in his elaborate article on this subject (Herzog’s Real-Encyk. vi. 466-478), maintains that Jephthah, when he made his vow, was not thinking of the possibility of a human sacrifice, or of an animal sacrifice of any sort, but employed the term “ burnt-offering ” in a spiritual sense; that is, using the expressive word to denote completeness of consecration, he meant that he would devote to God’s special and perpetual service the first person of his household whom he should meet. The event showed that among all the contingencies he had no thought that this person would be his own child; but so it proved, and he fulfilled the vow in consigning her to a life of celibacy, and thus destroying his own last hope of posterity. The first clause of the vow, it is argued, defines the second: a literal burnt-offering cannot be meant, but one which consists in being the Lerd’s. It must be admitted that no exact parallel can be found to justify this peculiar meaning of the word 1252 (TAY). This author presents the same view in his Richter und Ruth, pp. 106-114. Keil and Delitzsch discuss the question (Bibl. Commentary on the O. T., iv. 886-395), and decide, in like man- ner, against the idea of a literal sacrifice. Wordsworth (Holy Bible, with Notes, ii. pt. i. 128 ff.) sums up his review of the different explanations with the remark, that the predominance of argu- ment and authority favors the opinion “ that Jeph- thah did actually offer his daughter, not against her will, but with her consent, a burnt-offering to the Lord. . . . But we may not pause here. ‘There is a beautiful light shed upon the gloom of this dark history, reflected from the youthful form of the maiden of Gilead, Jephthah’s daughter. . . . She is not like the Iphigenia of the Greek story. She offers her own life a willing sacrifice; and in her love for her father’s name, and in calm resolve that all should know that she is a willing sacrifice, and with tender and delicate consideration for her father, and in order that no one may charge him with having sacrificed her against her own free will, she craves respite and liberty for two months, that she may range freely on the mountains, apart from the world, and prepare herself for the day of suffer- ing, and for another life. In full foresight of death, she comes down from her mountain liberty at the appointed time to offer her virgin soul for the fulfill- ment of her father’s vow. Her name was held in honor in Israel. The daughters of Israel went yearly to lament her —or rather to celebrate her — for four days.” Finally, let it be said, this is one of those acts which the Scripture history simply relates, but leaves the judgment of them to the reader. We cannot, without being unjust to the morality of the Bible, insist too much on this distinction. In itself considered, it is immaterial to the correctness or incorrectness of our interpretation of Jephthah’s vow, whether this interpretation exalts or lowers our estimate of his character. The commendation of his faith (Heb. xi. 32) does not extend to all his actions. The same allowance is due to him for frailty and aberrations that we make in behalf of others associated with him in the same catalogue of examples of heroic faith. H. JEKPHUNNE Clepovv7, 4 Jephone), Keclus. xlvi. 7. [JEPHUNNEH. | JEPHUN’NEH (i735) [perh. for whom a way is prepared]: Jephone). 1. ?lepovv7.) Father of Caleb the spy, who is usually designated as ‘‘ Caleb the son of Jephunneh.” He appears to have belonged to an Edomitish tribe called Kenezites, ’ from Kenaz their founder; but his father or other ancestors are not named. [CALEB, 2; KENAzZ.] (See Num. xiii. 6, &c., xxxii. 12, &c.; Josh. xiv. 14, &e.; 1 Chr. iv. 15.) 2. (Iepivd in both MSS. [rather, Rom. Alex. ; Vat. Iiva].) A descendant of Asher, eldest of the three sons of Jether (1 Chr. vii. 38). Ay Cpe JE’RAH (F719 [new moon]: [in Gen.,] "lapdx [ Alex. lapad, Comp. ‘lepax; in 1 Chr., Rom. Vat. Alex. omit, Ald. "Iadép, Comp. Idpe:] Jare), the fourth in order of the sons of Joktan (Gen. x. 26; 1 Chr. i. 20) and the progenitor of a tribe of southern Arabia. He has not been satisfactorily identified with the name of any Arabian place or tribe, though a fortress (and probably an old town, | JEPHUNNE JERAH like the numerous fortified places in the of the old Himyerite kingdom) named of ( e! iy? = Ty is mentioned as belon, the district of the Nijjad (Mardsid, s. y. Y which is in Mahreh, at the extremity of the (Kdmoos, in article Qh; cf. ie | similarity of name, however, and the other tions, we are not disposed to lay much streg A very different identification has been y by Bochart (Phaleg, ii. 19). He translate =the moon” into Arabic, and finds | scendants of Jerah in the Alileei, a people ! near the Red Sea (Agatharch. ap. Diod. ; 45), on the strength of a passage in He (iii. 8), in which he says of the Arabs, *. they call in their language Orotal; and | Alilat.”” He further suggests that thes are the Benee- Hilal of more modern timé (Sd) meaning, in Arabic, “the moo a being near the sun,.it shows a narrow rim 0: Gesenius does not object to this theory, y quotes; but says that the opinion of } (Spicileg. ii. 60) is more probable; the latte; finding Jerah in the “coast of the moo} { 7 Ae} i | rectly, ‘low land of the moon,” pot ' Cima (¢} or in the ‘mountain of the moon” ‘seal I a“ —in each case the moon being “kam! “chilal.”? The former is ‘a place betel and Esh-Shihr”’ (Kamoos); the latter in 4 part, but more inland; both being, as Ges marks, near to Hadramiiwt, next to al order of the names, is Jerah in the rm Genesis; and the same argument may bel in favor of our own possible identification t fortress of Yerakh, named at the commie of this article. Whatever may be said it of translating Jerah, as both Bochart and ‘2 have done, the former’s theory involves so} | difficulties, which must be stated. The statement of Herodotus above quo’ 131, “the Arabians call Venus Alitta”), tll signifies Urania, cannot be accepted withott evidence than we at present possess. 48 almost doubtless the same as the object 0/¢ called by the Arabs “ E]-Latt,’’ and any 1) mation respecting the latter is therefore 110 It would require too much space in thi? state the various opinions of the Arabs 1) ELLatt, its etymology, etc., as collectel creat MS. Lexicon entitled the “ Mohkam little known in Europe; from which (artis age sy) we give the following particul): Latt”’ is [generally] said to be origin Lath,” the name of an object of worship?’ by the appellation of a man who used #™ meal of parched barley (saweek) with clari! or the like, at the place thereof, for the’? « EL-Latt’? signifying “the person whof that operation.” The object of worshi|® said to have been a mass of rock [upon moistened the meal; and which was mor” bo JERAHMEEL «the Rock of El-Latt ’’]: after the death of JEREMIAH 1253 the representative, at the time of the organization n above mentioned this rock was worshipped. |of the Divine service by king David, of the family me say that “ El-Latt”’ is originally “ El- ae oO » (xo''Vf), meaning [not «the Goddess,” & the Serpent.”” To this we may add from dawee (Kwr-an, liii. 19 and 20), El-Latt was | of Thakeef, at Et-Taif, or of Kureysh, at h; and was so called from (¢ iP because sed to go round about it: or it was called itt,” because it was the image of a man who ; moisten meal of parched barley with clari- tter, and to feed the pilgrims. — Our own | is that it may be a contraction of ‘ El- ’ («the Serpent,’ or perhaps “the God- , pronounced according to the dialect of r, With “t” instead of “h’’ in the case of ». (See the Sihih, MS., art. 54.) It is the Lexicon entitled the Tahdheeb (MS., art. that El-Kisa-ee used to pronounce it, in the ‘a pause, “ El-Lah;” and that those who yped it compared its name with that of at icke has some remarks on the subject of El- vhich the reader may consult (Spec. Hist. ‘p. 90); and also Sir G. Wilkinson, in his ‘o Herodotus (ed. Rawlinson, ii. 402, foot- ‘nd Essay i. to bk. iii.): he seems to be however, in saying that the Arabic “ ‘ awel,’ ” [eorrectly, “awwal’’] is “related to” ; Allah, ete.; and that Alitta and Mylitta mitie names derived from “ weled, walada, w children’” (Hssay i. 537). The com- of Alitta and Mylitta is also extremely il; and probably Herodotus assimilated the name to the latter. 8 necessary to observe, in endeavoring to te the ancient religion of the Ishmaelite \that fetishism was largely developed among and that their idols were generally absurdly ad primitive. Beyond that relic of primeval (on which is found in most beliefs — a recog- of one universal and supreme God — the °8 of fetishism obtained more or less through- abia: on the north giving place to the faith | patriarchs; on the south merging into the worship of the Himyerites. |, the Alilei were worshippers of Alilat is an tion unsupported by facts; but, whatever | said in its favor, the people in question are Benee-Hilal, who take their name from a jn of Mohammed, in the fifth generation thim, of the well-known stock of Keys. n, Essai, Tab. X A; Abu-l-Fida, Hist. 4, ed. Fleischer, p. 194.) Ba SoP. PAH MEEL (evar) [object of God's (i Tepawenra ; [Vat. Ipapend, Iepeuena, aks Alex. IpauenaA, Iepewena, -ind:] (el). 1. First-born son of Hezron, the son ‘ez, the son of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 9, 25-27, His descendants are given at length in jie chap. [AZARIAH, 5; ZABAD.] They xd the southern border of Judah (1 Sam. 0, comp. 8; xxx. 29). . Vat. Alex. IpauanaA-] A Merarite Levite; ‘ am of Kish, the son of Mahli (1 Chr. xxiv. 29; comp. xxiii. 21). 3. [‘Iepeuena, Alex. -ind, FA. -tana: Jere- miel.| Son of Hammelech, or, as the LX X. render it, “the king,’’ who was employed by Jehoiakim to make Jeremiah and Baruch prisoners, after he had burnt the roll of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. xxxvi. 26). AS CR JERAHMEELITES, THE (OSA [patronym. from the above]: ’lecueyd, ‘6 ‘Tepe mena; [Vat. in xxx. 29, Iopan ;] Alex. Iopaunaet, lepaunae: Jerameel). ‘The tribe descended from the first of the foregoing persons (1 Sam. xxvii. 10) Their cities are also named amongst those to which David sent presents from his Amalekite booty (xxx. 29), although to Achish he had represented that he had attacked them. JER’ECHUS (‘Iépexos [or -xov; Vat. Lep- exou:] Ericus), 1 Esdr. y. 22. [JERtcHO.] JEK’RED (™ [descent, going down]: Idped: Jared). 1. One of the patriarchs before the flood, son of Mahalaleel and father of Enoch (1 Chr. i. 2). In Genesis the name is given as JARED. 2. [Jaret.] One of the descendants of Judah signalized as the “father —7. e. the founder — of Gedor”’ (1 Chr. iv. 18). He was one of the sons of Ezrah by his wife Ha-Jehudijah, 7. e. the Jewess. The Jews, however, give an allegorical interpreta- tion to the passage, and treat this and other names therein as titles of Moses — Jered, because he caused the manna to descend. Here—as noticed under Jabez — the pun, though obvious in Biblical He- brew, where Jarad (the root of Jordan) means “ to descend,”’ is concealed in the rabbinical paraphrase, which has SFT, a word with the same mean- ing, but without any relation to Jered, either for eye or ear. G. JER’EMAL [38 syl.] (27) [dwellers on heights]: ‘lepaut; Alex. Iepeuss [Vat. Iepeuweru, FA. -wer:} Jermat), a layman; one of the Bene- Hashum, who was compelled by Ezra to put away his foreign wife (Ezr. x. 33). In the lists of Esdras it is omitted. JEREMIAH GMA, as the more usual form, or TINA, ch. xxxvi-xxxviii.: ‘Iepeulas: Jeremias, Vulg.; Hieremias, Hieron. et al.). The name has been variously explained: by Jerome and Simonis (Onomast. p. 535), as ‘the exalted of the Lord; by Gesenius (s. v.), as ‘appointed of the Lord;’’ by Carpzov (Jntrod. ad lib. V. T. p. iii. ce. 3), followed by Hengstenberg (Christologie des A. B. vol. i.), as “ the Lord throws ’’ — the latter seeing in the name a prophetic reference to the work described in i. 10; [by Dietrich, “whom Jehovah founds,”’ 7. e. establishes. | I. Life. —It will be convenient to arrange what is known as to the life and work of this prophet in sections corresponding to its chief periods. The materials for such an account are to be found almost exclusively in the book which bears his name. Whatever interest may attach to Jewish or Chris- tian traditions connected with his name, they have no claim to be regarded as historical, and we are left to form what picture we can of the man and of his times from the narratives and proplecies which he himself has left. Fortunately, these have 1254 JEREMIAH JEREMIAH tome down to us, though in some disorder, with unusual fullness; and there is no one in the “ goodly fellowship of the prophets’ of whom, in his work, feelings, sufferings, we have so distinct a knowledge. He is for us the great example of the prophetic life, the representative of the prophetic order. It is not to be wondered at that he should have seemed to the Christian feeling of the Early Church a type of Him in whom that life received its highest com- pletion (Hieron. Comm. in Jerem. xxiii. 9; Origen. Hom. in Jerem. i. and viii.; Aug. de Pres. Dei, c. Xxxvii.), or that recent writers should have iden- tified him with the “ Servant of the Lord” in the later chapters of Isaiah (Bunsen, Gott in der Ges- chichte, i. 425-447; Niagelsbach, art. « Jerem.’’ in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop.). (1.) Under Josiah, B. c. 638-608. — In the 13th year of the reign of Josiah, the prophet speaks of himself as still “a child”? (VY, i. 6). We can- not rely indeed on this word as a chronological datum. It may have been used simply as the ex- pression of conscious weakness, and as a word of age it extends from merest infancy (Ex. ii. 6; 1 Sam. iv. 21) to adult manhood (1 Sam. xxx. 17: 1 K. iii. 7). We may at least infer, however, as we can trace his life in full activity for upwards of forty years from this period, that at the commence- ment of that reign he could not have passed out of actual childhood. He is described as “the son of Hilkiah of the priests that were in Anathoth” (i. 1). Were we able, with some earlier (Clem. Al. Strom. i. p. 142; Jerome, Opp. tom. iv. § 116, D.) and some later writers (Eichhorn, Calovius, Maldonatus, ‘ von Bohlen, Umbreit), to identify this Hilkiah with the high-priest who bore so large a share in Josiah’s work of reformation, it would be interesting to think of the king and the prophet, so nearly of the same age (2 Chr. xxxiy. 1), as growing up together under the same training, subject to the same in- fluences. Against this hypothesis, however, there have been urged the facts (Carpzov, Keil, Ewald, and others) — (1.) that the name is too common to be a ground of identification; (2.) that the manner in which this Hilkiah is mentioned is inconsistent with the notion of his having been the High-priest of Israel; (3.) that neither Jeremiah himself, nor his opponents, allude to this parentage ; (4.) that the priests who lived at Anathoth were of the House of Ithamar (1 K. ii. 26; 1 Chr. xxiv. 3), while the high-priests from Zadok downwards were of the line of Eleazar (Carpzov, Introd. in lib. V. T. Jerem.). The occurrence of the same name may be looked on, however, in this as in many other instances in the O. T., as a probable indica- tion of affinity or friendship; and this, together life-long martyrdom was set before him, a sif with the coincidences -— (1.) that the uncle of Jere- against kings and priests and people (i. 18). i miah (xxxii. 7) bears the same name as the husband | was this wonderful mission developed into ‘ of Huldah the prophetess (2 K. xxii. 14), and (2.) | What effect did it have on the inward and oW that Ahikam the son of Shaphan, the great sup- | life of the man who received it? Fora i porter of Hilkiah and Huldah in their work (2 Chr. | would seem, he held aloof from the work wh;1 xxxiy. 20) was also, throughout, the great protector going on throughout the nation. His le of the prophet (Jer. xxvi. 24), may help to throw | nowhere mentioned in the history of the me!@ some light on the education by which he was pre- | eighteenth year of Josiah. Though five ye? pared for that work to which he was taught he had passed since he had entered on the worl been ‘sanctified from his mother’s womb.’ The prophet, it is from Huldah, not from him, t t strange Rabbinic tradition (Carpzov, /. c.), that king and his princes seek for counsel. qd eight of the persons most conspicuous in the relig- covery of the Book of the Law, however (vz ious history of this period (Jeremiah, Baruch, | not now inquire whether it were the Pentat Seraiah, Maaseiah, Hilkiah, Hanameel, Huldah, —_ Shallum ) were all descended from the harlot Rahab, | . @ Carpzov (1. c.) fixes twenty as the proba) nay possibly have been a distortion of the fact that | of Jeremiah at the time of his call. they were connected, in some way or of members of a family. If this were so, we e: a tolerably distinct notion of the influenc were at work on Jeremiah’s youth. The ho hear among the priests of his native town, ni miles distant from Jerusalem [ANATHOTH] idolatries and cruelties of Manasseh and— Amon. He would be trained in the tra precepts and ordinances of the Law. Hy become acquainted with the names and y of older prophets, such as Micah and Tsaia he grew up towards manhood, he would hi of the work which the king and his counselli carrying on, and of the teaching of the | who alone, or nearly so, in the midst of th: ious revival, was looked upon as speakin direct prophetic inspiration. In all likeli] we have seen, he came into actual conts them. Possibly, too, to this period of his may trace the commencement of that fri with the family of Neriah which was aftery fruitful in results. The two brothers Ban Seraiah both appear as the disciples of the (xxxvi. 4, li. 59); both were the sons of the son of Maaseiah (/. c.); and Maaseiah | xxxiv. 8) was governor of Jerusalem, acti) Hilkiah and Shaphan in the religious ref Josiah. Ag the result of all these influe: find in him all the conspicuous features devout ascetic character: intense iy his own weakness,. great susceptibility to | emotions, a spirit easily bowed down. Bt were also, we may believe (assuming only t} prophetic character is the development, and exalted, of the natural, not its contrac) the strong national feelings of an Israel, desire to see his nation becoming in reality i had been called to be, anxious doubts whet’ were possible, for a people that had sunk (cf. Maurice, Prophets and Kings of the. Serm. xxii.—xxiv.; Ewald, P) opheten, ii. ‘ Left to himself, he might have borne ; among the reforming priests of Josiah’s rei, from their formalism and hypocrisy. Bu word of Jehovah came to him”? (i. 2); and |! divine voice the secret of his future life was 18 to him, at the very time when the work of rt tion was going on with fresh vigor (2 Chr. xx. when he himself was beginning to have the tl and feelings of a man.¢ He was to lay sle self-distrust, all natural fear and trembling (J, and to accept his calling as a prophet of 0 ‘set over the nations and over the kingd's root out and to pull down, and to destroy throw down, to build and to plant” (i. 1 ( JEREMIAH le, or a lost portion of it, or a compilation ther new), could not fail to exercise an influ- ma mind like Jeremiah’s: his later writings abundant traces of it (cf. inf.); and the result ently was, that he could not share the hopes others cherished. To them the reformation d more thorough than that accomplished by jah. They might think that fasts, and sacri- and the punishment of idolaters, might avert enalties of which they heard in the book so ely found (Deut. xxvii., xxviii., xxxii.), and , look forward to a time of prosperity and of godliness and security (vii. 4). He saw he reformation was vut a surface one. Israel one into captivity, and Judah was worse than (iii. 11). It was as hard for him as it had for Isaiah, to find among the princes and _who worshipped in the Temple, one just, seeking man (v. 1, 28). His own work, as st and prophet, led him to discern the false- md lust of rule which were at work under rm of zeal (v.31). The spoken or written scies of his contemporaries, Zephaniah, Hab- , Urijah, Huldah, may have served to deepen qwictions, that the sentence of condemnation lready passed, and that there was no escape t. The strange visions which had followed his call (i. 11-16) taught him that Jehovah | “hasten”? the performance of His word; the Scythian inroads of the later years of ’s reign seemed in part to correspond to the ‘uction coming from the North” (Ewald, ‘eten in loc.), they could hardly be dooked as exhausting the words that spoke of it. ' though we have hardly any mention of ‘incidents in the life of Jeremiah during the m years between his call and Josiah’s death, ‘in features of his life come distinctly enough ‘us. He had even then his experience of the ess of the lot to which God had called him. ities of the priest, even if he continued to ge them, were merged in those of the new ecial office. Strange as it was for a priest ‘ain unmarried, his lot was to be one of |2 (xvi. 2).¢ It was not for him to enter into se of feasting, or even into that of mourning 8). From time to time he appeared, clad 'y in the “rough garment”’ of a prophet ixili. 4), in Anathoth and Jerusalem. He ard warning and protesting, “rising early laking”’ (xxv. 3), and as the result of this ‘me “reproach and derision daily ’’ (xx. 8). ‘betrayed by his own kindred (xii. 6), perse- ‘ith murderous hate by his own townsmen , mocked with the taunting question, Where word of Jehovah? (xvii. 15). And there ner spiritual trials as well as these outward He too, like the writers of Job and Ps. ‘vas haunted by perplexities rising out of the 's of the world (xii. 1, 2); on him there fie bitter feeling, that he was “a man of £ on to the whole earth ”’ (xv. 10); the doubt this whole work was not a delusion and a ‘7) tempting him at times to fall back into until the fire again burnt within him, and weary of forbearing (xx. 9). Whether the 48 is clearly the natural inference from the ad patristic writers take the fact for granted. 4“ times it has been supposed to have some on the question of the celibacy of the clergy, JEREMIAH 1255 passages that have been referred to belong, all of them, to this period or a later one, they represent that which was inseparable from the prophet’s life at all times, and which, in a character like Jere- miah’s, was developed in its strongest form. ‘To- wards the close of the reign, however, he appears to have taken some part in the great national ques tions then at issue. The overthrow of the Assyrian monarchy to which Manasseh had become tributary led the old Egyptian party among the princes of Judah to revive their plans, and to urge an alliance with Pharaoh-Necho as the only means of safety. Jeremiah, following in the footsteps of Isaiah (Is. xxx. 1-7), warned them that it would lead only to confusion (ji. 18, 36). The policy of Josiah was determined, probably, by this counsel. He chose to attach himself to the new Chaldean kingdom, and lost his life in the vain attempt to stop the progress of the Egyptian king. We may think of this as one of the first great sorrows of Jeremiah’s life. His lamentations for the king (2 Chr. xxxv. 25)> may have been those of personal friendship. They were certainly those of a man who, with nothing before him but the prospect of confusion and wrong, looks back upon a reign of righteous- ness and truth (xxii. 3, 16). (2.) Under Jehoahaz (= Shallum), B. c. 608. — The short reign of this prince — chosen by the peo- ple on hearing of Josiah’s death, and after three months deposed by Pharaoh-Necho — gave little scope for direct prophetic action. The fact of his deposition, however, shows that he had been set up against Egypt, and therefore as representing the policy of which Jeremiah had been the advocate; and this may account for the tenderness and pity with which he speaks of him in his Egyptian exile (xxi. 11, 12), (3.) Under Jehoiakim, B. c. 607-597. — In the weakness and disorder which characterized this reign, the work of Jeremiah became daily more prominent. The king had come to the throne as the vassal of Egypt, and for a time the Egyptian party was dominant in Jerusalem. It numbered among its members many of the princes of Judah, many priests and prophets, the Pashurs and the Hananiahs. Others, however, remained faithful to the policy of Josiah, and held that the only way of safety lay in accepting the supremacy of the Chal- deans. Jeremiah appeared as the chief represen- tative of this party. He had learnt to discern the signs of the times; the evils of the nation were not to be cured by any half-measures of reform, or by foreign alliances. The king of Babylon was God's servant (xxv. 9, xxvii. 6), doing his work and was for a time to prevail over all resistance. Hard as it was for one who sympathized so deeply with all the sufferings of his country, this was the conviction to which he had to bring himself. He had to expose himself to the suspicion of treachery by declaring it. Men claiming to be prophets had their “word of Jehovah’? to set against his (xiv. 13, xxiii. 7), and all that he could do was to com- mit his cause to God, and wait for the result. Some of the most striking scenes in this conflict are brought before us with great vividness. Soon after the accession of Jehoiakim, on one of the sol- and has been denied by Protestant and reasserted by Romish critics accordingly (cf. Carpzov, J. c.). b The hypothesis which ascribes these lamentations to Jeremiah of Libnah, Josiah’s father-in-law, is hardly worth refuting. 1256 JEREMIAH emn feast-days — when the courts of the Temple were filled with worshippers from all the cities of Judah — the prophet appeared, to utter the mes- sage that Jerusalem should become a curse, that the Temple should share the fate of the tabernacle of Shiloh (xxvi. 6). Then it was that the great struggle of his life began: priests and prophets and people joined in the demand for his death (xxvi. 8). The princes of Judah, among whom were still many of the counsellors of Josiah, or their sons, endeavored to protect him (xxvi. 16). His friends appealed to the precedent of Micah the Morasthite, who in the reign of Hezekiah had ut- tered a like prophecy with impunity, and so for a time he escaped. The fate of one who was stirred up to prophesy in the same strain showed, however, what he might expect from the weak and cruel king. If Jeremiah was not at once hunted to death, like Urijah (xxvi. 23), it was only because his friend Ahikam was powerful enough to protect him. The fourth year of Jehoiakim was yet more memorable. The battle of Carchemish overthrew the hopes of the Egyptian party (xlvi. 2), and the armies of Nebuchadnezzar drove those who had no defenced cities to take refuge in Jerusalem (xxxy. 11). As one of the consequences of this, we have the interesting episode of the Rechabites. The mind of the prophet, ascetic in his habits, shrink- ing from the common forms of social life, was nat- urally enough drawn towards the tribe which was at once conspicuous for its abstinence from wine and its traditional hatred of idolatry (2 K. x. 15). The occurrence of the name of Jeremiah among them, and their ready reception into the Temple, may point, perhaps, to a previous intimacy with him and his brother priests. Now they and their mode of life had a new significance for him. They, with their reverence for the precepts of the founder of their tribe, were as a living protest against the disobedience of the men of Judah to a higher law (xxxv. 18). In this year too came another solemn message to the king: prophecies which had been uttered, here and there at intervals, were now to be gathered together, written in a book, and read as a whole in the hearing of the people. Baruch, al- ready known as the Prophet’s disciple, acted as scribe; and in the following year, when a solemn fast-day called the whole people together in the Temple (xxxvi. 1-9), Jeremiah — hindered himself, we know not how— sent him to proclaim them. The result was as it had been before: the princes of Judah connived at the escape of the prophet and his scribe (xxxvi. 19). The king vented his impotent rage upon the scroll which Jeremiah had written. Jeremiah and Baruch, in their retirement, re-wrote it with many added prophecies; among them, probably, the special prediction that the king should die by the sword, and be cast out unburied and dishonored (xxii. 30). In ch. xlv., which be- longs to this period, we have a glimpse into the relations which existed between the master and the scholar, and into what at that time were the thoughts of each of them. Baruch, younger and more eager, had expected a change for the better. To play a prominent part in the impending crisis, to be the hero of a national revival, to gain the favor of the conqueror whose coming he announced — this, or something like this, had been the vision that had come before him, and when this passed away he sank into despair at the seeming fruitless- ness of his efforts, Jeremiah had passed through that phase of trial and could sympathize with it JEREMIAH and knew how to. meet it. To the mind . disciple, as once to his own, the future was re in all its dreariness. He was not to seek « things’ for himself in the midst of his cou ruin: his life, and that only, was to be give ‘‘for a prey.” As the danger drew nearer, was given to the Prophet a clearer insight in purposes of God for his people. He might thought before, as others did, that the chasts would be but for a short time, that repe: would lead to strength, and that the yoke Chaldeans might soon be shaken off now he that it would last for seventy years (xxv. 1 he and all that generation had passed away. | was it on Judah only that the king of Babyli to execute the judgments of Jehovah: all r that were within the prophet’s ken were to as fully as she did of ‘ the wine-cup of His, (xxv. 15-38). In the absence of special da) other events in the reign of Jehoiakim, w, bring together into one picture some of the striking “features of this period of Jeremiah As the danger from the Chaldeans became threatening, “the persecution against him gre ter, his own thoughts were more bitter and de) ing (xviii.). The people sought his life: hi rose up in the prayer that God would deliv: avenge him. Common facts became significt him of new and wonderful truths; the work) potter aiming at the production of a perfect) rejecting the vessels which did not attain became a parable of God's dealings with Isrei with the world (xviii. 1-6; comp. Maurice, .0 and Kings, 1.¢.). That thought he soon | duced in act as well as word. Standing _ valley of Ben-Hinnom, he broke the earther he carried in his hands, and _ prophesied to tl ple that the whole city should be defiled wi dead, as that valley had been, within their m{ by Josiah (xix. 10-13). The boldness of the 2 and act drew upon him immediate puma The priest Pashur smote and put him “| stocks ’’ (xx. 2); and then there came a as in all seasons of suffering, the sense of il and weakness. ‘The work of God’s mes) seemed to him too terrible to be borne: heo fain have withdrawn from it (xx. 9). He u himself the ery of wailing that had belonged)’ extremest agony of Job (xx. 14-18). Thie ‘‘every one cursed ”’ "him (xv. 10). He wd however, ‘“‘as a fenced brazen wall” (x' and went on with his work, reproving kina nobles and people; as for other sins, so als cially for their desecration of the Sabbath x 19-27), for their blind reverence for the af and yet blinder trust in it, even while the worshipping the Queen of Heavy en in the very 7 Ob of Jerusalem (vii. 14, 18). Now too, as befi work extended to other nations: they were?t exult in the downfall of Judah, but to se All were to be swallowed up in the empire Chaldeans (xlviii.—xlix.). If there had been 1h beyond this, no hope for Israel or this wot that of a universal monarchy resting on)! strength, the prospect would have been alt?t! overw vhelming } but through this darknes‘ gleamed the dawning'of a glorious hope. 14 bs JEREMIAH seventy years were over, there was to be a ration as wonderful as that from Egypt had (xxxiii. 7). In the far off future there was ision of a renewed kingdom; of a “righteous h” of the house of David, “ executing judg- and justice,” of Israel and Judah dwelling , once more united, under “the Lord our teousness ’’ (xxiii. 5, 6). is doubtful how far we can deal with the ge narrative of ch. xiii. as a fact in Jeremiah’s Ewald (Propheten des A. B., in loc.) rejects eading “ Euphrates *’ altogether; Hitzig, fol- g Bochart, conjectures Ephratah. Most other tm commentators look on the narrative as y symbolic. Assuming, however (with Cal- nd Henderson, and the consensus of patristic itors), that here, as in xix. 1, 10, xxvii. 2; Is. , the symbols, however strange they might were acts and not visions, it is open to us to ture that in this visit to the land of the Chal- ; may have originated his acquaintance with rinces and commanders who afterwards be- edhim. The special commands given in his by Nebuchadnezzar (xxxix. 11) seem at any ) imply some previous knowledge. | Under Jehoiachin (= Jeconiah), B. c. 597. e danger which Jeremiah had so long fore- ‘t last came near. First Jehoiakim, and after- ‘his successor, were carried into exile, and them all that constituted the worth and th of the nation, — princes, warriors, arti- 2K. xxiv.). Among them too were some of ‘se prophets who had encouraged the people he hope of a speedy deliverance, and could t abandon their blind confidence. Of the of the prophet in this short reign we have te fragmentary record of xxii. 24-30. We ‘fer, however, from the language of his later cies, that he looked with sympathy and _sor- the fate of the exiles in Babylon; and that fillment of all that he had been told to utter im stronger than ever in his resistance to all 8 of independence and revolt. | Under Zedekiah, B. c. 597-586. —In this (probably, as having been appointed by }tadnezzar), we do not find the same obsti- dstance to the prophet’s counsels as in Jehoi- He respects him, fears him, seeks his coun- t he is a mere shadow of a king, powerless !,ainst his own counsellors, and in his reign, agly, the sufferings of Jeremiah were sharper ey had been before. The struggle with the ‘ophets went on: the more desperate the n of their country, the more daring were edictions of immediate deliverance. Be- }1ch men, living in the present, and the true \ walking by faith in the unseen future of a tis kingdom (xxiii. 5, 6), there could not but nternecine enmity. He saw too plainly \hing but the most worthless remnant of om had been left in Judah (xxiv. 5-8), and Ned the falsehood of those who came with sages of peace. His counsel to the exiles @ in a letter which, of all portions of the omes nearest in form and character to the Hof the N. T.) was, that they should submit «lot, prepare for a long captivity, and wait or the ultimate restoration. In this hope | comfort for himself which made his sleep ‘unto him, even in the midst of all his sand strife (xxxi. 26). Even at Babylon, ‘there were false prophets opposing him, JEREMIAH 1257 speaking of him as a “ madman” (xxix. 26), urg- ing the priests of Jerusalem to more active perse- cution. ‘The trial soon followed. The king at first seemed willing to be guided by him, and sent to ask for his intercession (xxxvii. 3), but the ap- parent revival of the power of Egypt under Apries (Pharaoh-Hophra), created false hopes, and drew him and the princes of the neighboring nations into projects of revolt. The clearness with which Jeremiah had foretold the ultimate overthrow of Babylon, in a letter sent to the exiles in that city by his disciple, Baruch’s brother Seraiah (assuming the genuineness of 1. and li.), made him all the more certain that the time of that overthrow had not yet arrived, and that it was not to come from the hand of Egypt. He appears in the streets of the city with bonds and yokes upon his neck (xxvii. 2), announ- cing that they were meant for Judah and its allies. The false prophet Hananiah — who broke the offen- sive symbol (xxviii. 10), and predicted the destruc- tion of the Chaldzans within two years (xxviii. 3) — learnt that “a yoke of iron”’ was upon the neck of all the nations, and died himself while it was still pressing heavily on Judah (xxviii. 16, 17). The approach of an Egyptian army, however, and the consequent departure of the Chaldeans, made the position of Jeremiah full of danger; and he sought to effect his escape from a city in which, it seemed, he could no longer do good, and to take refuge in his own town of Anathoth or its neigh- borhood (xxxvii. 12). The discovery of this plan led, not unnaturally perhaps, to the charge of de- sertion: it was thought that he too was “ falling away to the Chaldeans,’’ as others were doing (xxxvili. 19), and, in spite of his denial, he was thrown into a dungeon (xxxvii. 16). The interpo- sition of the king, who still respected and consulted him, led to some mitigation of the rigor of his con- finement (xxxvii. 21); but, as this did not hinder him from speaking to the people, the princes of Judah — bent on an alliance with Egypt, and cal- culating on the king’s being unable to resist them (xxxviii. 5) — threw him into the prison-pit, to die there. From this horrible fate he was again deliy- ered, by the friendship of the Ethiopian eunuch, Ebed-Melech, and the king's regard for him; and was restored to the milder custody in which he had been kept previously, where we find (xxxii. 16) he had the companionship of Baruch. In the impo- tence of his perplexity, Zedekiah once again secretly consulted him (xxxviii. 14), but only to hear the certainty of failure if he continued to resist the authority of the Chaldeans. The same counsel was repeated more openly when the king sent Pashur (not the one already mentioned) and Zeph- aniah — before friendly, it appears, to Jeremiah, or at least neutral (xxix. 29)—to ask for his ad- vice. Fruitless as it was, we may yet trace, in the softened language of xxxiy. 5, one consequence of the king’s kindness: though exile was inevitable, he was yet to ‘die in peace.’”? ‘The return of the Chaldzan army filled both king and people with dismay (xxxii. 1); and the risk now was, that they would pass from their presumptuous confidence to the opposite extreme and sink down in despair, with no faith in God and no hope for the future. The prophet was taught how to meet that danger also. In his prison, while the Chaldeans were ravaging the country, he bought, with all requisite formali- ties, the field at Anathoth, which his kinsman Hanameel wished to get rid of (xxxii. 6-9). His faith in the promises of God did not fail him. 1258 JEREMIAR With a confidence in his country’s future, which has been compared (Nagelsbach, /. c.) to that of the Roman who bought at its full value the very ground on which the forces of Hannibal were en- camped (Liv. xxxvi. 11), he believed not only that ‘houses and fields and vineyards should again be possessed in the land”? (xxxii. 15), but that the voice of gladness should still be heard there (xxxiii. 11), that, under “the Lord our Righteousness,”’ the house of David and the priests the Levites should never be without representatives (xxxili. 15— 18). At last the blow came. ‘The solemn renewal of the national covenant (xxxiv. 19), the offer of freedom to all who had been brought into slavery, were of no avail. The selfishness of the nobles was stronger even than their fears, and the prophet, who had before rebuked them for their desecration of the Sabbath, now had to protest against their disregard of the sabbatic year (xxxiv. 14). The city was taken, the temple burnt. The king and his princes shared the fate of Jehoiachin. The prophet gave utterance to his sorrow in the Lam- ENTATIONS. (6). After the capture of Jerusalem, B. C. 586 -(?). The Chaldean party in Judah had now the prospect of better things. Nebuchadnezzar could not fail to reward those who, in the midst of hard- ships of all kinds, had served him so faithfully. We find accordingly. a special charge given to Nebuzaradan (xxxix. 11) to protect the person of Jeremiah; and, after being carried as far as Ramah with the crowd of captives (xl. 1), he was set free, and Gedaliah, the son of his steadfast friend Ahi- kam, made governor over the cities of Judah. The feeling of the Chaldeans towards him was shown yet more strongly in the offer made him by Nebu- zaradan (xl. 4,5). It was left to him to decide whether he would go to Babylon, with the prospect of living there under the patronage of the king, or remain in his own land with Gedaliah and the remnant over whom he ruled. Whatever may have been his motive — sympathy with the -suffer- ings of the people, attachment to his native land, or the desire to help his friend — the prophet chose the latter, and the Chaldean commander “ gave him a reward,”’ and set him free. For a short time there was an interval of peace (xl. 9-12), soon broken, however, by the murder of Gedaliah by Ishmael and his associates. We are left to con- jecture in what way the prophet escaped from a massacre which was apparently intended to include all the adherents of Gedaliah. ‘The fullness with which the history of the massacre is narrated in chap. xli. makes it however probable that he was among the prisoners whom Ishmael was carrying off to the Ammonites, and who were released by the arrival of Johanan. One of Jeremiah’s friends was thus cut off, but Baruch still remained with him; and the people, under Johanan, who had taken the command on the death of Gedaliah, turned to him for counsel. ‘The governor ap- pointed by the Chaldzans had been assassinated. Would not their vengeance fall on the whole peo- ple? Was there any safety but in escaping to Egypt while they could? ’? They came accordingly to Jeremiah with a foregone conclusion. With the vision of peace and plenty in that land of fleshpots (xlii. 14), his warnings and assurances were in vain, and did but draw on him and Baruch the old charge of treachery (xliii. 3). The people followed their ywn counsel, and — lest the two whom they sus- pected should betray or counteract it — took them JEREMIAH also by force to Egypt. There, in the ait Tahpanhes, we have the last clear glimpses o prophet’s life. His words are sharper and strc than ever. He does not shrink, even there, speaking of the Chaldean king once more a ‘servant of Jehovah” (xliii. 10). He dey that they should see the throne of the cong set up in the very place which they had chos the securest refuge. He utters a final pi (xliv.) against the idolatries of which they their fathers had been guilty, and which they’ even then renewing. After this all is uncer If we could assume that lii. 31 was written by emiah himself, it would show that he reache extreme old age, but this is so doubtful that ) left to other sources. On the one hand, th the Christian tradition, resting doubtless on earlier belief (Tertull. adv. Gnost. c. 8;° Ps Epiphan. Opp. iii. 239; Hieron. adv. Jovin. ii that the long tragedy of his life ended in { martyrdom, and that the Jews at Tahpanhes| tated by his rebukes, at last stoned him to ¢ Most commentators on the N. T. find an all! to this in Heb. xi. 37. An Alexandrian tra reported that his bones had been brought tc city by Alexander the Great (Chron. Pas 156, ed. Dindorf, quoted by Carpzoy and N> bach). In the beginning of the last century ellers were told, though no one knew the jp; spot, that he had been buried at Ghizeh (f Travels in the Levant, p. 28). On the bah there is the Jewish statement that, on the cor! of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, he, with Bi made his escape to Babylon (Seder Olam F! c. 26; Genebrard, Chronol. Heb. 1608) or «| (R. Solomon Jarchi, on Jer. xliv. 14), and di peace. Josephus is altogether silent as to hia but states generally that the Jews who took | in Egypt were finally carried to Babylon at tives (Ant. x. 9). It is not impossible, ho’ that both the Jewish tradition and the siler Josephus originated in the desire to gloss ) great crime, and that the offer of Nebuzarad: 4) suggested the conjecture that afterwards? into an assertion. As it is, the darkness and 1 that brood over the last days of the prophe'! are more significant than either of the issues 1 presented themselves to men’s imaginations winding-up of his career. He did not need a by violence to make him a true martyr. Id with none to record the time or manner |] death, was the right end for one who had sk all along, not to win the praise of men, but bu the word of the Lord was in him as a “bil fire”? (xx. 9). May we not even conjecturil this silence was due to the prophet himsell) we believe (cf. inf.) that Baruch, who wa‘! Jeremiah in Egypt, survived him, and ha@ share in collecting and editing his prophecielt hard to account for the omission of a fact much interest, except on the hypothesis th ] lips were sealed by the injunctions of the |S who thus taught him, by example as well precept, that he was not to seek “great tl for himself. Other traditions connected with the na?’ Jeremiah, though they throw no light on h tory, are interesting, as showing the mp left by his work and life on the minds clat generations. As the Captivity dragged prophecy of the Seventy Years, which had | been so full of terror, came to be a ground (Me | — es a JEREMIAH ix. 2; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 21; Ezr. i. 1). On return from Babylon, his prophecies were col- d and received into the canon, as those of the nd of the Great Prophets of Israel. In the agement followed by the Babylonian Talmudic rs (Baba Buthia, § 14 6; quoted by Lightfoot fatt. xxvii. 9), and perpetuated among some of medieval Jewish transcribers (Wolff, Bidl. », ii. 148), he, and not Isaiah, occupies the place. The Jewish saying that “the spirit of niah dwelt afterwards in Zechariah ”’ (Grotius fait. xxvii. 9) indicates how greatly the mind je one was believed to have been influenced by eaching of the other. The fulfillment of his ictions of a restored nationality led men to < of him, not as a prophet of evil only, but as hing over his countrymen, interceding for . More than any other of the prophets, he gies the position of the patron-saint of Judea. aad concealed the tabernacle and the ark, the ; treasures of the Temple, in one‘of the caves inai, there to remain unknown till the day of ration (2 Mace. ii. 1-8). He appears ‘a man gray hairs and exceeding glorious,” “the of the brethren, who prayed much for the city,” in the vision of Judas Maccabeeus; and ‘him the hero receives his golden sword, as a of God (2 Mace. xv. 13-16). His whole voca~ as a prophet is distinctly recognized (Kcclus. 7). The authority of his name is claimed for ‘didactic declamations against the idolatry of Jon (Bar. vi. [or Epist. of Jer.]). At a later 1 it was attached, as that of the representative tet, to quotations from other books in the same ae (Lightfoot, /. c.), or to prophecies, apocry- or genuine, whose real author was forgotten von. in Matt. xxvii. 9; Fabricius, Cod. Pseu- |. V. T.i. 1103; Grot. in Eph. v. 14). Even = time of our Lord's ministry there prevailed elief (resting, in part perhaps, in this case as ut of Elijah, on the mystery which shrouded ime and manner of his death) that his work ot yet over. Some said of Jesus that he was omias, or one of the prophets”? (Matt. xvi. || Aecording to many cominentators he was prophet” whom all the people were expecting .i.21). The belief that he was the fulfill- of Deut. xviii. 18 has been held by later Jew- terpreters (Abarbanel in Carpzov, /. c.). The jons connected with him lingered on even in hristian church, and appeared in the notion te had never really died, but would return one om Paradise as one of the “two witnesses ”’ » Apocalypse (Victorinus, Comm. in Apoe. xi. ) Egyptian legends assumed yet wilder and fantastic forms. He it was who foretold to Eriests of Egypt that their idols should one } ll to the ground in the presence of the virgin ‘(Epiphan. de Vit. Proph. Opp. ii. p. 239). ig the part of a St. Patrick, he had delivered «strict on the shores of the Nile from croco- and asps, and even in the 4th century of the ‘ian era the dust of that region was looked on {oecific against their bites (ibid.). According {ther tradition, he had returned from Egypt usalem, and lived there for 300 years (D’ Her- I Biblioth. Orient. p. 499). The O. T. nar- of his sufferings was dressed out with the ats of a Christian martyrdom (Eupolem. Hist. in Kuseb. Prep. Evang. ix. 39). 4 Character} and Style. — It will have been rom this narrative that there fell to the lot i JEREMIAH 1259 of Jeremiah sharper suffering than any previous prophet had experienced. It was not merely that the misery which others had seen afar off was act- ually pressing on him and on his country, nor that he had to endure a life of persecution, while they had intervals of repose, in which they were honored and their counsel sought. In addition to all differ- ences of outward circumstances, there was that of individual character, influenced by them, reacting on them. In every page of his prophecies we recognize the temperament which, while it does not lead the man who has it to shrink from doing God’s work, however painful, makes the pain of doing it infinitely more acute, and gives to the whole char acter the impress of a deeper and more lasting melancholy. He is preéminently “the man that hath seen afflictions ’’ (Lam. iii. 1). There is no sorrow like unto his sorrow (Lam. i. 12). He wit- nesses the departure, one by one, of all his hopes of national reformation and deliverance. He has to appear, Cassandra-like, as a prophet of evil, dash- ing to the ground the false hopes with which the people are buoying themselves up. Other prophets, Samuel, Elisha, Isaiah, had been sent to rouse the people to resistance. He (like Phocion in the par- allel crisis of Athenian history) has been brought to the conclusion, bitter as it is, that the only safety for his countrymen lies in their accepting that against which they are contending as the worst of evils; and this brings on him the charge of treach- ery and desertion. If it were not for his trust in the God of Israel, for his hope of a better future to be brought out of all this chaos and darkness, his heart would fail within him. But that vision is clear and bright, and it gives to him, almost as fully as to Isaiah, the character of a prophet of the Gospel. He is not merely an Israelite looking for- ward to a national restoration. In the midst of all the woes which he utters against neighboring na- tions he has hopes and promises for them also (xlviii. 47, xlix. 6, 39). In that stormy sunset of prophecy, he beholds, in spirit, the dawn of a brighter and eternal day. He sees that, if there is any hope of salvation for his people, it cannot be by a return to the old system and the old ordi- nances, divine though they once had been (xxxi. 31). There must be a New Covenant. That word, destined to be so full of power for all after-ages, appears first in his prophecies. The relations be- tween the people and the Lord of Israel, between mankind and God, must rest, not on an outward law, with its requirements of obedience, but on that of an inward fellowship with Him, and the con- sciousness of entire dependence. For all this he saw clearly there must be a personal centre. ‘The kingdom of God could not be manifested ‘but through a perfectly righteous man, ruling over men on earth. The prophet’s hopes are not merely vague visions of a better future. They gather round the person of a Christ, and are essentially Messianic. In much of all this — in their personal character, in their sufferings, in the view they took of the great questions of their time — there is a resem- blance, at once significant and interesting, between the prophet of Anathoth and the poet of the Di- vina Commedia. What Egypt and Babylon were to the kingdom of Judah, France and the Empire were to the Florentine republic. In each case. the struggle between the two great powers reproduced itself in the bitterness of contending factions. Dante, like Jeremiah, saw himself surrounded by 1260 JEREMIAH evils against which he could only bear an unavail- ing protest. ‘che worst agents in producing those evils were the authorized teachers of his religion. His hopes of better things connected themselves with the supremacy of a power which the majority of his countrymen looked on with repugnance. For him, also, there was the long weariness of exile, brightened at times by the sympathy of faithful friends. In him, as in the prophet, we find — united, it is true, with greater strength and stern- ness — that intense susceptibility to the sense of wrong which shows itself sometimes in passionate complaint, sometimes in bitter words of invective and reproach. In both we find the habit of mind which selects an image, not for its elegance or sub- limity, but for what it means; not shrinking even from what seems grotesque and trivial, sometimes veiling its meaning in allusions more or less dark and enigmatic. Both are sustained through all their sufferings by their strong faith in the Unseen, by their belief in an eternal righteousness which shall one day manifest itself and be victorious.¢ A yet higher parallel, however, presents itself. - In a deeper sense than that of the patristic divines, the life of the prophet was a type of that of Christ. In both there is the same early manifestation of the consciousness of a Divine mission (Luke ii. 49). The persecution which drove the prophet from An- athoth has its counterpart in that of the men of Nazareth (Luke iv. 29). His protests against the priests and prophets are the forerunners of the woes against the Seribes and Pharisees (Matt. xxiii.). His lamentations over the coming miseries of his country answer to the tears that were shed over the Holy City by the Son of Man. His sufferings come nearest, of those of the whole army of mar- tyrs, to those of the Teacher against whom princes and priests and elders and people were gathered to- gether. He saw more clearly than others that New Covenant, with all its gifts of spiritual life and power, which was proclaimed and ratified in the death upon the cross. On the assumption that Jeremiah, not David, was the author of the 22d Psalm (Hitzig, in loc., followed in this instance by Nagelsbach, /. c.), the words uttered in the agony of the crucifixion would point to a still deeper and more pervading analogy. The character of the man impressed itself with more or less force upon the language of the writer. Criticisms on the “‘style’’ of a prophet are, indeed, for the most part, whether they take the form of praise or blame, wanting both in reverence and dis- cernment. We do not gain much by knowing that to one writer he appears at once “ sermone quidem - - - quibusdam aliis prophetis rusticior ’’ (Hieron. Pyol. in Jerem.), and yet * majestate sensuum profundissimus’”’ (Proewm. in c. l.); that another compares him to Simonides (Lowth, Prel. xxi.); a third to Cicero (Seb. Schmidt); that bolder critics find in him a great want of originality (Knobel, Prophetismus); *symbolical images of an inferior order, and symbolical actions unskillfully con- trived ’’ (Davidson, Introd. to O. T. c. xix.). Leavy- ing these judgments, however, and asking in what JEREMIAH way the outward form of his writings answers | life, we find some striking characteristics that us to understand both. As might be expect one who lived in the last days of the kingdom had therefore the works of the earlier proph look back upon, we find in him renainiscence; reproductions of what they had written, whic dicate the way in which his own spirit had educated (comp. Is. xl. 19, 20, with x. 3-5 exxxv. 7, with x. 13; Ps. Ixxix. 6, with x. 2; xlii. 16, with xxxi. 9; Is. iv. 2, xi. 1, with x 15; Is. xv. with xlviii.; Is. xiii. and xlvii. wi li.: see also Kiiper, Jerem. librorum sae. inte et vindex). Traces of the influence of the n discovered Book of the Law, and in partieul Deuteronomy, appear repeatedly in his, as in writings of the same period (Deut. xxvii, 2 20, vii. 12, with xi. 8-5; Deut. xv. 12, with 3 14; Ex. xx. 16, with xxxii. 18; Ex. vi. 6, xxxil. 21), It will be noticed that the M4) in these and other instances are, for the most not those that rise out of direct quotation, bu as are natural in one whose language and moc thought have been fashioned by the constant of books which came before him with a diyir! thority. Along with this, there is the = natural to one who speaks out of the fullness heart, to reproduce himself —to repeat in 1) the same words the great truths on which hi) heart rested, and to which he was seeking others (comp. marginal references passim, ia in Keil, Linledt. § 74). Throughout, too, the} the tokens of his individual temperament: a | prominence of the subjective, elegiac elemeni in other prophets, a less sustained energy, orderly and completed rhythm (De Wette, £/ § 217; Ewald, Propheten, ii. 1-11). A ¢ examination of the several parts of his pre‘ has led to the conviction that we may trace |: crease of these characteristics ee accumulating trials of his life (Ewald, J. ¢.). earlier writings are calmer, loftier, more unifa tone: the later show marks of age and wee) and sorrow, and are more strongly imbued wi't language of individual suffering. Living at i when the purity of the older Hebrew was ‘i way under continual contact with other kit dialects, his language came under the inf which was acting on all the writers of his abounds in Aramaic forms, loses sight of thit grammatical distinctions of the earlier Hebri | cludes many words not to be found in its vib lary (Eichhorn, Einlett. in das A. T. iii. 121 is in part distinctive of the man as well as |t time, that single words should have appearif of a strange significance (i. 11), that aol} dictions should have been embodied in ™ coined for the purpose (xix. 6, xx. 3), and 4 real analogies which presented themselves )¥ have been drawn not from the region of there and terrible, but from the most homely and he iar incidents (xiii. 1-11, xviii. 1-10). Stille startling is his use of a kind of cipher (tA bash;® comp. Hitzig and Ewald on xxv. 2620 @ The fact that Jer. v. 6 suggested the imagery of the opening Canto‘of the Inferno is not without sig- nificance, as bearing on this parallelism. b The system of secret writing which bears this name forms part of the Kabbala of the later Jews. The plan adopted is that of using the letters of the Hebrew alphabet in an inverted order. so that stands for §, W) for 2, and so on, and the id formed out of the first four letters which are t#! terchanged (INN), In the passage refell (xxv. 26), the otherwise unintelligible word Sh)# becomes, on applying this key, the equivalent of bt The position of the same word in li. 41 confi tt al bi ‘e JEREMIAH g, except from the initiated, the meaning of edictions. associate the name of Jeremiah with any rtion of the O. T. is to pass from the field tory into that of conjecture; but the fact that ¢ (Comme iiber die Psalm.), followed in part diger (Ersch und Griiber, Ancycl. art. Jerem. ), s not less than thirty psalms (sc. v., vi., xiv., sli, lii.-lv., Ixix—lxxi.) to his authorship is, st, so far instructive that it indicates what the hymns, belonging to that or to an earlier |, with which his own spirit had most affinity, 9 which he and other like sufferers might surned as the fit expression of their feelings. . Arrangement. — The absence of any chrono- lorder in the present structure of the collec- f Jeremiah’s prophecies is obvious at the first »; and this has led some writers (Blayney, to Jeremiah) to the belief that, as the book tands, there is nothing but the wildest con- —“a preposterous jumbling together’ of ecies of different dates. Attempts to recon- the book on a chronological basis have been by almost all commentators on it since the lof criticism (Simonis, Vitringa, Cornelius a e, among the earliest; cf. De Wette, Hinleit. ); and the result of the labors of the more . erities has been to modify the somewhat \judgment of the English divine. Whatever of difference there may be in the hypotheses vers, Hitzig, Ewald, Bunsen, Nagelsbach, and , they agree in admitting traces of an order » midst of the seeming irregularity, and en- + to account, more or less satisfactorily, for i anomalies. ‘The conclusion of the last-named is that we have the book sub- ally in the same state as that in which it left mds of the prophet, or his disciple Baruch. ting ourselves, for the present, to the Hebrew (reproduced in the A. V.) we have two great ms: ) Ch. i.-xly. Prophecies delivered at various _ times, directed mainly to Judah, or con- nected with Jeremiah’s personal history. ) Ch. xlvi.-li. Prophecies connected. with { other nations. lii., taken largely, though not entirely, from ‘ @ap-qyal Ey = xlvii. 1-7. 7-22 = xlix. 7-22. xxx. 1-5 = xlix. 1-6. 6-11 = 28-38. 12-16 = 23-27. ».6.0.4 5 = Xxiviii. SKK = xxy. 15-39. xxxiii.-li. = Xxvi.-xly. lii. = iii. The difference in the arrangement of the two texts was noticed by the critical writers of the Early Church (Origen, Lp. ad African. Hieron. Pref. in Jevem.). For fuller details tending to a conclusion unfavorable to the trustworthiness of the Greek translation, see Keil, Hindett. (1. c.), and the authors there referred to. Supposed Interpolations. —'The genuineness of some portions of this book has been called in ques- tion, partly on the hypothesis that the version of the LXX. presents a purer text, partly on internal and more conjectural grounds. The following tables indicate the chief passages affected by each class of objections: 1. As omitted in the LXX. (E"S.-6i5%5 0; se (2.) xxvii. 7. (8.) xxvii. 16-21 [not omitted, but with many varia- tions]. (4.) xxxiii. 14-26. (5.) xxxix. 4-18. 2. On other grounds. 1.) x 1-16. As being altogether the work of a later writer, probably the so-called Pseudo-Isaiah. The Aramaic of ver. 11 is urged as confirming this view. JEREMIAH (2.) xxv. 11-14. ) (3.) xxvii. 7. (4.) xxxiii. 14-26. (5.) xxxix. 1, 2, 4-18. (6.) xxvii-xxix. As showing, in the shortened { of the prophet’s name (TMD), and addition of the epithet “ Jeremiah the proph the revision of a later writer. (7.) Xxx.-xxxiii. As partaking of the character of later prophecies of Isaiah. (8.) xlviii. As betraying in language and statem| the interpolations either of the later prophy of Isaiah or of a still later writer. ‘9.) 1. li. As being a vaticiniwm ex eventu, inse probably by the writer of Is. xxxiv., and for! in language and thought to the general ¢hal ter of Jeremiah’s prophecies. (10.) lii. As being a supplementary addition to book, compiled from 2 K. xxy. and 0 sources. As having the characte; vaticinia ex eventu, In these, as in other questions connected } the Hebrew text of the O. T., the impugners of authenticity of the above passages are for the 1 part — De Wette, Movers, Hitzig, Ewald, Kno Hiivernick, Hengstenberg, Kiiper, Keil, Umb are among the chief defenders. (Comp. Keil, lectung, § 76; and, for a special defense of | ( li., the monograph of Nagelsbach, Jeremias \ Babylon.) V. Literature — Origen, Hom. in Jer Theodoret, Schol. in Jerem., Opp. ii. p. Hieron. Comm. in Jerem. cc. i-xxxil.3 (1 mentartes by Cicolampadius (1530); Calvin (15 Piscator (1614); Sanctius (1618); Venema (17) Michaelis (1793); Blayrey [Jerem. and Lam. .1 Transl. with Notes, Oxf.] (1784 [8d ed. Li 1836]); Dahler [Jérémie traduit, accompagnet notes, 2 pt. Strasb.] (1825-30); Umbreit [Pit Comm. Hamb.] (1842); Henderson [Jerem. % Lam. translated, with a Commentary, Lond. 18] Neumann [ Weissagun gen u. Klagelieder, 2 Leipz.] (1856-58). The following treatises may also be cone Schnurrer, C. F., Observationes ad vaticin é rem., 1793 [-94; repr. in the Comment. Theo)y Velthusen, Kuinoel and Ruperti, vol. ii.-y.]; Cb Erklérung schwerer Stellen in d. Weissag. Je). 1824; Hensler, Bemerkk. iiber Stellen in Jen Weissag., 1805; Spohn, Jerem. Vates e vers. Alex., 1794 [-1824]; Kiiper, Jerem. ial Sacrorum interpres et vindex, 1837; Movers/ utriusque recensionis vaticin. Jerem. indo & origine, 1837; Wichelhaus, De Jerem. veri Alex., 1847; Hengstenberg, Christologie des 4 (Section on Jeremiah |. Ee * The prophets are often spoken of in the ole as announcing orally their predictions and mess but very seldom as writing them out either bt or after their promulgation. In this respecjié have more distinct notices concerning the hab f Jeremiah, than of any other prophet. We ™ from Sex: xxxvi. 2 ff., that in the fourth yei™ Jehoiakim he received a command from Gct@ collect all that he had spoken * against Israe t against Judah, and against all the nations m the days of Josiah, if: and to write down the BM in a book. In cours with this direetio he dictated to Baruch his amanuensis all his pi! ecies up to that time. This collection was !/™ by JEHOIAKIM on account of the threatel which it contained against himself; but Jere immediately prepared ‘another in which he net?) = - JEREMIAH ed again what had been destroyed, but added at “many like words” (ver. 32). See also ff, The prophet’s object, in thus putting er his revelations as made known to the from time to time, may not have required 0 follow any strict chronological order. ‘The on, therefore, whether the present Hebrew ition of these parts of his writings came from and or that of another, does not depend on ew taken of their chronological relation to yther. So far as this point is concerned, the ig order may have originated with the prophet lf, and not from a reviser or transcriber. The ction of subjects rather than of time appears ve controlled the general arrangement of the of Jeremiah. is a singular fact, that Matthew (xxvii. 9) es a passage to Jeremiah which seems to x to Zechariah. See, on that difficulty, the on to ACELDAMA (Amer. ed.). The pre- ns of Jeremiah were not only well known in imes immediately after him, but were cele- 1 for their strict fulfillment. Reference is ‘to this character of his writings in 2 Chron. 91, and Ez.i. 1. His assignment of 70 years : period of the duration of the Captivity was round of Daniel's earnest, effectual prayer for ad of the exile and the restoration of Israel ix. 2 ff). It is noteworthy that the first tion from Jeremiah as we open the Gospel- 'y (Matt. ii. 17, 18) brings back te us the of lamentation and sorrow to which we were ‘omed in the Old Testament. ditional Literature. — The following works on tiah also deserve notice: Seb. Schmid, Comm. br. Prophetiarum Jeremie, 1685 (also 1697 (706), 2 vols. 4to; Leiste, Obss. in Vaticin. a. aliquot lotus, 1794, reprinted with large ons in Pott and Ruperti’s Sylloge Comm. I. ii. 203-246 ; Rosenmiiller, Scholia in Vet. ‘pars viii., 2 vols. 1826-27; J.C. K. Hofmann, \iebenzig Jahre des Jerem. u. d. siebenziy wochen des Daniel, 1836; Maurer, Comm. in Test. i. 490-691 (1838); Heim and Hoffmann, jvier grossen Propheten erbaulich ausgelegt jen Schriften der Reformatoren, 1839; J. L. \1, Alttestamentliche Studien, 2es Heft (Das wronomium u. der Prophet Jeremia, gegen tohlen), 1839; Hitzig, Der Prophet Jeremia A-t, 1841, 2° Aufl. 1866 (Lief. iii. of the igef. exeget. Handb. zum A. T.), comp. his h. Biicher des A. T. iibersetzt, 1854; Ewald, ropheten des Alten Bundes, vol. ii., 1841 (a \ dition about to be published, 1868); Stiihelin, (* das Princip das der Anordnung der Weis- (igen d. Jerem. zu Grunde liegt, in the ether. d. deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1849, (6-230; Niigelsbach, Der Proph. Jerem. wu. don, 1850; Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, Bd. ii. 2¢ #2, 1860; C. F. Graf, Der Prophet Jeremia At, 1862; G. R. Noyes, New Translation of € ebrew Prophets, vol. ii., 3d ed. Boston, 1866. Hommentary on Jeremiah for Lange’s Bibel- is to be prepared by Nagelsbach. the later Introductions to the Old Testament ic of Keil (pp. 248-264, 2¢e Aufl.), Bleek (pp. 01), and Davidson (iii. 87-129) cqntain im- at sections. The art. on Jeremiah in Ersch muber’s Allgem. Encyclopddie (Sect. ii. Bd. 3 by Rodiger; that in Herzog’s Real-Encykt. 178-489), by Niigelsbach; and that in Zeller’s Worterd. (i. 666 ff.), of a popular character, JEREMIAS 1268 by Wunderlich. Stanley’s sketch of Jeremiah (Jewish Church, ii. 570-622) describes him as in reality the great personage of his epoch, not merely in his religious sphere, but in the state. For his poetical characteristics, see Lowth’s Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, pp. 177, 178 (Stowe’s ed.), Meier, Gesch. d. poet. Nat. Lit. der Hebrder (1856), p. 395 ff., and Isaac Taylor's Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, p. 272 (N. Y. 1862). For Milman’s estimate of his importance and of his literary merits, see his History of the Jews, i. 439-448 (Amer. ed.). «‘ His unrivaled elegies,” says this eminent critic, “combine the truth of history with the deepest pathos of poetry.” He justifies the encomium by a translation of some of the passages, alike remark- able for originality of thought and tenderness of expression, in which the Hebrew patriot laments the sad fate of Jerusalem on its being captured and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. [LAMENTATIONS. ] On the general import of his prophecies the reader may consult F. R. Hasse’s Geschichte des A. Bundes, pp. 145-157; Koster’s Die Propheten, pp. 112-115, and Hengstenberg’s Christology, espe- cially in relation to the Messianic portions, ii. 361- 473 (Edinb. 1856). “It is to Jeremiah,” says Stanley (ii. 580), “even more than to Isaiah, that the writers of the Apostolic age (Hebr. viii. 8, 13, x. 16, 17) look back, when they wish to describe the Dispensation of the Spirit. His predictions of the Anointed King are fewer and less distinct than those of the preceding prophets. But he is the prophet beyond all others of ‘the New Testa- ment,’ ‘the New Covenant,’ which first appears in his writings. . . . And the knowledge of this new truth shall no longer be confined to any single order or caste, but ‘all shall know the Lord, from the least unto the greatest’ (Jer. xxxi. 33, 34).” H: JEREMI’AH. Seven other persons bearing the same name as the prophet are mentioned in the O. T. 1. [‘Iepeulas: Jeremias. | Jeremiah of Libnah, father of Hamutal wife of Josiah, 2 K. xxiii. 31. 2. 3,44 (2, ‘lepeula, Alex. -[LLAS, IA. ~ULnas, Vat. Iepuetas; 3. ‘Iepeulas, Vat. -wera, Alex. -wia, FA. lepuias 4. ‘Tepeula, Vat. -wera, Alex. -u.as-] Three warriors — two of the tribe of Gad —in David’s army, 1 Chr. xii. 4, 10, 13. 5. [‘lepeuta; Vat. Iepuera-] One of the “ mighty men of valor ” of the trans-Jordanic half. tribe of Manasseh, 1 Chr. y. 24. 6. [‘lepeula; Alex. Tepuua, exc. xii. 34, Tepemias ; Vat. Tepuia, lepeuias FA. Teppeca, Iepenera.] A priest of high rank, head of the second or third of the 21 courses which are apparently enumerated in Neh. x. 2-8. He is mentioned again, 7. e. the course which was called after him is, in Neh. xii. 1; and we are told at v. 12 that the personal name of the head of this course in the days of Joiakim was HANANIAH. This course, or its chief, took part in the dedication: of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. xii. 34). 7. (Rom. Vat. ‘lepeuty.] The father of Jaaza- niah the Rechabite, Jer. xxxv. 3. * JEREMIAH, LAMENTATIONS OF. [LAMENTATIONS. | : JEREMI'AS (‘lepeutas; [Alex. in Ecelus., Inpemias:] Jeremias, Hieremias). 1. The Greek form of the name of Jeremiah the prophet, used in the A. V. of Ecclus. xlix. 6; 2 Macc. xv. 14; Matt xvi. 14. [Jeremian; Jeremy.] | also from fi fib rdvach, “to be broad,” ‘| wide plain; ‘lepixd; [Vat. leperxw, :| li. 34, Iepe:a; Alex. leperxw in 1 Chr, vii Ezr. ii. 34, and (with FA.) in Neh. iii. 2, vi} FA. in 1 Chr. xix. 5, Erepixw; Sin. in rat 14, 1 Mace. xvi. 11, 14, Iepecyw, and so Tise| the N. T., exc. Heb. xi. 30 (7th ed.); Straby Josephus, ‘Iepryods: [Jericho]), a city of 7 A 1264 JEREMOTH JERICHO 2. 1 Esdr. ix. 34. [JEREMAL. | JEREMOTH (V3 [heights] : wad, [etc.]: Jerimoth, Jerimuth). 1. (Apiuéo; [Vat. Tapewuw0; Alex. lapimovd; Comp. Ald. ‘Tepiucd: Jerimoth.]) A Benjamite chief, a son of the house of Beriah of Elpaal, ac- cording to an obscure genealogy of the age of Hez- ekiah (1 Chr. viii. 14; comp. 12 and 18). His family dwelt at Jerusalem, as distinguished from the other division of the tribe, located at Gibeon (ver. 28). 2. ["lapiude: Vat. Apeiuw6.] A Merarite Le- vite, son of Mushi (1 Chr. xxiii. 23); elsewhere called JERIMOTH. 3. [Iepiudd; Vat. Epeiuw6.] Son of Heman; head of the 13th course of musicians in the Divine service (1 Chr. xxv. 22). In'ver. 4 the name is JERIMOTH. 4. Plapiuw6; Vat. lapeimoid; Alex. Tepinw0. | One of the sons of Elam, and — 5. CApudd; [ Vat. Apwv; FA. Apuwy; Alex. Comp. "lapudé: Jerimuth]), one of the sons of Zattu, who had taken strange wives: but put them away, and offered each a ram for a trespass offer- ing, at the persuasion of Ezra (Tare xO. 97). In Esdras the names are respectively HiEREMOTH and JARIMOTH. 6. The name which appears in the same list as “and Ramoru”’ (ver. 29) — following the correc- tion of the Keri —is in the original text ( Cetib) Jeremoth, in which form also it stands in 1 Esdr. ix. 30, ‘Iepeudd, A. V. HiEREMorH. A. C. H. JER’EMY (‘lepeutas; [Alex. in 2 Mace. ii. (f lepewesas:] Jeremias, Hieremias), the prophet Jer- emiah. 1 Esdr. i. 28, 82, 47, 57, ii. 1; 2 Esdr. li. 18; 2 Mace. ii, 1, 5,7; Matt. ii. 17, xxvii. 9. [JEREMIAH; JEREMIAS.] These abbreviated forms were much in favor about the time that the A. V. was translated. Elsewhere we find Esay for Isaiah; and in the Homilies such abbreviations as Zachary, Toby, etc., are frequent. * JEREMY, EPISTLE OF. [Barucn, THE Book of, 7.] JERVAH (A799, i. e. Yeri-ya’hu [ founded by Jehovah]: ‘Tepid; "Exdids; [Vat. Idov8, Ivde; Alex. Iepia,] Teduas: Jeriau), a Kohathite Levite, chief of the great house of Hebron when David organized the service (1 Chr. xxiii. 19, ixxiv. 23; in the latter passage the name of Hebron has been omitted both in the Hebrew and LXX.). The same man is mentioned again, though with a slight difference in his name, as JERIJAH. JER TIBAT [3 syl.] (S297) [perh. whom Je- hovah defends]: "IapiBi; [Vat. TapiBer;] Alex. IapiBai: Jeribat), one of the Bene-Elnaam [sons of E.], named among the heroes of David’s guard in the supplemental list of 1 Chr. (xi. 46). JERICHO CWT}, J’récho, Num. xxii. 1; also Im, J’richo, Josh. ii. 1, 2, 3; and TI), S'richoh, 1K. xvi. 84; ly yf, Eriha, tors derive it from iT, jaréach, “the moo "Tapi- tiquity, and, for those days, of considerable in ance, situated in a plain traversed by the Jo, and exactly over against where that river} crossed by the Israelites under Joshua (Joslii 16). Such was either its vicinity, or the exte' its territory, that Gilgal, which formed aah mary encampment, stood in its east border (iy) That it had a king is a very secondary consi’ tion, for almost every small town had one (x'4 24); in fact monarchy was the only form of ernment known to those primitive times - government of the people of God presenti) marked exception to prevailing usage. But Jeb was further inclosed by walls —a fenced city | walls were so considerable that at least one pio (Rahab) had a house upon them (ii. 15), anit gates were shut, as throughout the East ; “when it was dark” (y. 5). Again, the spoil was found in it betokened its affluence — Ai, | kedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Lit and even Hazor, evidently contained nothing vil mentioning in comparison — besides sheep, (in and asses, we hear of vessels of brass and in These possibly may have been the first-fruilo those brass foundries “in the plain of Jordan 0 which Solomon afterwards so largely availed in self (2 Chr. iv. 17). Silver and gold was fouili such abundance that one man (Achan) coulép propriate stealthily 200 shekels (100 oz. ay. see Lewis, Heb. Rep. vi. 57) of the former, 1 ‘a wedge of gold of 50 shekels (25 oz.) weig) " ‘a goodly Babylonish garment,”’ purloined in ( same dishonesty, may be adduced as evidence |: then existing commerce between Jericho andbe far East (Josh. vi. 24, vii. 21). In fact its sa- tion alone — in so noble a plain and contiguo) so prolific.a river — would bespeak its importice in a country where these natural advantages ve been always so highly prized, and in an age ven people depended so much more upon the indigeus resources of nature than they are compelled tio now. But for the curse of Joshua (vi. 26) dot less Jericho might have proved a more formidlé counter-charm to the city of David than H Samaria. i Jericho is first mentioned as the city to wh the two spies were sent by Joshua from Shit’! they were lodged in the house of Rahab the hi upon the wall, and departed, having first pron . to save her and all that were found in her hse from destruction (ii. 1-21). In the annihilan of the city that ensued, this promise was religic y observed. Her house was recognized by the sei t line bound in the window from which the « ; were let down, and she and her relatives were tn out of it, and “ Jodged without the camp; ’ bib is nowhere said or implied that her house ese: : the general conflagration. That she “dwel place of fragrance, from TH, réiack, “to breathe,” T1977, «to smell: older commenta- @ In which case it would probably be a remnant of the old Canaanitish worship of the heavenly bodies, which has left its traces in such names as Chesil, Beth-shemesh, and others (see IDOLATRY, p. 118)) which may have been the head-quarters of the * ship indicated in the names they bear. JERICHO {” for the future; that she married Salmon f Naasson, “ prince of the children of Judah,” had by him Boaz, the husband of Ruth and snitor of David and of our Lord; and lastly, she is the first and only Gentile name that rs in the list of the faithful of the O. T. given i Paul (Josh. vi. 25; 1 Chr. ii. 10; Matt. i. eb. xi. 31), all these facts surely indicate that id not continue to inhabit the accursed site; if so, and in absence of all direct evidence Scripture, how could it ever have been inferred ner house was left standing ? _ Jericho appears again upon the scene. ex: 5). i¢ had been uninhabited. om is made of “a city of palm-trees ’ (Judg. ¢fore its first overthrow, and once after its || xxiv. 3, and 2 Chr. xxvii. 15). be difficult to prove the identity of the city jmed in the book of Judges, and as in the ry of Judah, with Jericho. However, once ce. In its immediate vicinity the sons of yophets sought retirement from the world: “healed the spring of the waters;’* and ind against it, beyond Jordan, Elijah “went a whirlwind into heaven’? (2 K. ii. 1-22). lolains Zedekiah fell into the hands of the veans (2 K. xxv. 5; Jer. xxxix. 5). By what * called a retrospective account of it, we may iat Hiel’s restoration had not utterly failed ; she return under Zerubbabel the “children tho,” 345 in number, are comprised (Ezr. iii. 2h. vii. 36); and it is even implied that they id thither again, for the men of Jericho il Nehemiah in rebuilding that part of the | Jerusalem that was next to the sheep-gate li. 2). We now enter upon its more mod- ase. The Jericho of the days of Josephus | tant 150 stadia from Jerusalem, and 50 from (dan. It lay in a plain, overhung by a bar- yuntain whose roots ran northwards towards tpolis, and southwards in the direction of K and the Dead Sea. These formed the t boundaries of the plain. Eastwards, its ‘ were the mountains of Moab, which ran 4) to the former. In the midst of the plain — {26 plain as it was called — flowed the Jor- hid at the top and bottom of it were two * Tiberias, proverbial for its sweetness, and sites for its bitterness. Away from the Jor- Was parched and unhealthy during summer; : ‘ing winter, even when it snowed at Jerusa- 4/@ inhabitants here wore linen garments. hi #ericho — bursting forth close to the site Hold city, which Joshua took on his entrance _ naam — was a most exuberant fountain, Svaters, before noted for their contrary prop- “had received, proceeds Josephus, through » Prayers, their then wonderfully salutary 0 th as it had been left by Joshua, such it was yed by him upon the tribe of Benjamin (Josh. 21), and from this time a long interval elapses It is neidentally mentioned in the life of David in ction with his embassy to the Ammonite king And the solemn manner in which cond foundation under Hiel the Bethelite is ed — upon whom the curse of Joshua is said ve descended in full force (1 K. xvi. 34) — certainly seem to imply that up to that time It is true that and iii. 13) in existence apparently at the shen spoken of; and that Jericho is twice — , foundation — designated by that name (see But it ly rebuilt, Jericho rose again slowly into con- JERICHO 1265 and prolific efficacy. Within its range — 70 stadia (Strabo says 100) by 20 — the fertility of the soil was unexampled: palms of various names and properties, some that produced honey scarce infe- rior to that of the neighborhood — opobalsamum, the choicest of indigenous fruits —eyprus (Ar. ‘“el-henna’’?) and myrobalanum (“ Zukkum”’) throve there beautifully, and thickly dotted about in pleasure-grounds (2. J. iv. 8, § 3). Wisdom herself did not disdain comparison with “ the rose- plants of Jericho” (Kcclus. xxiv. 14). Well might Strabo (Geogr. xvi. 2, § 41, ed. Miiller) conclude that its revenues were considerable. By the Ro- mans Jericho was first visited under Pompey: he encamped there for a single night; and subse- quently destroyed two forts, Threx and Taurus, that commanded its approaches (Strabo, ibid. § 40). Gabinius, in his resettlement of Judea, made it one of the five seats of assembly (Joseph. B. J. i. 8, § 5). With Herod the Great it rose to still greater prominence; it had been found full of treas- ure of all kinds, as in the time of Joshua, so by his Roman allies who sacked it (ibid. i. 15, § 6); and its revenues were eagerly sought, and rented by the wily tyrant from Cleopatra, to whom Antony had assigned them (Ant. xv. 4, § 2). Not long after- wards he built a fort there, which he called « Cy- prus”? in honor of his mother (ibid. xvi. 5); a tower, which he called in honor of his brother ‘ Phasaélus;’’ and a number of new palaces — superior in their construction to those which had existed there previously — which he named after his friends. He even founded a new town, higher up the plain, which he called, like the tower, Phasaélis (B. J. i. 21, § 8). If he did not make Jericho his habitual residence, he at least retired thither to die —and to be mourned, if he could have got his plan carried out — and it was in the amphitheatre of Jericho that the news of his death was announced to the assembled soldiers and people by Salome (B. J. i. 38, § 8). Soon afterwards the palace was burnt, and the town plundered by one Simon, a revolutionary that had been slave to Herod (Ant. xvil. 10, § 6); but Archelaus rebuilt the former sumptuously — founded a new town in the plain, that bore his own name — and, most important of all, diverted water from a village called Nezra, to irrigate the plain which he had planted with palms (Ant. xvii. 13, § 1). Thus Jericho was once more “a city of palms ’’ when our Lord visited it: such as Herod the Great and Archelaus had left it, such he saw it. As the city that had so exceptionally contributed to his own ancestry —as the city which had been the first to fall— amidst so much cere- mony — before “the captain of the Lord's host, and his servant Joshua ’*— we may well suppose that his eyes surveyed it with unwonted interest. It is supposed to have been on the rocky heights overhanging it (hence called by tradition the Quar- entana), that he was assailed by the Tempter; and over against it, according to tradition likewise, He had been previously baptized in the Jordan. Here He restored sight to the blind (two certainly, per- haps three, St. Matt. xx. 30; St. Mark x. 46: this was in leaving Jericho. St. Luke says ‘as He was come nigh unto Jericho,” ete., xviii. 35). Here the descendant of Rahab did not disdain the hospitality of Zaecheus the publican —an office which was likely to be lucrative enough in so rich a city. was laid the scene of His story of the good Samar- itan, which, if it is not to be regarded as a real Finally, between Jerusalem and Jericho 1266 JERICHO securrence throughout, at least derives interest from the fact, that robbers have ever been the terror of that precipitous road; and so formidable had they proved only just before the Christian era, that Pompey had been induced to undertake the de- struction of their strongholds (Strabo, as before, xvi. 2, § 40; comp. Joseph. Ant. xx. 6, § 1 ff.). Dagon, or Docus (1 Mace. xvi. 15; comp. ix. 50), where Ptolemy assassinated his father-in-law, Simon the Maccabee, may have been one of these. Posterior to the Gospels the chronicle of Jericho may be briefly told. Vespasian found it one of the toparchies of Judea (B. J. iii. 8, § 5), but deserted by its inhabitants in a great measure tens he encamped there (ibid. iv. 8. § 2). He left a garrison on his departure — not necessarily the 10th legion, which is only stated to have marched through Jericho — which was still there when Titus advanced upon Jerusalem. Is it asked how Jericho was destroyed? Evidently by Vespasian; for Jo- sephus, rightly understood, is not so silent as Dr. Robinson (Aibl. Res. i. 566, 2d ed.) thinks. The city pillaged and burnt, in B. J. iv. 9, § 1, was clearly Jericho with its adjacent villages, and not Gerasa, as may be seen at once by comparing the language there with that of c. 8, § 2, and the agent was Vespasian. Eusebius and St. Jerome (Ono- mast. §. v.) say that it was destroyed when Jeru- salem was besieged by the Romans. They further add that it was afterwards rebuilt — they do not say by whom —and still existed in their day; nor had the ruins of the two preceding cities been ob- literated. Could Hadrian possibly have planted a colony there when he passed through Judea and founded Alia? (Dion. Cass. Hist. lxix. ec. 11, ed. Sturz.; more at large Chron. Paschal. p. 254, ed. Du Fresne.) The discovery which Origen made there of a version of the O. T. (the 5th in his Ilexapla), together with sundry MSS., Greek and Ilebrew, suggests that it could not have been wholly without inhabitants (Kuseb. &. H. vi. 16; S. Epiphan. Lb. de Pond. et Mensur. circa med.) ; or again, as is perhaps more probable, did a Chris- tian settlement arise there under Constantine, when baptisms in the Jordan began to be the rage? That Jericho became an episcopal see about that time under Jerusalem appears from more than one an- cient Notitia (Geograph. S. a Carolo Paulo, 306, and the Parergon appended to it; comp. William of Tyre, Hist. lib. xxiii. ad f.). Its bishops sub- scribed to various councils in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries (tbid. and Le Quien’s Oriens Christian, iii. 654). Justinian, we are told, restored a hos- pice there, and likewise a church dedicated to the Virgin (Procop. De Aidif. v. 9). As early as A Dp. 337, when the Bordeaux pilgrim (ed. Wessel- ing) visited it, a house existed there which was pointed out, after the manner of those days, as the house of Rahab. This was roofless when Arculfus saw it; and not only so, but the third city was likewise in ruins (Adamn. de Locis S. ap. Migne, Patrolog. C. \xxxviii. 799). Had Jericho been visited by an earthquake, as Antoninus reports (ap. Ugol.. Thesaur. vii. p. mecxiii., and note to c. 3), and as Syria certainly was, in the 27th year of Justinian, A. D. 553? If so, we can well under- stand the restorations already referred to; and when Antoninus adds that the house of Rahab had now become a hospice and oratory, we might almost pronounce that this was the very hospice which had been restored by thatemperor. Again, it may oe asked, did Christian Jericho receive no injury astery dedicated to St. John, situated upon JERICHO | from the Persian Romizan, the ferocious gener Chosroes II. a. pb. 614? (Bar-Hebreei Chron Lat. vy. ed. Kirsch.) It would rather seem there were more religious edifices in the 7th in the 6th century round about it. Accordi Arculfus one church marked the site of G| another the spot where our Lord was suppo have deposited his garments previously to his tism; a third within the precincts of a vast’ ee rising ground .overlooking the Jordan. before.) Jericho meanwhile had disappes town to rise no more. Churches and mo sprung up around it on all sides, but on} moulder away in their turn. The anchol in the rocky flanks of the Quarentana are the| striking memorial that remains of early or m} val enthusiasm. Arculfus speaks of a dimii} race — Canaanites he calls them — that inhi the plain in great numbers in his day. The retained possession of those fairy meadow ever since, and have made their head-quarti| some centuries round the ‘square tower or ci first mentioned by Willebrand (ap. Leon. j Supper. p- 151) in A. D. 1211, when it wi habited by the Saracens, whose work it m supposed to have been, though it has sinece dignified by the name of the house of Zacc Their village is by Brocardus (ap. Canis. Th» iv. 16), in A. D. 1230, styled “a vile place: Sir J. Maundeville, in A. D. 1822, “a : lage;’? and by Henry Maundrell, in A. D.} ‘a poor nasty village;’’ in which verdict alll 0 ern travellers that have ever visited Rihai concur. (See Karly Trav. in Pal. by oF pp- 177 and 451.) They are looked upon ‘t Arabs as a debased race; and are probably niii more or less than veritable gypsies, who are |] be met with in the neighborhood of the 3 mountain near Jerusalem, and on the heightsm the village and convent of St. John in the ie and are still called “ Scomunicati”’ by the iti Christians — one of the names applied : when they first attracted notice in Europe t 15th century (2. e. from feigning then itents’’ and under censure of the Pope. Seilo land’s Histor. Survey of the Gypsies, p. Ital The Gypsies, a poem by A. P. Stanley. Jericho does not seem to have been ever rion as a town by the Crusaders; but its plains hi? ceased to be prolific, and were extensively culat and laid out in vineyards and gardens by the ie (Phocas ap. Leon. Allat. Suupixr. c.- 20, They seem to have been included in the ba the patriarchate of Jerusalem, and as suc! bestowed by Arnulf upon his niece as : (Wm. of Tyre, Hist. xi. 15). Twenty-five afterwards we find Melisendis, wife of king assigning them to the convent of Bethany, she had founded A. D. 1187. The site of ancient (the first) Jericho ‘ reason placed by Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res. 56 568) in the immediate neighborhood of thiol tain of Elisha; and that of "the: secdhid (the yi the N. T. and of Josephus) at the opening t Wady Kelt (Cherith), half an hour from thio! tain. These are precisely the sites that ont aul infer from Josephus. On the other hand much more inclined to refer the ruined aq) round Jericho to the irrigations of Archela above) than to any hypothetical ‘culture ¢ aration of sugar by the Saracens.” Jacob JERIJAH Po07 mh ‘2 TS = a ~— ia eT, LN i ety ya i WYN SS) ; SUA NY a(t Als mE aterm i n = aS nt coon ~ bas | Jericho. \!). Besides, it may fairly be questioned ithe same sugar-yielding reeds or canes ken of are not still as plentiful as ever y2 within range of the Jordan (see Lynch’s ’é, events of April 16, also p. 266-67). S very reed in these regions distils a sugary yd almost every herb breathes fragrance. sve indeed disappeared (there was a solitary ‘ining not long since) from the neighbor- Ghe “city of palms; ”’ yet there were groves “a the days of Arculfus, and palm-branches * be cut there when Fulcherius traversed Hn, A. D. 1100 (ap. Gesta Dei per Francos, tI, p. 402). The fig-mulberry or « tree- i Zaecheus —which all modern travellers MW with our Acer pseudoplitanus, or com- ‘nore (see Dict. d’ Hist. Nat. tom. xliii. p. hruden’s Concord. s. v.) — mentioned by haux pilgrim and by Antoninus, no longer “ “he opobalsamum has become extinct both ~ whither Cleopatra is said to have trans- d)—and in its favorite vale, Jericho. The @ um (Zukkum of the Arabs) alone survives, | ts nut oil is still extracted. Honey may land here and there, in the nest of the | _ SGGe (also (Jerusalem und das heil. Land, i. 610) MW iis tree has entirely disappeared from this \t. Tristram makes a different statement. 7\ nto which the publican climbed must not led with the oriental plane common by the * Northern Galilee, but was the sycamore “yeomorus). . . . We were gratified by the T)iat though scarce it is not yet extinct im | 5 generally, that the plains of the Jordan 1 canes yielding sugar in abundance, — wbanon to the Dead Sea,—and when he jf the mode in which sugar was obtained ‘m, he is rather describing what was done than anywhere near Jericho (Hist. Hiero- wild bee. Fig-trees, maize, and cucumbers, may be said to comprise all that is now cultivated in the plain; but wild flowers of brightest and most va- ried hue bespangle the rich herbage on all sides. Lastly, the bright yellow apples of Sodom are still to be met with round Jericho; though Jose- phus (B. J. iv. 84) and others (Havercamp, ad Tertull. Apol. c. 40, and Jacob of Vitry, as above) make their locality rather the shores of the Dead Sea: and some modern travellers assert that they are found out of Palestine no less (Bibl. Res. i. 522 ff). In fact there are two different plants that, correctly or incorrectly, have obtained that name, both bearing bright yellow fruit like apples, but with no more substance than fungus-balls.- The former or larger sort seems confined in Pales- tine to the neighborhood of the Dead Sea, while the latter or smaller sort abounds near Jericho. E. 8. Ff. JE/RIEL (ONY [founded by God]: "Ie piha; [Vat. Peina:] Jeriel), a man of Issachar, one of the six heads of the house of Towa at the time of the census in the time of David (1 Chr. vii. 2). JERIVJAH (7999 [founded by Jehovah]: Otpias; [Vat. rov Aeras;] Alex. Iwpias: Jeria), 1 Chr. xxvi. 31. [The same man as JERIAH, with a slight difference in the form of the name.] The difference consists in the omission of the final u, the Plain of Jericho, as we found two aged trees in the little ravine [near the channel of Wady Kelt), in illustration of the Gospel narrative” (Land of Israel, p- 220, and also p. 514, 2d ed.) He also found a few of these trees “among the ruins by the wayside at ancient Jericho” (Natural History of the Bible, p. 359, Lond. 1867). [Zaccuxus.] H 1268 JERIMOTH not in the insertion of the j, which our translators should have added in the former case. JER/IMOTH (YIN) [heights]: lepindo, "Tapia, "Iepiovd: Jerimoth). 1. ['epiuov0; Vat. Apesuw.] Son or descend- ant of Bela, according to 1 Chr. vii. 7, and founder of a Benjamite house, which existed in the time of David (ver. 2). He is perhaps the same as — 2. (Apiuov0; [Vat. Apeiuov0;] Alex. Iapi- uovd; [FA. apiOuous:] Jerimuth), who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 5). [BrLa.] 3. (WI, i. e. Jeremoth: [Tepiuod0; Vat. Avpeuw6; Alex. Iepyuw0.]) A son of Becher (1 Chr. vii. 8), and head of another Benjamite house. [ BECHER. ] 4. [’lepiud0; Vat. Apeyuw.] Son of Mushi, the son of Merari, and head of one of the families of the Merarites which were counted in the census of the Levites taken by David (1 Chr. xxiv. 30). [See JEREMOTH, 2. ] 5. ['lepiyd0; Vat. lepeuw0; Alex. Tepmovd. | Son of Heman, head of the 15th ward of musi- cians (1 Chr. xxv. 4, 22). In the latter he is called JeREMOTH. [HEMAN.] 6. ['Tepyud0; Alex. -uovd; Vat. Epesuw6.] Son of Azriel, “ruler”? (923) of the tribe of Naphtali in the reign of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 19). The same persons, called rulers, are in ver. 22 called “ princes ”” (cw) of the tribes of Israel. 7. (‘Iepiudv0; [Vat. -per-;] Alex. Epuovd.) Son of king David, whose daughter Mahalath was one of the wives of Rehoboam, her cousin Abihail being the other (2 Chr. xi. 18). As Jerimoth is not named in the list of children by David’s wives in 1 Chr. iii. or xiv. 4-7, it is fair to infer that he was the son of a concubine, and this in fact is the Jew- ish tradition (Jerome, Questiones, ad loc.). It is however questionable whether Rehoboam would have married the grand-child of a concubine even of the great David. The passage 2 Chr. xi. 18 is not quite clear, since the word “daughter” is a correction of the Keri: the original text had 72, t. €. 6 son.” 8. [’Iepiud0; Vat. -pe-.] A Levite in the reign of Hezekiah, one of the overseers of offerings and dedicated things placed in the chambers of the Temple, who were under Cononiah and Shimei the Levites, by command of Hezekiah, and Azariah the high-priest (2 Chr. xxxi. 13). A. CLE JE’RIOTH cay? [curtains]: "Lepid0; [Vat. EAw: Jerioth]), according to our A. V. ‘and the LXX., one of the elder Caleb’s wives (1 Chr. ii. 18); but according to the Vulgate she was his daughter by his first wife Azubah. The He- brew text seems evidently corrupt, and will not make sense; but the probability is that Jerioth was a daughter of Caleb the son of Hezron. (In this case we ought to read TDWY 0 point Fw.) The Latin version of Santes Pagninus, which makes Azubah and Jerioth both daughters of Caleb, and the note of Vatablus, which makes Ishah (A. V. “wife’’) a proper name and a third @ According to the old Jewish tradition preserved py Jerome (Quest. Hebr. 2 Sam. xvi. 10), Nebat, the father «{ Jeroboam, was identical with Shimei of Gera, JEROBOAM ) daughter, are clearly wrong. as it appears fro 19 that Azubah was Caleb’s wife. Ava. JEROBO’/AM (oy2>> == Yarab’am: Bodu). The name signifies “ whose pec many,’ and thus has nearly the same m with ReHoBOAM, “ enlarger of the people.” names appear for the first time in the reign | omon, and were probably suggested by the i of the Jewish people at that time. ; 1. The first king of the divided kingdom rael. The ancient authorities for his reign : wars were “the Chronicles of the Kings of | (1 K. xiv. 19}, and “the visions of Iddo t} against Jeroboam the son of Nebat” (2 ( 29). The extant account of his life is given versions, so different from each other, and y so ancient, as to make it difficult to choose t them. The one usually followed is that eo in the Hebrew text, and in one portion of th The other is given in a separate account } by the LXX. at 1 K. xi. 48, and xii. 24) last contains such evident marks of authent some of its details, and is so much more ft) the other, that it will be most conyvenientl) as the basis of the biography of this ren man, as the nearest approach which, in | dictory state of the text, we can, now mak truth. ; I. He was the son of an Ephraimite of thr of Nebat; @ his father had died whilst he was) but his mother, who had been a person |. character (LXX.), lived in her widowhood, ‘s apparently to her son for support. Her t variously given as ZERUAH (Heb.), or} (LXX.), and the place of their abode on thi tains of Ephraim is given either as Zan (LXX.) as Sarira: in the latter case, ini that there was some connection between of Nebat and her residence. At the time when Solomon was construc(s fortifications of Millo underneath the ci? Zion, his sagacious eye discovered the ; and activity of a young Ephraimite who ployed on the works, and he raised him to of superintendent (795, A.V. “ruler”) taxes and labors exacted from the tribe of (1 K. xi. 28). This was Jeroboam. Hei most of his position. He completed the. tions, and was long afterwards known as & who had “enclosed the city of David” 24, LXX.). He then aspired to royal sta Absalom before him, in like cireumstances now on a grander scale, in proportion to/! largement of the royal establishment itself@ 300 chariots and horses (LXX.), and at's! perceived by Solomon to be aiming at 1)! archy. : \ These ambitious designs were probably)s by the sight of the growing disaffection of?! tribe over which he presided, as well 4” alienation of the prophetic order from thet Solomon. According to the version of 1) ' in the Hebrew text (Jos. Ant. viii. 7,7) alienation was made evident to Jeroboam in his career. He was leaving Jerusaler#! encountered, on one of the black-paved ro}™ ! — 2 Ser ER SS ee who was the first to insult David in his f the “ first of all the house of Joseph ” to co/™ him on his return. ce ; JEROBOAM of the city, Ahijah, “the prophet ”’ of the sanctuary of Shiloh. Ahijah drew him om the road into the field (ILXX.), and, as ; they found themselves alone, the prophet, s dressed in a new outer garment, stripped ind tore it into 12 shreds; 10 of which he Jeroboam, with the assurance that on con- of his obedience to His laws, God would h for him a kingdom and dynasty equal to David (1 K. xi. 29-40). attempts of Solomon to cut short Jeroboam’s occasioned his flight into Egypt. There xined during the rest of Solomon's reign — court of Shishak (LXX.), who is here first in the sacred narrative. On Solomon’s 1e demanded Shishak’s permission to return. ryptian king seems, in his reluctance, to fered any gift which Jeroboam chose, as a for his remaining, and the consequence was rriage with Ano, the elder sister of the n queen, Tahpenes (LX X. Thekemina), and her princess (LXX.) who had married the 2 chief, Hadad. A year elapsed, and a son, (or Abijam), was born. Then Jeroboam equested permission to depart, which was ; and he returned with his wife and child native place, Sarira, or Zereda, which he ,and which in consequence became a centre sliow tribesmen (1 K. xi. 43, xii. 24, LX X.). ‘re was no open act of insurrection, and it this period of suspense (according to the that a pathetic incident darkened his do- history. His infant son fell sick. The father sent his wife to inquire of God con- him. Jerusalem would have been the obvi- 2 to visit for this purpose. But no doubt reasons forbade. ‘The ancient sanctuary 1 was nearer at hand; and it so happened tophet was now residing there, of the high- ‘e. It was Ahijah — the same who, accord- € common version of the story, had already ‘communication with Jeroboam, but who, g to the authority we are now following, for the first time on this occasion. He years of age —but was prematurely old, eyesight had already failed him. He was ) it would seem, in poverty, with a boy ed on him, and with his own little chil- ow him and for them, the wife of Jeroboam | such gifts as were thought likely to be e; ten loaves, and two rolls for the chil- .X.), a bunch of raisins (LXX.), and a jmey. She had disguised herself, to avoid 1yn; and perhaps these humble gifts were she plan. But the blind prophet, at her roach, knew who was coming; and bade 0 out to meet her, and invite her to his hout delay. here he warned her of the is of her gifts. There was a doom on the Jeroboam, not to be averted; those who ‘n it and died in the city would become (of the hungry dogs; they who died in the vould be devoured by the vultures. ‘This 4e would die before the calamities of the ived: “They shall mourn for the child, vord, for in him there is found a good irding the Lord,’ —or according to the Jon, “all Israel shall mourn for him, and “ mission is however borne out by the Hebrew i. 20, “when all Israel heard that J. was L. JEROBOAM 1269 bury him; for he only of Jeroboain shall come to the grave, because in him there is found some good thing toward Jehovah, the God of Israel, in the house of Jeroboam”’ (1 K. xiv. 13, LXX. xii.) The mother returned. As she reéntered the town of Sarira (Heb. Tirzah, 1 K. xiv. 17), the child died. The loud wail of her attendant damsels greeted her on the threshold (LXX.). The child was buried, as Ahijah had foretold, with all the state of the child of a royal house. “ All Israel mourned for him” (1 K. xiv. 18). This incident, if it really occurred at this time, seems to have been the turning point -in Jeroboam’s career. It drove him from his ancestral home, and it gathered the sympathies of the tribe of Ephraim round him. He left Sarira and came to Shechem. The Hebrew text describes that he was sent for. The LXX. speaks of it as his own act. However that may be, he was thus at the head of the northern tribes, when Rehoboam, after he had been on the throne for somewhat more than a year, came up to be inaugurated in that ancient capital. ‘Then (if we may take the account already given of Ahijah’s interview as something separate from this), for the second time, and in a like manner, the Divine intimation of his future greatness is conveyed to him. ‘The prophet Shemaiah, the Enlamite (?) (6 ’EvAaui, LXX.) addressed to him the same acted parable. in the ten shreds of a new unwashed garment (LXX.). Then took place the conference with Rehoboam (Jeroboam appearing in it, in the Hebrew text, but not @ in the LXX.), and the final revolt; ® which ended (expressly in the Hebrew text, in the LXX. by implication) in the elevation of Jeroboam to the throne of the northern kingdom. Shemaiah remained on the spot and deterred Re- hoboam from an attack. Jeroboam entered at once on the duties of his new situation, and fortified Shechem as his capital on the west, and Penuel (close by the old trans-Jordanic capital of Mahanaim) on the east. II. Up to this point there had been nothing to disturb the anticipations of the Prophetic Order and of the mass of Israel as to the glory of Jero- boam’s future. But from this moment one fatal error crept, not unnaturally, into his policy, which undermined his dynasty and tarnished his name as the first king of Israel. The political disruption of the kingdom was complete; but its religious unity was as yet unimpaired. He feared that the yearly pilgrimages to Jerusalem would undo all the work which he effected, and he took the bold step of rending it asunder. Two sanctuaries of venerable antiquity existed already — one at the southern, the other at the northern extremity of his dominions. These he elevated into seats of the national worship, which should rival the newly established Temple at Jerusalem. As Abderrahman, caliph of Spain, arrested the movement of his subjects to Mecca, by the erection of the holy place of the Zecca at Cor- dova, so Jeroboam trusted to the erection of his shrines at Dan and Bethel. But he was not satis- fied without another deviation from the Mosaic idea of the national unity. His long stay in Egypt had familiarized him with the outward forms under which the Divinity was there represented; and now, for the first time since the Exodus, was an Egyptian element introduced into the national worship of b The cry of revolt, 1 K. xii. 16, is the same as tha‘ in 2 Sam. xx. 1. 1270 JEROBOAM Palestine. A golden figure of Mnevis, the sacred ealf of Heliopolis, was set up at each sanctuary, with the address, * Behold thy God (+ Elohim ’ — comp. Neh. ix. 18) which brought. thee up out of the land of Egypt.”’ The sanctuary at DAN, as the most remote from Jerusalem, was established first (1 K. xii. 30) with priests from the distant tribes, whom he consecrated instead of the Levites (xii. 31, xiii. 33). The more important one, as nearer the capital and in the heart of the kingdom, was BETHEL. The worship and the sanctuary con- tinued till the end of the northern kingdom. The priests were supplied by a peculiar form of conse- cration— any one from the non-Levitical tribes could procure the office on sacrificing a young bul-. lock and seven rams (1 K. xiii. 833; 2 Chr. xiii. 9). For the dedication of this he copied the precedent of Solomon in choosing the feast of Tabernacles as the occasion; but postponing it for a month, prob- ably in order to meet the vintage of the most northern parts. On the fifteenth day of this month (the 8th), he went up in state to offer incense on the altar which was before the calf. It was at this solemn and critical moment that a prophet from Judah suddenly appeared, whom Josephus with great probability identifies with Iddo the Seer (he calls him Iad6n, Amt. viii. 8, § 5; and see Jerome, Qu. Hebr. on 2 Chr. x. 4), who denounced the altar, and foretold its desecration by Josiah, and violent overthrow. It is not clear from the account, whether it is intended that the overthrow took place then, or in the earthquake described by Amos (i. 1). Another sign is described as taking place instantly. ‘The king stretching out his hand to arrest the prophet, felt it withered and paralyzed, and only at the prophet’s prayer saw it restored, and acknowledged his divine mission. Josephus adds, but probably only in conjecture from the sacred narrative, that the prophet who seduced Iddo on his return, did so in order to. prevent his ob- taining too much influence over Jeroboam, and endeavored to explain away the miracles to the king, by representing that the altar fell because it was new, and that his hand was paralyzed from the fatigue of sacrificing. A further allusion is made to this incident in the narrative of Josephus (Ant. viii. 15, § 4), where Zedekiah is represented as contrasting the potency of Iddo in withering the hand of Jeroboam with the powerlessness of Micaiah to wither the hand of Zedekiah. The visit of Ano to Ahijah, which the common Hebrew text places after this event, and with darker intimations in Ahijah’s warning only suitable to a later period, has already been described Jeroboam was at consta:t war with the house ‘of Judah, but the only act distinctly recorded is a battle with Abijah, son of Rehoboam; in which, in spite of a skillful ambush made by Jeroboam, and of much superior force, he was defeated, and for the time lost three important cities, Bethel, Jeshanah, and Ephraim.¢ The calamity was severely felt; he never recovered the blow, and soon after died, in the 22d year of his reign (2 Chr. xiii. 20), and was buried in his ancestral sepulchre (1 K. xiv. 20). His son Nadab, or (LX X.) Nebat (named after the zrandfather), succeeded, and in him the dynasty was closed. The name of Jeroboam long remained mder a cloud as the king who “ had caused Israel a The Targum on Ruth iv. 20 mentions Jeroboam’s naving stationed guards on the roads, which guards bad been slain by the people of Netophah ; but what - JEROHAM to sin.” At the time of the Reformation, a common practice of Roman Catholie wri institute comparisons between his separatio: the sanctuary of Judah, and that of Henry from the see of Rome. 2. JEROBOAM II., the son of Joash, the the dynasty of Jehu. ‘The most prosperous kings of Israel. ‘The contemporary account; reign are, (1.) in the ‘Chronicles of the Kj Israel’? (2 K. xiv. 28), which are lost, but of the substance is given in 2 K. xiv. 23-29. | the contemporary prophets Hosea and Am) (perhaps) in the fragments found in Is. x! It had been foretold in the reign of Jehoah) a great deliverer should come, to rescue Isra the Syrian yoke (comp. 2 K. xiii. 4, xiy. ¢) and this had been expanded into a distinct tion of Jonah, that there should be a restora| the widest dominion of Solomon (xiv. 5)./ ‘‘savior’’ and ‘restorer’? was Jeroboam. | only repelled the Syrian invaders, but too! capital city Damascus (2 K. xiv. 28; Am. | and recovered the whole of the ancient | from Hamath to the Dead Sea (xiv. 25; . 14). Ammon and Moab were reconquere: i. 13, ii. 1-3); the trans-Jordanic tribes Ww stored to their territory (2 K. xiii. 5; 1 | 17-22). But it was merely an outward restoratior| sanctuary at Bethel was kept up in roys (Am. vii. 13), but drunkenness, licentiousn¢ oppression, prevailed in the country (Am. | iv. 1, vi. 6: Hos. iv. 12-14, i. 2), and idola united with the worship of Jehovah (Hos’. xiii. 6). Amos prophesied the destruction of Je) and his house by the sword (Am. vii. 9, : ' q Amaziah, the high-priest of Bethel, comple the king (Am. vii. 10-13). The effeet dj} appear. Hosea (Hos. i. 1) also denouni crimes of the nation. The prediction of Ais not fulfilled as regarded the king himself. 2 buried with his ancestors in state (2 K. xiv) Ewald (Gesch. iii. 561, note) supposes thy boam was the subject of Ps. xlyv. A. ik JERO’/HAM (O19 [one beloved] ham). 1. (IepoBodu, both MSS. [ratheR Alex.] at 1 Chr. vi. 27; but Alex. Tepeom? 34; [in 1 Sam., ‘Iepewefa, Comp. Alex. “0 in 1 Chr., Vat. Idaep, Haar; Comp. ‘0 ‘lepdu: Ald. ‘lepeuehaA-]) Father of Elka father of Samuel, of the house of Kohat: father is called Eliab at 1 Chr. vi. 27, Elie been about the same age as Eli. 2. CIpodu, [ Vat. Ipaap, | Alex. "Teper Benjamite, and the founder of a family oP Jeroham (1 Chr. viii. 27). They were amg leaders of that part of the tribe which ed Jerusalem, and which is here distinguish’ ' the part which inhabited Gibeon. Probiy same person is intended in — ie 3. (‘IepoBodu, [Vat. Ipaau, Comp ‘lepodu.]) Father (or progenitor) of Ibne)s of the leading Benjamites of Jerusalem (1) 8; comp. 3 and 9). : 4. (‘Ipadu, Alex. Iepaap, [Comp: Ald. p? is here alluded to, or when it took place, wi# present no clew to. JERUBBAAL feh., Rom. Alex. ‘Iepodu, Vat. FA.! omit.]) scendant of Aaron, of the house of Immer, the x of the sixteenth course .of priests; son of ur and father of Adaiah (1 Chr. ix. 12). He ars to be mentioned again in Neh. xi. 12 cord curiously and puzzlingly parallel to that Shr. ix., though with some striking differences), gh there he is stated to belong to the house of hiah, who was leader of the fifth course (and ). Neh. xi. 14). (Ipodu, [Vat. FA. Paau, Alex. Iepoau.]) 1am of Gedor (7737 75), some of whose s” joined David when he was taking refuge Saul at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 7). The list pur- to be of Benjamites (see ver. 2, where the “even”? is interpolated, and the last five 3 belong to ver. 3). But then how can the nee of Korhites (ver. 6), the descendants of h the Levite, be accounted for ? (IpwaB, [ Vat. Ald.] Alex. "Iwpdy.) A ‘e, whose son or descendant Azareel was head tribe in the time of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 22). ‘(Iwpdu.) Father of Azariah, one of the vains of hundreds ” in the time of Athaliah; * those to whom Jehoiada the priest confided vheme for the restoration of Joash (2 Chr. po G. ‘RUBBA’AL (Oya [with whom Baal ds): ‘IepoBdaa; [Vat. in Judg. vi. 32, Ap- ‘vii. 1, lapBaa ; viii. 29, TeapoBaadr; 1 Sam. |, TepoBoayu;| Alex. Siaacrnpiov tov Baad, Vi. 32, IpoBuaad in vii. 1: Jerobaal), the ne of Gideon which he acquired in conse- + of destroying the altar of Baal, when his defended him from the vengeance of the Abi- The A. V. of Judg. vi. 32, which has fore on that day he called him Jerubbaal,” ng that the surname was given by Joash, _Yather be, in accordance with a well-known Vv idiom, ‘one called him,” 7. e. he was by the men of his city. The LXX. in the vassage have éxdAecey avd, ‘he called it,” ,e altar mentioned in the preceding verse; in all other passages they recognize Jerub- § the name of Gideon, the reading should ly be airdéy. In Judg. viii. 35 the Vulg. ‘follows the Heb., Jerobaal Gedeon. The ersion omits the name altogether from J udg. ) Besides the passages quoted, it-is found in f7l. 1, viii. 29, ix. 1, 5, 16, 19, 24, 28, and ‘xii 11. In a fragment of Porphyry, quoted ebius (Prep. Ev. i. 9, § 21), Gideon appears “ombalos (‘IepouBdados), the priest of the | ud, or Jehovah, from whom the Pheenician ler, Sanchoniatho of Beyrout, received his tion with regard to the affairs of the Jews. | —si‘“‘j#s | 2th eee A eos avaBdcews, Aeyouevns 8 eEoxys, Jos. Ant. ae er names borne by Jerusalem are as follows : 4 the “lion of God,” or according to another ation, the “ hearth of God ” (istixxix 152.77 Pt. xliii. 15). For the former signification com- \Ixxvi. 1, 2 (Stanley, S. § P. 171). 2. ‘H éyia 5) the holy city,” Matt. iv. 5 and xxvii, 53 only. | $e passages would seem to refer to Zion — the xrtion of the place, in which the Temple was It also occurs, 4 7. 4 ay., Rev. xi. 2. i apitolina, the name bestowed by the emperor (A@llius Hadrianus) on the city as rebuilt by 4». 185, 136. These two names of the Emperor ibed on the well-known stone in the south JERUSALEM 1271 It is not a little remarkable that Josephus omits all mention both of the change of name and of the event it commemorates. [GIDEON.] Worry: J ERUBBE’SHETH (WS) : LXX., fol- lowed by the Vulgate, reads ‘IepoBdaa, or [Vat. H. IepoBaan, Vat. M. and | Cod. Alex. IepoBoap), a name of Gideon (2 Sam. xi. 21). A later gen- eration probably abstained from pronouncing the name (Ex. xxiii. 13) of a false god, and therefore changed Gideon’s name (Judg. vi. 32) of Jerub- baal = “ with whom Baal contends,’ into Jerub- besheth = “ with whom the idol contends.” Comp. similar changes (1 Chr. viii. 33, 34) of Eshbaal for Ishbosheth, and Meribbaal for Mephibosheth. VWaviDhe: JERU’EL, WILDERNESS or (Osan TVS [desert founded by God]: h épnuos Tepiha: Jeruel), the place in which Je- hoshaphat was informed by Jahaziel the Levite that he should encounter the hordes of Ammon, Moab, and the Mehunims, who were swarming round the south end of the Dead Sea to the attack of Jeru- salem: “Ye shall find them at the end of the wady, facing the wilderness of Jeruel” (2 Chr. xx. 16). The “wilderness”? contained a watch-tower (ver. 24), from which many a similar incursion had probably been descried. It was a well-known spot, for it has the definite article. Or the word (THY) may mean a commanding ridge,* be- low which the «wilderness ” lay open to view. The name has not been met with, but may yet be found in the neighborhood of Tekoa and Berachah (perhaps Beretkut), east of the road between Urtds and Hebron. G. JERUSALEM (O27, i. ¢. Yerd- shalaim ; or, in the more extended form, prrr'at, in 1 Chr. iii. 5, 2 Chr. xxv. 1, xxxii. 9, Esth. ii. 6, Jer. xxvi. 18, only; in the Chaldee passages of Ezra and Daniel, pris, 7. e. Yertishlem: LXX. ‘Iepou- carn; N. T. apparently indifferently ‘IepovcaAhu and r& ‘IepoodAupua: Vulg. Cod. Amiat. Hierusalem and Hierosolyma, but in other old copies Jerusalem, Jerosolyma. In the A.V. of 1611 it is “Teru- salem,’’ in O. T. and Apoer.; but in N. T. “ Hieru- salem ’’).} THE On the derivation and signification of the name considerable difference exists among the authorities. The Rabbis state that the name Shalem was be- stowed on it by Shem (identical in their traditions with Melchizedek), and the name Jireh by Abra- ham, after the deliverance of Isaac on Mount Moriah,¢ and that the two were afterwards com- a a ee a ee wall of the Aksa, one of the few Roman relics about which there can be no dispute, This name is usually employed by Eusebius (AiA‘a) and Jerome, in their Onomasticon, By Ptolemy it is given as KamurwAvds (Reland, Pal. p. 462). 4. The Arabic names are el- Khuds, “the holy,” or Beit el-Makdis, * the holy house,” “the sanctuary.” The former is that in ordinary use at present. The latter is found in Arabic chronicles. The name esh-Sherif, “ the venerable,” or “the noble,” is also quoted by Schultens in his Index Geogr. in Vit. Salad. 5. The corrupt form of Aurushlim is found in Edrisi (Jaubert, i. 345), possibly quoting a Christian writer. ¢ The question of the identity of Moria with Jerusalem will be examined under that head. 1272 JERUSALEM pined, lest, displeasure should be felt by either of the two Saints at the exclusive use of one (Beresh. Rab. in Otho, Lex. Rab. s. y., also Lightfoot). Others, quoted by Reland (p. 833), would make it mean “ fear of Salem,’’ or “sight of peace.” The suggestion of Reland himself, adopted by Simonis (Onom. p. 467), and Ewald (Gesch. iii. 155, note) is pw) WAT, «inheritance of peace,” but this is questioned by Gesenius (Thes. p. 628 6) and Fiirst (Handwh. p. 547 6), who prefer ep) 7, the ‘foundation of peace.’’?* Another derivation, proposed by the fertile Hitzig (Jesaja, p. 2), is named by the two last great scholars only to con- demn it. Others again, looking to the name of the Canaanite tribe who possessed the place at the time of the conquest, would propose Jebus-salem (Reland, p- 834), or even Jebus-Solomon, as the name con- ferred on the city by that monarch when he began his reign of tranquillity. Another controversy relates to the termination of the name— Jerushalaim — the Hebrew dual; which, by Simonis and Ewald, is unhesitatingly referred to the double formation of the city, while reasons are shown against it by Reland and Gese- nius. It is certain that on the two occasions where the latter portion of the name appears to be given for the whole (Gen. xiv. 18; Ps. Ixxvi. 2) it is Shalem, and not Shalaim; also that the five places where the vowel points of the Masorets are sup- ported by the letters of the original text are of a late date, when the idea of the double city, and its reflection in the name, would have become familiar to the Jews. In this conflict of authorities the suggestion will perhaps occur to a bystander that the “original formation of the name may have been anterior to the entrance of the Israelites on Canaan, and that Jerushalaim may be the attempt to give an intelligible Hebrew form to the original archaic name, just as centuries afterwards, when Hebrews in their turn gave way to Greeks, attempts were made to twist Jerushalaim itself into a shape which should be intelligible to Greek ears,° ‘Iepo coAuma, “the holy panlitats (Joseph. B. J. vi. 10), ‘Tepdv Sadrouavos,® the *“ holy place of Solomon ”’ (Eupolemus, in Euseb. Pi. /v. ix. 84), or, on the other hand, the curious fancy quoted by Josephus (Ap. i. 34, 35) from Lysimachus — ‘lepdovaa, “spoilers of temples’? — are perhaps not more violent adaptations, or more wide of the real mean- ing of “ Jerusalem,” than that was of the original name of the city The subject of Jerusalem naturally divides itself into three heads: — I. The place itself: physical characteristics. II. The annals of the city. III. The topography of the town; its origin, position, and the relative @ Such mystical interpretations as those of Origen, ro mvedpa xdpitos avt@y (from TT) and nw), or iepov cipyvns, Where half the name is interpreted as Greek and half as Hebrew, curious as they are, cannot be examined here. (See the catalogues preserved by Terome. ) b Other instances of similar Greek forms given to WIebrew names are Iepixe and ‘Tepoucé. e Philo carries this a step further, and, bearing in view only the sanctity of the place, he discards, the Semitic member of the name, and calls it ‘Tepdmodts. JERUSALEM localities of its various parts; the sites of “ Holy Places’? ancient. and modern, ete. __ ) I. THE PLACE ITSELF. | The arguments — if arguments they can be ¢ — for and against the identity of the “ Salem’ Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 18) with Jerusalem — “Salem”? of a late Psalmist (Ps. Ixxyi. 2)— almost equally balanced. In favor of it are, unhesitating statement of Josephus (Ant. i. 1( vii. 3, 2; B. J. vi. 10¢) and Eusebius (0; ‘lepovcadnu); the recurrence of the name §; in the Psalm just quoted, where it undoubj means Jerusalem, and the general consent in; identification. On the other hand is the no positive statement of Jerome, grounded on ) reason than he often vouchsafes for his stateme) (Ep. ad Evangelum, § 7), that “ Salem | Jerusalem, as Josephus and all Christians (n omnes) helieve it to be, but a town near Seythoy: which to this day is called Salem, where the : nificent ruins of the palace of Melehizedek arej seen, and of which mention is made in a subseg passage of Genesis — ‘Jacob came to Salem, aj of Shechem’ (Gen. xxxiii. 18).’’ Elsewhere ‘ masticon, Salem *’) Eusebius and he identi) with Shechem itself. This question will be aise under the head of SALEM. Here it is sufficiet say (1) that Jerusalem suits the cireumstane; the narrative rather better than any place fui north, or more in the heart of the country) would be quite as much in Abram’s road fror| sources of Jordan to his home under the oa‘ Hebron, and it would be more suitable for thes of the king of Sodom. In fact we know th later times ee least, the usual route from Damit avoided the central highlands of the countr,n the neighborhood of Shechem, where Salim i io shown. (See Pompey’s route in Joseph. Anti 3,§4; 4,§1.) (2) It is perhaps some cont tion of the identity, at any rate it is a eal coincidence, that the king of Jerusalem in the| of Joshua should bear the title otis almost precisely the same as that of Melchize:. The question of the identity of Jerusalemit “Cadytis, a large city of Syria,” “ almost ast as Sardis,” which is mentioned by Herodoti(! 159, iii. 5) as having been taken by Pharaoh-Mi need not be investigated in this place. It is 2 esting, and, if decided in the affirmative, | if important as confirming the Scripture nar ¥ but does not in any way add to our knowlec A : the history of the city. The reader will fi | fully examined in Rawlinson’s Herod. ii. # Blakesley’s Herod. — Kxcursus on bk. iii. + (both against the identification); and in Kerk Egypt, ii. 406, and Dict. of Gr. and Rom. (9 ii. 17 (both for it). a It is exactly the complement of wéAus Sodvpa (18 nias, viii. 16). d In this passage he even goes so far as to sa Melchizedek, * the first priest of God,” built thi™ first Temple, and changed the name of the cit Soluma to Hierosoluma. 3 e A contraction analogous to others with wh} are familiar in our own poetry ; e. gr. Edin, or for Edinburgh. le f Winer is wrong in stating (Realwb. ii. 7 Jerome bases this statement on a rabbinical tray” The tradition that he quotes, in § 5 of the sani “ is as to the identity of Melchizedek with Shem JERUSALEM w need we do more than refer to the traditions traditions they are, and not mere individual lations — of Tacitus (Hist. vy. 2) and Plutarch 4 Osir. c. 31) of the foundation of the city certain Hierosolymus, a son of the Typhon Winer’s note, i. 545). All the certain infor- n to be gathered as to the early history of alem, must be gathered from the books of the h historians alone. is during the conquest of the country that alem first appears in definite form on the in which it was destined to occupy so prom- a position. ‘The earliest notice is probably n Josh. xv. 8 and xviii. 16, 28, describing the iarks of the boundaries of Judah and Benja- Here it is styled ha-Jebusi, 7: e. “the Jebu- (A. V. Jebusi), after the name of its occu- just as is the case with other places in these _[Jevust.] Next, we find the form JEBus . xix. 10, 11) — “Jebus, which is Jerusalem . the city of the Jebusites;”’ and lastly, in ients which profess to be of the same age as egoing — we have Jerusalem (Josh. x. 1, &., 3 Judg. i. 7, &c.). To this we have a par- 1 Hebron, the other great city of Southern ‘ne, which bears the alternative title of Kir- \rba in these very same documents. 4 one of the obvious peculiarities of Jerusalem ‘to which Professor Stanley appears to have ie first to call attention — that it did not » the capital till a comparatively late date in reer of the nation. Bethel, Shechem, He- ‘iad their beginnings in the earliest periods onal life — but Jerusalem was not only not city, it was not even possessed by the Israel- | they had gone through one complete stage ‘'’ life in Palestine, and the second — the shy —had been fairly entered on. (See *, 8S. & P. p. 169.) ; ‘explanation of this is no doubt in some e to be found in the fact that the seats of ‘ernment and the religion of the nation were ‘ly fixed farther north — first at Shechem iiloh; then at Gibeah, Nob, and Gibeon; 'salso no doubt partly due to the natural 1 of Jerusalem. The heroes of Joshua's ho traced the boundary-line which was to ; the possessions of Judah and Benjamin, iter passing the spring of En-rogel, they jong the “ravine of the son of Hinnom,” ‘ked up to the “southern shoulder of the i: (Josh. xv. 7, 8), must have felt that to ights so great and so steep would have fully ven their tried prowess. We shall see, when ce through the annals of the city, that it tually resist the tribes of Judah and Simeon iy years later. But when, after the death sheth, David became king of a united and people, it was necessary for him to leave “ote Hebron and approach nearer to the bulk minions. At the same time it was impos- 4S appears from an examination of the two cor- ag documents, Josh. xv. 7, 8, and xviii. 16, line was drawn from En-shemesh — probably wud, below Bethany — to En-rogel — either 4'b, or the Fountain of the Virgin ; thence it || the ravine of Hinnom and the southern (of the Jebusite — the steep slope of the tion; climbed the heights on the west of the md struck: off to the spring at Nephtoah, ui Lifta. The other view, which is made the | by Blunt in one of his ingenious “ coinci- JERUSALEM 1273 sible to desert the great tribe to which he belonged, and over whom he had been reigning for seven years. Out of this difficulty Jerusalem was the natural escape, and accordingly at Jerusalem David fixed the seat of his throne and the future sanctuary of his nation. The boundary between Judah and Benjamin the north boundary of the former and the south of the latter, ran at the foot of the hill on which the city stands, so that the city itself was actually in Benjamin, while by crossing the narrow ravine of Hinnom you set foot on the territory of Judah. That it was not far enough to the north to com- mand the continued allegiance of the tribe of Ephraim, and the others which lay above him, is obvious from the fact of the separation which at last took place. It is enough for the vindication of David in having chosen it to remember that that separation did not take place during the reigns of himself or his son, and was at last precipitated by misgovernment combined with feeble short- sightedness. And if not actually in the centre of Palestine, it was yet virtually so. “It was on the ridge, the broadest and most strongly marked ridge, of the back-bone of the complicated hills which extend through the whole country from the Plain of Esdraelon to the Desert. Every wanderer, every conqueror, every traveller who has trod the central route of Palestine from N. to S. must have passed through the table-land of Jerusalem. It was the water-shed between the streams, or rather the torrent-beds, which find their way eastward to the Jordan, and those which pass westward to the Mediterranean (Stanley, S. ¢ P. p. 176).” This central position, as expressed in the words of Ezekiel (ver. 5), “I have set Jerusalem in the midst of the nations and countries round about her,”’ led in later ages to a definite belief that the city was actually in the centre of the earth — in the words of Jerome, * umbilicus terre,’’ the cen- tral boss or navel of the world.’ (See the quota- tions in Reland, Palestina, pp. 52 and 838; Joseph. B. J. iii-3, § 5; also Stanley, S. i P. p. 116.) At the same time it should not be overlooked that, while thus central to the people of the coun- try, it had the advantage of being remote trom the great high road of the nations which so frequently passed by Palestine, and therefore enjoyed a certain immunity from disturbance. The only practicable route for a great army, with baggage, siege-trains, etc., moving between Egypt and Assyria was by the low plain which bordered the sea-coast from Tyre to Pelusium. From that plain, the central table-land on which Jerusalem stood was approached by valleys and passes generally too intricate and precipitous for the passage of large bodies. One road there was less rugged than the rest — that from Jaffa and Lydda up the pass of the Beth- horons to Gibeon, and thence, over the hills, to the north side of Jerusalem; and by this route, with few if any exceptions, armies seem to have ap- dences ” (Pt. ii. 17), and is also favored by Stanley (S. § P. p. 176), is derived from a Jewish tradition, quoted by Lightfoot (Prospect of the Temple, ch. 1), to the effect that the altars and sanctuary were in Benjamin, the courts of the Temple were in Judah. b This is prettily expressed in a rabbinical figure quoted by Otho (Lex. p. 266): ‘The world is like to an eye; the white of the eye is the ocean surround- ing the world; the black is the world itself; the pupil is Jerusalem, and the image in the pupil, the Temple.” 4 1 ? vy [27 JERUSALEM ‘JERUSALEM Assyria, and Lattles were fought in the plain large armies, nay, that sieges of the towns on Mediterranean coast were conducted, lasting proached the city. But, on the other hand, we shall find, in tracing the annals of Jerusalem, that great forces frequently passed between Egypt and | Cia | Ista hit | AN : DO A tit ik { : Mn | : | i | i i MI HD t | | j i he | f & | I ) ® hy ry |. S 5 | I | i) if | ta } } ‘ ANN i \ I Ni ie . f \ Fe | yeti | ; i ie if ie ) i fa ND ns NG n 3 Wee | oe WAiN\f wt UU sat (aca HATA WA | QAR SRM 28 la Re AAA the least. It is 32 miles distant from the sea, and 18 ft! Jerusalem stands in latitude 31° 46’ 35” North,| Jordan; 20 from Hebron, and 36 from 8: ; SE eee @ Such is the result of the latest observations pos-| vations apply is not stated. Other resuli 0 sessed by the Lords of the Admiralty, and officially | slightly differing, will be found in Van de" communicated to the Consul of Jerusalem in 1852| Memoir, p. 64, and in Rob i. 259. ls s ! fe years, without apparently affecting Jerusalem in| and longitude 35° 18’ 30” East of we ‘Rob. iii. 183). To what part of the town the obser- JERUSALEM several respects,’ says Professor Stanley, “its ation is singular among the cities of Palestine. sJevation is remarkable; occasioned not from its g on the summit of one of the numerous hills ‘udeea, like most of the towns and villages, but use it is on the edge of one of the highest s-lands of the country. Hebron indeed is ier still by some hundred feet, and from the h, accordingly (even from Bethlehem), the ap- ch to Jerusalem is by a slight descent. But , any other side the ascent is perpetual; and to traveller approaching the city from the E. or it must always have presented the appearance md any other capital of the then known world ‘e may say beyond any important city that has existed on the earth —of a mountain city; thing, as compared with the sultry plains of lan, a mountain air; enthroned, as compared : Jericho or Damascus, Gaza or Tyre, on a ntain fastness ’’ (S. g: P. p. 170, 171). he elevation of Jerusalem is a subject of con- t reference and exultation by the Jewish writers. ir fervid poetry abounds with allusions to its ht, to the ascent thither of the tribes from all 3 of the country. It was the habitation of wah, from which “he looked upon all the in- tants of the world” (Ps. xxxiii. 14); its kings . “higher than the kings of the earth” (Ps. ix. 27). In the later Jewish literature of nar- e and description, this poetry is reduced to 3, and in the most exaggerated form. Jeru- n was so high that the flames of Jamnia were Je from it (2 Mace. xii. 9). From the tower ‘sephinus outside the walls, could be discerned he one hand the Mediterranean Sea, on the the country of Arabia (Joseph. B. J. v. 4, § 3). ron could be seen from the roofs of the Temple htfoot, Chor. Cent. xlix.). The same thing be traced in Josephus’s account of the ervirons te city, in which he has exaggerated what is uth a remarkable ravine. to a depth so enor- 5 that the head swam and the eyes failed in ig into its recesses (Ant. xv. 111, § 5).? exemplification of these remarks it may be that the general elevation of the western ridge ‘e city, which forms its highest point, is about ) feet above the level of the sea. The Mount Nlives rises slightly above this — 2,724 feet. nd the Mount of Olives, however, the descent /narkable; Jericho—13 miles off— being no ‘han 3,624 feet below, namely, 900 feet under Mediterranean. On the north, Bethel, at a ince of 11 miles, is 419 feet, below Jerusalem. ithe west Ramleh — 25 miles —is 2,274 feet 7. Only to the south, as already remarked, the heights slightly superior, — Bethlehem, /:% Hebron, 3,029. A table of the heights of Various parts of the city and environs is given Bee the passages quoted by Stanley (S. § P. p. * Recent excavations at Jerusalem show that Jose- 5 80 far from being extravagant, was almost lit- ’ exact in what he says of the height of the Moat walls. The labors of Lieut. Warren in the ve cf the Palestine Exploration Fund (as reported Yr. Grove in the London Times, Nov. 11, 1867), |e established, by actual demonstration, that the + wali of the sacred enclo V7Z; | ( \ \ ——S = SS PLAN OF JERUSALEM. | 6. Ophel. 7. . 2. Moriah. 8. The Temple. 4. Antonia. §. Probable site of Golgotha. Bezetha. 8. Church of the Holy Sepulchre. 9, 10. The Upper and Lower Pools of Gihon. 11. Enrogel. 12. Pool of Hezekiah. 18. Fountain of the Virgin. 14. Siloam. 15. Bethesda. 16. Mount of Olives. 17. Gethsemane. JERUSALEM ady described, commencing just at the southern ik of the Valley of Hinnom, and stretching off W., where it runs to the western sea. In the JERUSALEM 1277 Section III. under the head of the Topography of the Ancient City. One more valley must be noted. It was on the W., too, the eye reaches up along the upper |north of Moriah, and separated it from a hill on t of the Valley of Jehoshaphat; and from many ats can discern the mosque of Neby Samui, ated on a lofty ridge beyond the great Wady, the distance of two hours” (Robinson’s Bibl. . i. 258-260). 0 much for the local and political relation of isalem to the country in general. ‘To convey an of its individual position, we may say roughly, with reference to the accompanying Plan, that city occupies the southern termination of a e-land, which is cut off from the country round m its west, south, and east sides, by ravines e than usually deep and precipitous. These nes leave the level of the table-land, the one on west and the other on the northeast of the , and fall rapidly until they form a junction w its southeast corner. The eastern one — the xy of the Kedron, commonly called the Valley ehoshaphat, runs nearly straight from north to h. But the western one — the Valley of Hin- .—runs south for a time and then takes a len bend to the east until it meets the Valley ehoshaphat, after which the two rush off as one he Dead Sea. How sudden is their descent be gathered from the fact, that the level at point of junction — about a mile and a quarter . the starting-point of each — is more than 600 ‘below that of the upper plateau from which commenced their descent. Thus, while on the h there is no material difference between the ral level of the country outside the walls and of the highest parts of the city; on the other 2 sides, so steep is the fall of the ravines, so th-like their character, and so close do they to the promontory, at whose feet they run, as awe on the beholder almost the impression of liteh at the foot of a fortress, rather than of 'ys formed by nature. ae promontory thus encircled is itself divided ) longitudinal ravine running up it from south rth, rising gradually from the south like the ‘nal ones, till at last it arrives at the level of ‘pper plateau, and dividing the central mass two unequal portions. Of these two, that on rest — the “ Upper City’ of the Jews, — the sit Zion of modern tradition —is the higher }more massive; that on the east — Mount {vh, the “ Akra”’ or “ lower city” of Josephus, ecupied by the great Mohammedan sanctuary | its mosques and domes—is at once considerably \ and smaller, so that, to a spectator from the ip the city appears to slope sharply towards the _ This central valley, at about half-way up sngth, threw out a subordinate on its left or side, which apparently quitted it at about right 3, and made its way up to the general level of «round at the present Jaffa or Bethlehem gate. ‘ay apparently, because covered as the ground 8, it is difficult to ascertain the point exactly. ons differ as to whether the straight valley 1 and south, or its southern half, with the 4h just spoken of, was the « Tyropeon valley ’’ sephus. The question will be examined in remem he character of the ravines and the eastward D of the site are very well and very truthfully © In a view in Dartlett’s Walks, entitled ‘ Mount Jerusalem, from the Hill of Evil Counsel.” which, in the time of Josephus, stood a suburb or part of the city called Bezetha, or the New-town. Part of this depression is still preserved in the large reservoir with two arches, usually called the Pool of Bethesda, near the St. Stephen’s gate. It also will be more explicitly spoken of in the examination of the ancient topography. This rough sketch of the terrain of Jerusalem will enable the reader to appreciate the two great advantages of its position. On the one hand, the ravines which entrench it on the west, south, and east —out of which, as has been said, the rocky slopes of the city rise almost like the walls of a fortress out of its ditches — must have rendered it impregnable on those quarters to the warfare of the old world. On the other hand, its junction with the more level ground on its north and northwest sides afforded an opportunity of expansion, of which we know advantage was taken, and which gave it remarkable superiority over other cities of Palestine, and especially of Judah, which, though secure on their hill-tops, were unable to expand beyond them (Stanley, S. g P. pp. 174, 175). The heights of the principal points in and round the city, above the Mediterranean Sea, as given by Lt. Van de Velde in the Memoir accompanying his Map, 1858, are as follows: — Feet. N. W. corner of the city (Kasr Jalud) ...... 2,610 Mount Aion (Cendeulim). fo. es Pe ee 8 eS BERT Mount Moriah (Haram esh-Sherif) . . .. . «6. 2,429 Bridge over the Kedron, near Gethsemane . 2,281 OOM OT SLORY Ue sure eee meh Fee (Ae UE OES 114 Bur- Ayub, at the confluence of Hinnom and Kedron ._ 1,996 Mount of Olives, Church of Ascension on summit . 2,724 From these figures it will be seen that the ridge on which the western half of the city is built is tolerably level from north to south; that the eastern hill is more than a hundred feet lower; and that from the latter the descent to the floor of the valley at its feet —the Bir-Ayib—is a drop of nearly 450 feet. The Mount of Olives overtops even the highest part of the city by rather more than 100 feet, and the Temple-hill by no less than 300. Its northern and southern outliers —the Viri Galilei, Scopus, and Mount of Offense —bend round slightly to- wards the city, and give the effect of “ standing round about Jerusalem.’’ Especially would this be the case to a worshipper in the Temple. «It is true,” says Pro‘essor Stanley, ‘that this image is not realized, as most persons familiar with European scenery would wish, and expect it to be realized. . . . Any one facing Jerusalem westward, north- ward, or southward will always see the city itself on an elevation higher than the hills in its imme- diate neighborhood, its towers and walls standing out against the sky, and not against any high back- ground, such as that which incloses the mountain towns and villages of our own Cumbrian or West- moreland valleys. Nor again is the plain on which it stands inclosed by a continuous, though distant, circle of mountains like Athens or Innspruck. The mountains in the neighborhood of Jerusalem are of unequal height, and only in two or three instances 6 A table of levels, differing somewhat from those of Lt. Van de Velde, will be found in Barclay’s City of the Great King, pp. 103, 104. 1278 JERUSALEM — Neby-Samwil, er-Ram, and Tuleil el-Féil — rising to any considerable elevation. Still they act as a shelter; they must be surmounted before the traveller can see, or the invader attack, the Holy City; and the distant line of Moab would always seem to rise as a wall against invaders from the remote east.¢ It is these mountains, expressly in- cluding those beyond the Jordan, which are men- tioned as ‘standing round about Jerusalem’ in another and more terrible sense, when, on the night of the assault of Jerusalem by the Roman armies, they ‘echoed back’ the screams of the inhabitants of the captured city, and the victorious shouts of the soldiers of Titus. The situation of Jerusalem was thus not unlike, on a small scale, to that of Rome, saving the great difference that Rome was in a well-watered plain, leading direct to the sea, whereas Jerusalem was on a bare table-land, in the heart of the country. But each was situated on its own cluster of steep hills; each had room for future expansion in the surrounding level; each, too, had its nearer and its more remote barriers of protecting hills — Rome its Janiculum hard by, and its Apennine and Alban mountains in the distance; Jerusalem its Olivet hard by, and, on the outposts of its plain, Mizpeh, Gibeon, and Ramah, and the ridge which divides it from Bethlehem” (S. ¢ P. pp. 174, 175). * This may be the best place for stating some of the results of Capt. Wilson’s measurements by levels for determining the distance of Jerusalem from various other places, and its altitude’ above the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. The repre- sentations on this subject, founded on reckonings by time, are more or less inaccurate. The following abridyed table presents the observations most im- portant for our purpose. It should be premised that the line adopted by the engineers begins at Jaffa (Joppa) and runs through or near by Lud (Lydda), Jimzu (Gimzo), Birfileeya, El-Jib (Gibeon), Beit-tir (Beth-Horon), Jerusalem, Bethany, and then to the neighborhood of Jericho, where turning to the right it crosses the plain to the Dead Sea. Fifty-five bench-marks, on rocks or other permanent objects, were made along the route, which must be of great service to future explorers. The line of the levels appears to be the most direct one practicable be- tween the two limits: — Distance in Place. Miles and Links. Altitude. Jaffa . 0 0000 38,800 Yazur 38 7656 85.405 Beit-Dejam 5 5843 91.435 Lydda 11 5922 164.770 Jimzu 14 5194 411.605 Mount Scopus 387 6345 2,715.795 Mount Olivet 89 0236 2,623.790 Summit of Olivet 389 1721 2,662.500 Bethanysi« ae tees 40 2409 2.281.825 Well of the Apostles 41 6063 1,519.615 Kban Hadhur 48 5296 870.590 Old Aqueduct 52 5174 89.715 Dead Sea . 62 2965 1,292.135 a * Mr. Tristram states that Nebo, one of the sum- mits of this Moab range, is distinctly visible from the roof of the English Church at Jerusalem, and that with suitable glasses the buildings of Jerusalem can be seen from Neso (Land of Israel, p. 542, 2d ed.). I'he appearance of these mountains as seen from Jeru- salem stretching like a curtain along the eastern horizon is very unique and impressive. Every one whe has visited the holy city will recognize Stanley’s de- JERUSALEM It thus appears that the highest point of eley; tion between the two seas — 2,715 feet —ocem on Mount Scopus, just north of Jerusalem. TT} height from the top of the cairn on Scopus is 2,79 feet. The level of the Mediterranean is Crosse 32 miles beyond Khan Hadhur; and the figuy against the two last stations represent the ‘a pression below the level of the Mediterranea The party reached the Dead Sea on the 12th¢ March, 1865. It is known that this sea is liab to be, on the average, six feet lower, a few weel later in the season; and hence the lowest depressic’ of the surface would be 1,298 feet. According { the soundings by Lieut. Vignes: of the French Nay. the maximum depth of the Dead Sea is 1,148 fee, making the depression of the bottom 2,446 fe| below the level of the Mediterranean. “ ‘The soun ing in the Mediterranean, midway between Mal and Candia, by Capt. Spratt, gave a depth of 13,0: feet, or a depression of the bottom five times great than that of the bottom of the Dead Sea” (Or) nance Survey of ~Jerusalem, pp. 20-23, Lon! 1865). It should be stated that a line of levels w| also carried from Jerusalem to Solomon’s Poo: The level at the Jaffa gate on the west side of ‘| city was found to be 2,528 feet below the Medite’ ranean; near Mar Elyas, 2,616; at Rachel’s tom| 2,478; at the Castle near Solomon’s Pools, 2,624) near the upper Pool, 2,616, and the lower Po 2,5133. (Survey, p. 88.) H. Roads. — There appear to have been but ty main approaches to the city. 1. From the Jord Valley by Jericho and the Mount of Olives. Tl) was the route commonly taken from the north a; east. of the country —as from Galilee by our Le) (Luke xvii. 11, xviii. 35, xix. 1, 29, 45, é&e.), frc Damascus by Pompey (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 8, §/ 4, § 1), to Mahanaim by David (2 Sam. xyv., xvi It was also the route from places in the central d_ tricts of the country, as Samaria (2 Chr. xxviii. 1) The latter part of the approach, over the Mov of Olives, as generally followed at the present di is identical with what it was, at least in one me) orable instance, in the time of Christ. A p: there is over the crown of the hill, but the comm route still runs more to the south, round { shoulder of the principal summit (see S. ¢ P.p. 19) In the later times of Jerusalem, this road cros! the valley of the Kedron by a bridge or viaduct” a double series of arches, and entered the Tem) by the gate Susan. (See the quotations from» Talmud in Otho, Lex. Rab. 265; and Barelay, a 102, 282.) The insecure state of the Jordan Val has thrown this route very much into disuse, and | diverted the traffie from the north to a road a the central ridge of the country. 2. From * creat maritime plain of Philistia and Sharon. 7 road led by the two Beth-horons up to the ht ground at Gibeon, whence it turned south, i came to Jerusalem by Ramah and Gibeah, and ¢ the ridge north of the city. This is still the ro? by which the heavy traffic is carried, thoug!' ta scription of the view as not less just than beaut: ‘From almost every point, there is visible that 13 purple wall, rising out of its unfathomable deptht? us even more interesting than to the old Jebusite! Israelites. They knew the tribes who lived this they had once dwelt there themselves. But to inhabitants of modern Jerusalem, of whom comp tively few have ever visited the other side of & Jordan, it is the end of the world, — and to then? ; “az 4 JERUSALEM sr Lut more precipitous road is usually taken avellers between Jerusalem and Jaffa. In ig the annals we shall find that it was the by which large bodies, such as armies, always ached the city, whether from Gaza on the , or from Ceesarea and Ptolemais on the north. ie communication with the mountainous dis- of the south is less distinct. Even Hebron, the establishment of the monarchy at Jeru- , was hardly of importance enough to main- wy considerable amount of communication, nly in the wars of the Maccabees do we hear military operations in that region. 2 roads out of Jerusalem were a special sub- f Solomon’s care. He paved them with black —probably the basalt of, the trans-Jordanic sts (Joseph. Ant. vili. 7, § 4). tes. — The situation of the various gates of ty is examined in Section III. It may, how- ve desirable to supply here a complete list of which are named in the Bible and Josephus, whe references to their occurrences : — Gate of Ephraim. 2 Chr. xxv. 23; Neh. viii. ;. 89. This is probably the same as the — Gate of Benjamin. Jer. xx. 2, xxxvii. 13; ‘xiv. 10. If so, it was 400 cubits distant ‘the — Corner Gate. 2 Chr. xxv. 23, xxvi. 9; Jer. 38; Zech. xiv. 10. Gate of Joshua, governor of the city. 2K. Be Gate between the two walls. 2 K. xxv. 4; xxix. 4. Horse Gate. Neh. iii. 28; 2 Chr. xxiii. 15; exi. 40. Rayine Gate (7. e. opening on ravine of Hin- 2 Chr. xxvi. 9; Neh. ii. 13, 15, iii. 13. fish Gate. 2 Chr. xxxiii. 14; Neh. iii. 3; jied0. Jung Gate. Neh. ii. 13, iii. 13. Neh. iii. 1, 32, xii. 39. u Neh. iii. 29. | Miphkad. Neh. iii. 31. | Fountain Gate (Siloam ?). | Water Gate. Neh. xii. 37. | Old Gate. Neh. xii. 39. Neh. xii. 37. ‘Prison Gate. Neh. xii. 39. (Gate Harsith (perhaps the Sun; A. V. East Jer. xix. 2. | First Gate. Zech. xiv. 10. ‘ei Gennath (gardens). Joseph. B. J. v. 2 Essenes’ Gate. Joseph. B. J. 4, § 2. © A should be added the following gates of ple: »Sur. 2K. xi. 6. Called also— of Foundation. 2 Chr. xxiii. 5. + of the Guard, or behind the guard. 2 K. 9. Called the — a Gate. 2 Chr. xxiii. 20, xxvii. 3; 2 K. xv. 35. ‘Shallecheth. 1 Chr. xxvi. 16. Yal-Grounds. —The main cemetery of the yms from an early date to have been where 8 ll— on the steep slopes of the valley of the te mountains almost have the effect of a distant V the sea; the hues constantly changing, this ht precipitous rock coming out clear in the morn- evening shade — there, the form dimly shad- it by surrounding valleys of what may possibly ‘a; here the point of Kerak, the capital of “nd fortress of the Crusaders —and then at JERUSALEM 1279 Kidron. Here it was that the fragments of the idol abominations, destroyed by Josiah, were cast on the “graves of the children of the people’? (2 K. xxiii. 6), and the valley was always the recepta- cle for impurities of all kinds. There Maachah's idol was burnt by Asa (1 K. xv. 13); there, accord- ing to Josephus, Athaliah was executed; and there the ‘ filthiness ’’ accumulated in the sanctuary, by the false-worship of Ahaz, was discharged (2 Chr. xxix. 5,16). But in addition to this, and although there is only a slight allusion in the Bible to the fact (Jer. vii. 832), many of the tombs now existing in the face of the ravine of Hinnom, on the south of the city, must be as old as Biblical times — and if so, show that this was also used as a cemetery. The monument of Ananus the high-priest (Josep B. J. vy. 12, § 2) would seem to have been in this direction. The tombs of the kings were in the city of David, that is, Mount Zion, which, as will be shown in the concluding section [III.] of this article, was an eminence on the northern part of Mount Moriah. [See opposite view in § IV. Amer. ed.] The royal sepulchres were probably chambers containing sep- arate recesses for the successive kings. [TomBs.] Of some of the kings it is recorded that, not being thought worthy of a resting-place there, they were buried in separate or private tombs in Mount Zion (2 Chr. xxi. 20, xxiv. 25; 2 K. xv. 7). Ahaz was not admitted to Zion at all, but was buried in Jerusalem (2 Chr. xxviii. 27). Other spots also were used for burial. Somewhere to the north of the Temple, and not far from the wall, was the monument of king Alexander (Joseph. B. J. v. 7, § 3). Near the northwest corner of the city was the monument of John the high-priest (Joseph. v. 6, § 2, &c.), and to the northeast the ‘‘ monument of the Fuller’? (Joseph. B. J. v. 4, § 2). On the north, too, were the monuments of Herod (vy. 3, § 2) and of queen Helena (v. 2, § 2, 3, § 3), the former close to the “ Serpent’s Pool.” Wood ; Gardens. — We have very little evidence as to the amount of wood and of cultivation that existed in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. The king’s gardens of David and Solomon seem to have been in the bottom formed by the confluence of the Kedron and Hinnom (Neh. iii. 15; Joseph. Ant. vii. 14, § 4, ix. 10, § 4). The Mount of Olives, as its name and those of various places upon it seem to imply, was a fruitful spot. At its foot was situated the Garden of Gethsemane. At the time of the final siege, the space north of the wall of Agrippa was covered with gardens, groves, and plantations of fruit-trees, inclosed by hedges and walls; and to level these was one of Titus’s first operations (B. J. v. 3, § 2). We know that the gate Gennath (7. e. ‘of gardens’’) opened on this side of the city (B. J. v. 4, § 2). The Valley of Hinnom was in Jerome’s time ‘a pleasant and woody spot, full of delightful gardens watered fruta the fountain of Siloah’’ (Comm. in Jer. vii. 30). In the Talmud mention is made of a certain rose- garden outside the city, which was of great fame, but no clew is given to its situation (Otho, Lez. times all wrapt in deep haze — the mountains over- hanging the valley of the shadow of death, and all the more striking from their contrast with the gray or green colors of the hills and streets and walls through which you catch the glimpse of them.” (S. § P p. 166, Amer. ed.) H. 1280 JERUSALEM Rab. 266). [GARDEN.] The sieges of Jerusalem were too frequent during its later history to admit of any considerable growth of wood near it, even if the thin soil, which covers the rocky substratum, would allow of it. And the scarcity of earth again necessitated the cutting down of all the trees that could be found for the banks and mounds, with which the ancient sieges were conducted. This is expressly said in the accounts of the sieges of Pompey and Titus. In the latter case the country was swept of its timber for a distance of eight or nine miles from the city (B. J. vi. 8, § 1, &c.). Water. — How the gardens just mentioned on the north of the city were watered it is difficult to understand, since at present no water exists in that direction. At the time of the siege (Joseph. B. .J. v. 3, § 2) there was a reservoir in that neighborhood called the Serpent’s Pool; but it has not been dis- covered in modern times. The subject of the waters is more particularly discussed in the third section, and reasons are shown for believing that at one time a very copious source existed somewhere north of the town, the outflow of which was stopped — possibly by Hezekiah, and the water led under- ground to reservoirs in the city and below the Temple. From these reservoirs the overflow escaped to the so-called Fount of the Virgin, and thence to Siloam, and possibly to the Bir-Ayib, or “ Well of Nehemiah.’’ This source would seem to have been, and to be still the only spring in the city — but it was always provided with private and public cisterns. Some of the latter still remain. Outside the walls the two on the west side (Birket Mamuilla, and Birket es-Sultan), generally known as the upper and lower reservoirs of Gihon, the small ‘pool of Siloam,” with the larger B. el-Hamra close adjoining, pv and the B. Hammam Sitti Maryam, close to the St. Stephen’s Gate. Inside are the so- called Pool of Hezekiah (B. el-Batrak), near the Jaffa gate, which receives the surplus water of the Birket Mamilla; and the B. Israil on the opposite side of the city, close to the St. Stephen’s Gate, commonly known as the Pool of Bethesda. These two reservoirs are probably the Pools of Amygdalon and Struthius of Josephus, respectively. Dr. Bar- clay has discovered another reservoir below the Mekemeh in the low part of the city — the Tyro- peon valley — west of the Haram, supplied by the aqueduct from Bethlehem and * Solomon’s Pools.’’ It is impossible within the limits of the present ‘article to enter more at length into the subject of the waters. The reader is referred to the chapters on the subject in Barclay’s City of the Great King (x. and xviii.), and Williams’s Holy City; also to the articles Kipron; SILoAM; POOL. ‘Streets, Houses, etc. — Of the nature of these in the ancient city we have only the most scattered notices. The “ Kast Street’? (2 Chr. xxix. 4); the ‘street of the city’’—7. e. the city of David (xxxii. 6); the “ street facing the water gate’’ (Neh. viii. 1, 3) — or, according to the parallel account in 1 Esdr. ix. 88, the “« “proad place (eibpdxwpov) of the Temple towards the east;’’ the street of the house of God (zr. x. 9); the street of the gate of Ephraim ’’ (Neh. viii. 16); and the ‘open place of the first gate towards the east’? must have been not ‘streets’? in our sense of the word, so much as the open spaces found in eastern towns round a@ The writer was there in September, and the aspect above described left an ineffaceable impression on him. JERUSALEM the inside of the gates. This is evident, no! from the word used, Rechob, which has the of breadth or room, but also from the nature occurrences related in each case. The same are intended in Zech. viii. 5. Streets, prope called (Chutzoth), there were (Jer. v. 1, xi. 13, but the name of only one, “the Bakers’ St (Jer. xxxvii. 21), is preserved to us. This i jectured, from the names, to have been ne: Tower of Ovens (Neh. xii. 38; ‘“ furnaces” is: rect). A notice of streets of this kind in t century B. C. is preserved by Aristeas (see p. 1 At the time of the destruction by Titus th part. of the city was filled with narrow lanes taining the bazaars of the town, and whe breach was made in the second wall it was : spot where the cloth, brass, and wool bi abutted on the wall. To the houses we have eyen less clew, tht is no reascn to suppose that in either hou streets the ancient Jerusalem differed very mati from the modern. No doubt the ancient city d' exhibit that air of mouldering dilapidation ° is now so prominent there — that sooty look ° gives its houses the appearance of ‘“ haying burnt down many centuries ago”’ (Richards, S. f P. p. 183), and which, as it is characteris so many eastern towns, must be ascribed to T) neglect. In another respect too, the moder must present a different aspect from the ancii the dull monotony of color which, at least du part of the year,* pervades the slopes of th and ravines outside the walls. Not only is tl case on the west, where the city does not the view, but also on the south. A dull, I; ashy hue overspreads all. No doubt this it wholly or in part, to the enormous quantit debris of stone and mortar which have bee over the precipices after the numerous demci of the city. The whole of the slopes south Haram area (the ancient Ophel), and the i Zion, and the west side of the Valley of Jehosh especially near the St. Stephen’s Gate, are cf with these débris, lying as soft and loose as t, they were poured over, and presenting the ay ance of gigantic mounds of rubbish. In this point at least the ancient city st\c favorable contrast with the modern, but in} others the resemblance must haye been stron’ nature of the site compels the walls in many/< to retain their old positions. ‘The souther|] of the summit of the Upper City and the slcs Ophel are now bare, where previous to thif siege they were covered with houses, and the|¢ Wall has retired very much south of where t stood; but, on the other hand, the West anc and the western corner of the North Wall, ar they always were. And the look of the wai: gates, especially the Jaffa Gate, with the “ Cill adjoining, and the Damascus Gate, is PY @ hardly changed from what it was. True, t arets, domes, and spires, which give such a to the modern town, must have been abser. their place was supplied by the four great at the northwest part of the wall; by theip stories and turrets of Herod’s palace, the pare the Asmoneans, and the other public bui/? while the lofty fortress of Antonia, tower! above every building within the city,? anc > “ Conspicuo fastigio turris Antonia” (Ta y. 11). JERUSALEM mounted by the keep on its southeast corner, tt have formed a feature in the view not her unlike (though more prominent than) « Citadel’ of the modern town. The flat roofs the absence of windows, which give an eastern ‘so startling an appearance to a western tray- -, must have existed then as now. ut the greatest resernblance must have been on southeast side, towards the Mount of Olives. ugh there can be no doubt (see below, Sec- Lil. p. 1314) that the inclosure is now much er than it was, yet the precinct of the Haram herif, with its domes and sacred buildings, e of them clinging to the very spot formerly pied by the Temple, must preserve what we reall the personal identity of this quarter of the , but little changed in its general features from t it was when the Temple stood there. Nay, e: in the substructions of the inclosure — those sive and venerable walls, which once to see is ar to forget —is the very masonry itself. its lower ‘ses undisturbed, which was laid there by Herod Great, and by Agrippa, possibly even by still r builders. Invirons of the City. — The various spots in the hborhood of the city will be described at length or their own names, and to them the reader is rdingly referred. See EN-RoGEL; HINNoM; RON; OLIVES, Mount or, etc., etc. | Il. Tor ANNALS OF THE CITY. 1 considering the annals of the city of Jerusalem, ing strikes one so forcibly as the number and tity of the sieges which it underwent. We a our earliest glimpse of it in the brief notice 1e Ist chapter of Judges, which describes how “children of Judah smote it with the edge of sword, and set the city on fire;’’ and almost latest mention of it in the New Testament is uined in the solemn warnings in which Christ old how Jerusalem should be “ compassed with és” (Luke xxi. 20), and the abomination of ation be seen standing in the Holy Place (Matt. 16). In the fifteen centuries which elapsed eeu those two points the city was besieged no + than seventeen times; twice it was razed to ound; and on two other occasions its walls ‘levelled. In this respect it stands without a Jel in any city ancient or modern. ‘The fact @ of great significance. The number of the 3 testifies to the importance of the town as a 0 the whole country, and as the depositary of cumulated treasures of the Temple, no less ‘ly than do the severity of the contests and protracted length to the difficulties of the on, and the obstinate enthusiasm of the Jewish & At the same time the details of these tions, scanty as they are, throw considerable on the difficult topography of the place; and ee According to Josephus, they did not attack Jeru- _ till after they had taken many other towns — Tas Te AaBovtes, éroAdpKovy “I. ‘ee this noticed and contrasted with the situation ie in other parts by Prof. Stanley (S. § P. tty &C.). bout half way through the period of the Judges cir, B. ¢. 1820—occurred an invasion of the my of the Hittites (Khatti) by Sethee I. king of and the capture of the capital city , Ketesh, in nd of Amar. This would not have been noticed ‘had not Ketesh been by some writers identified Jerusalem (Osborn, Egypt, her Testimony, ete. ; JERUSALEM 1281 on the whole they are in every way so characteristic, that it has seemed not unfit to use them as far as possible as a frame-work for the following rapid sketch of the history of the city. The first siege appears to have taken place almost; immediately after the death of Joshua (cir. 1400 B. C.). Judah and Simeon had been ordered by the divine oracle at Shiloh or Shechem to com- mence the task of actual possession of the portions distributed by Joshua. As they traversed the region south of these they encountered a large force of Canaanites at Bezek: These they dispersed, took prisoner Adoni-bezek, a ferocious petty chieftain, who was the terror of the country, and swept on their southward road. Jerusalem was soon reached.@ It was evidently too important, and also too near the actual limits of Judah, to be passed by. ‘“ They fought against it and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire” (Judg. i. 8). To this brief notice Josephus (Ant. v. 2, § 2) makes a material addition. He tells us that the siege lasted some time (ody xpdvw); that the part which was taken at last, and in which the slaughter was made, was the lower city; but that the upper city was so strong, “by reason of its walls and also of the nature of the place,” that they relinquished the attempt and moved off to Hebron (Ant. v. 2, § 23). These few valuable words of the old Jewish historian reveal one of those topograph- ical peculiarities of the place — the possession of an upper as well as a lower city —which differenced it so remarkably from the other towns of Palestine —which enabled it to survive so many sieges and partial destructions, and which in the former section we have endeavored to explain. It is not to be wondered at that these characteristics, which must have been impressed with peculiar force on the mind of Josephus during the destruction of Jeru- salem, of which he had only lately been a witness, should have recurred to him when writing the account of the earlier sieges.? As long as the upper city remained in the hands of the Jebusites they practically had possession of the whole — and a Jebusite city in fact it remained for a long period after this. The Benjamites fol- lowed the men of Judah to Jerusalem, but with no better result — ‘They could not drive out the Jebusites, but the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day” (Judg. i. 21). At the time of the sad story of the Levite (Judg. xix.) — which the mention of Phinehas (xx. 28) fixes as early in the period of the Judges —- Benjamin can hardly have had even so much foot- ing as the passage just quoted would indicate; for the Levite refuses to enter it, not because it was hostile, but because it was “ the city of a stranger, and not of Israel.” And this lasted during the whole period of the Judges, the reign of Saul, and the reign of David at Hebron.c Owing to several also Williams in Dict. of Geogr. ii. 28, 24). The grounds of the identification are (1) the apparent affinity of the name (which they read Chadash) with the Greek Kaévutis, the modern Arabic el-Kuds, and the Syriac Kadatha; (2) the affinity of Amar with Amorites ; (3) a likeness between the form and situa- tion of the city, as shown in a rude sketch in the Egyptian records, and that of Jerusalem. But on closer examination these correspondences vanish. Egyptian scholars are now agreed that Jerusalem is much too far south to suit the requirements of the rest of the campaign, and that Ketesh survives in Kedes, a name discovered by Robinson s ‘Stachel to » 1282 JERUSALEM circumstances — the residence of the Ark at Shiloh — Saul’s connection with Gibeah, and David’s with Ziklag and Hebron—the disunion of Benjamin and Judah, symbolized by Saul’s persecution of David -- the tide of affairs was drawn northwards and southwards, and Jerusalem, with the places adjacent, was left in possession of the Jebusites. But as soon as a man was found to assume the rule over all Israel both north and south, so soon was it necessary that the seat of government should be moved from the remote Hebron nearer to the cen- T { \ ty ll | TNA LT aT aay in \¥ iY hin are 5} Ree eel yy OMNI | [1 Ty, |) Tee ay TN | = S it Nig ees aes Ruse ik : DLR (iT Soe Pin ame Io tiie A ib cry eon ttl hm Hl hee tes b tly peat | bt = Sewn) | aay “nt B ULI f= Maat i I TE, WT oy Geers ' — hth tina bans Shima t Cor JERUSALEM. East Corner of the South Wall, and the Mount of Olives from the 8S. W. warriors. As before, the lower city was imme- diately taken — and as before, the citadel held out (Joseph. Ant. vii. 3,§ 1). The undaunted Jebusites, | ry * nail JERUSALEM tre of the country, and the choice of David at fell on the city of the Jebusites. ; David advanced to the siege at the head « men-of-war of all the tribes who had come t bron “to turn the kingdom of Saul to him.” are stated as 280,000 men, choice warriors , flower of Israel (1 Chr. xii. 23-39). No they approached the city from the south. ravine of the Kedron, the valley of Hinno1 hills south and southeast of the town, the yj on the west must have swarmed with these believing in the impregnability of their fir manned the battlements ‘with lame and bl But they little understood the temper of th lake and island on the Orontes between Ribleh and Huwms, and still showing traces of extensive artificial works. Nor does the agreement between the repre- sentation in the records and the site of Jerusalem fare better. For the stream, which was supposed to repre- sent the ravines of Jerusalem — the nearest point of the resemblance — contained at Ketesh water enough to drown several persons (Brugsch, Geogr. Inschrift. fi. 21, &c.). a The passage which forms the latter clause of 2 3am. v. 8 is generally taken to mean that the blind and the lame were excluded from the Temple. But where is the proof that this was the fact? occasion at least we know that “the blind ‘ lame”? came to Christ in the Temple, and hee them (Matt. xxi. 14). And indeed what had tl/T accordance with the accentuation of the Mo and for which the writer is indebted to the }@ of the Rev. J. J. S. Perowne — would seem to? ! it was a proverb used in future with regard impregnable fortress — * The blind and the 1i¢ there ; let him enter the place if he can.” [ JERUSALEM ‘those he commanded. David’s anger was ighly roused by the insult (dpy:a Gels, Joseph.), e at once proclaimed to his host that the first rho would scale the rocky side of the fortress ill a Jebusite should be made chief captain of st. A crowd of warriors (rdvres, Joseph.), | forward to the attempt, but Joab’s superior ‘gained him the day,¢ and the citadel, the 3 of Zton, was taken (cir. 1046 B. c.). It first time that that memorable name appears history. id at once proceeded to secure himself in his equisition. He inclosed the whole of the ith a wall, and connected it with the citadel. latter he took up his own quarters, and the f the Jebusites became “ the city of David.” > ; Mitto.] The rest of the town was left more immediate care of the new captain of st. sensation caused by the fall of this impreg- fortress must haye been enormous. It leven to the distant Tyre, and before long assy arrived from Hiram, the king of Phoe- vith the characteristic offerings of artificers aterials to erect a palace for David in his ode. The palace was built, and occupied fresh establishment of wives and concubines David acquired. Two attempts were made one by the Philistines alone (2 Sam. y. 17- Jhr. xiv. 8-12), the other by the Philistines, I Syria and Pheenicia (Joseph. Ant. vii. 4, jam. v. 22-25) — to attack David in his new 0, but they did not affect the city, and the were fought in the “Valley of Giants,”’ tly north of Jerusalem, near Gibeah or The arrival of the Ark, however, was an “great importance. The old Tabernacle of and Aholiab being now pitched on the of Gibeon, a new tent had been spread by ‘the fortress for the reception of the Ark; §, “in its place,” it was deposited with the iptessive ceremonies, and Zion became at 9 great sanctuary of the nation. It now ‘acquired the name of Beth ha-Har, the of the mount,” of which we catch a glimpse UXX. addition to 2 Sam. xv. 24. In this ‘Ark remained, except for its short flight to ‘of the Mount of Olives with David (xv. bes it was removed to its permanent rest- in the Temple of Solomon. + fortress of Zion, too, was the sepulchre ' Which became also that of most of his 5. ‘aly works of ornament which we can as- | avid are the « royal gardens,” as they by Josephus, which appear to have been ‘rhim in the level space southeast of the ted by the confluence of the valleys of nd Hinnom, screened from the sun during le day by the shoulders of the inclosing 8, and irrigated by the well ’Ain Aytib, ™ appears to retain the name of Joab Ant. vii. 14, § 4; ix. 10, § 4). he time of Solomon we hear of no addi- eeity. His three great works were the Ith its east wall and cloister (Joseph. B. J. “his own Palace, and the Wall of Jeru- antic legend js preserved in the Midrash m Ps. xviii, 29, of the stratagem by which ‘ded in Teaching the top of the wall. (See a Kisenmenger, i. 476, 477.) JERUSALEM 1288 salem. The two former will be best described elsewhere. [PALACE; SoLomon; TemPte.] Of the last there is an interesting notice in Josephus (Ant. viii. 2, § 1; 6, § 1), from which it appears * that David’s wall was a mere rampart without towers, and only of moderate strength and height. One of the first acts of the new king was to make the walls larger — probably extend them round some outlying parts of the city —and strengthen them (1K. iii. 1, with the explanation of Josephus, viii. 2, § 1). But on the completion of the Temple he again turned his attention to the walls, and both increased their height, and constructed very large towers along them (ix. 15, and Joseph. Ant. viii. 6, § 1). Another work of his in Jerusalem was the repair or fortification of Millo, whatever that strange term may signify (1 K. ix. 15, 24). It was in the works at Millo and the city of David —it is un- certain whether the latter consisted of stopping breaches (as in A. V.) or filling a ditch round the fortress (the Vulg. and others) — that Jeroboam first came under the notice of Solomon (Lee aki 27). Another was a palace for his Egyptian queen — of the situation of which all we know is that it was not in the city of David (1 K. vii. 8, ix. 24, with the addition in 2 Chr. viii. 11). But there must have been much besides these to fill up the measure of “all that Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem ” (2 Chr. viii. 6) — the vast Harem for his 700 wives and 300 concubines, and their estab- lishment — the colleges for the priests of the vari- ous religions of these women — the stables for the 1,400 chariots and 12,000 riding horses. Outside the city, probably on the Mount of Olives, there remained, down to the latest times of the monarchy (2 K. xxiii. 13), the fanes which he had erected for the worship of foreign gods (1 K. xi. 7), and which have still left their name clinging to the “ Mount of Offense.”’ His care of the roads leading to the city is the subject of a special panegyric from Josephus (Ant. viii. 7, § 4). They were, as before observed, paved with black stone, probably the hard basalt from the region of Argob, on the east of Jordan, where he had a special resident officer. As long as Solomon lived, the visits of foreign powers to Jerusalem were those of courtesy and amity; but with his death this was changed. A city, in the palaces of which all the vessels were of pure gold, where spices, precious stones, rare woods, curious animals, were accumulated in the greatest profusion; where silver was no more valued than the stones of the street, and considered too mean a material for the commonest of the royal purposes —such a city, governed by such a JSainéant prince as Rehoboam, was too tempting a prey for the sur- rounding kings. He had only been on the throne four years (cir. 970 B. c.) before Shishak, king of Egypt, invaded Judah with an enormous host, took the fortified places and advanced to the capital. Jerusalem was crowded with the chief men of the realm who had taken refuge there (2 Chr. xii. 5), but Rehoboam did not attempt resistance. He opened his gates, apparently on a promise from Shishak that he would not pillage (Joseph. Ant. vill. 10, § 3). However, the promise was not kept, the treasures of the Temple and palace were car- ried off, and special mention is made of the golden = ee ee oe eee 6 In the N. T. “the city of David” means Beth lehem. 1284 JERUSALEM JERUSALEM é ._ | Athaliah, he reintroduced the profligate 1 bucklers (7272), which were hung by Solomon in voKe cP Awhtaroth wand othe Meh Ge the house of the forest of Lebanon (1 K. xiv. 255] xxi. 11), and built a temple for Baal (2 Chr, . 2Chr. xii. 9; comp. 1 K. x. 17). 17; comp. Joseph. Ant. ix. 7, § 4). Tho Jerusalem was again threatened in the reign of | man of great vigor and courage, he was ov Asa (grandson of Rehoboam), when Zerah the| by an invasion of one of those huge hordes Cushite, or king of Ethiopia (Joseph. Ant. viii. | were now almost periodical. The Philistin: 12, § 1), probably incited by the success of Shishak, | Arabians attacked Jerusalem, broke into the invaded the country with an enormous horde of fol- | spoiled it of all its treasures, sacked the royal lowers (2 Chr. xiv.9). He came by the road through | killed or carried off the king’s wives, and the low country of Philistia, where his chariots} sons but one. This was the fourth siege. could find level ground. But Asa was more faith-| years after it the king died, universally d ful and more valiant than Rehoboam had been.| and so strong was the feeling against him ’ He did not remain to be blockaded in Jerusalem, | was denied a resting-place in the sepulchres but went forth and met the enemy at Mareshah, | kings, but was buried without ceremony in and repulsed him with great slaughter (cir. 940). | vate tomb on Zion (2 Chr. xxi. 20). The consequence of this victory was a great refor-| The next events in Jerusalem were the r mation extending throughout the kingdom, but| of the royal children by Joram’s widow A: most demonstrative at Jerusalem. A vast assembly | and the six years’ reign of that queen. of the men of Judah and Benjamin, of Simeon, | her sway the worship of Baal was preyval even of Ephraim and Manasseh — now “strangers” | that of Jehovah proportionately depressed (2°93) — was gathered at Jerusalem. Enormous | Lembple was not only suffered to go without ae : but was even mutilated by the sons of A sacrifices were offered; a prodigious enthusiasm | and its treasures removed to the temple of | seized the crowded city, and amidst the clamor of | Chr. xxiy. 7). But with the increasing y trumpets and shouting, oaths of loyalty to Jehovah | Joash, the spirit of the adherents of a were exchanged, and threats of instant death de-| turned, and the confederacy of Jehoiada thy nounced on all who should forsake His service. | with the chief men of Judah resulted in : The altar of Jehovah in front of the porch of the|toration of the true line. The king was ») Temple, which had fallen into decay, was rebuilt; the and proclaimed in the Temple. Athaliabi horrid idol of the queen-mother — the mysterious | was hurried out to execution from the sac Asherah, doubtless an abomination of the Syrian | cincts into the valley of the Kedron (Jose: worship of her grandmother — was torn down, | . ix. 7, § 3), between the Temple and Olivet, ground to powder, and burnt in the ravine of the| the Horse Gate. The temple of Baal wal Kedron. At the same time the vessels of the| ished, his altars and.images destroyed, h: Temple, which had been plundered by Shishak, | put to death, and the religion of Jehoyah » were replaced from the spoil taken by Abijah from | more the national religion. But the restoii Ephraim, and by Asa himself from the Cushites ’ : : 4 Ne the Temple advanced but slowly, and a (2 Chr. xv. 8-19; 1 K. xv. 12-15). This pros-| till three-and-twenty years had elapsed, thati perity lasted for more than ten years, but at the | the personal interference of the king the end of that interval the Temple was once more of the Baal worshippers were repaired (2 despoiled, and the treasures so lately dedicated to | 616), and the necessary vessels and uteil: Jehovah were sent by Asa, who had himself dedi-| nished for the service of the Temple 2 C. cated them, as bribes to Ben-hadad at Damascus,|14. But see 2 K. xii. 13; Joseph. Ant. iv , where they probably enriched the temple of Rim-| But this zeal for Jehovah soon expired. T mon (2 Chr. xvi. 2, 3; 1 K. xv. 18). Asa was ( ceremonial of the burial of the good pri¢’ buried in a tomb excavated by himself in the royal sepulchres in the citadel. royal tombs, among the kings, can hardly 1¢ The reign of his son Jehoshaphat, though of : forgotten before a general relapse into ‘ido place, and his son Zechariah was stoned it great, prosperity and splendor, is not remarkable | family ¢ in the very court of the Temple» as regards the city of Jerusalem. We hear of a| testing. ‘new court’ to the Temple, but have no clew to! The retribution invoked by the dyin its situation or its builder (2 Chr. xx. 5). An| quickly followed. Before the end of the important addition to the government of the city | 838), Hazael king of Syria, after possess _ was made by Jehoshaphat in the establishment of | self of Gath, marched against the m courts for the decision of causes both ecclesiastical | prize of Jerusalem. The visit was ave! and civil (2 Chr. xix. 8-11). timely offering of treasure from the Te Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram was a prince of a/the royal palace (2 K. xii. 18; 2 e.# different temper. He began his reign (cir. 887) by | Joseph. Ant. ix. 8, § 4), but not before a massacre of his brethren, and of the chief men of the kingdom. Instigated, no doubt, by his wife had been fought, in which a large army t raelites was routed by a very inferior for ee a hoiada,”? we are perhaps warranted in bel Zechariah’s brethren or his sons were P with him. The LXX. and Vulg. have # the singular number “son ;” but, on the ¢@! the Syriac and Arabic, and the Targum all sr the Hebrew text, and it is specially mé 0 Jerome’s Quast. Hebr. It is perhaps supp special notice taken of the exception made in the case of the murderers of his fathe 6; 2Chr xxv. 4). The case of Naboth 1 [See Enan, p 706, note /-] a According to Josephus he also carried off the arms which David had taken from the king of Zobah ; but these were afterwards in the Temple, and did ser- vice at the proclamation of king Joash. [Arms, Shelet, p. 162.) b The Horse Gate is mentioned again in connection with Kidron by Jeremiah (xxxi. 40). Possibly the name was perpetuated in the gate Susan (Sus = horse) of the second Temple, the only gate on the east side of the outer wall (Lightfoot, Prosp. of Temple, iii.). c From the expression in xxiv 25, “sons of Je- te JERUSALEM with the loss of a great number of the prin- people and of a vast booty. Nor was this all. e reverses so distressed the king as to bring on ngerous illness, in the midst of which he was sinated by two of his own servants, sons of of the foreign women who were common in oyal harems. He was buried on Mount Zion, : like Jehoram, denied a resting-place in the tombs (2 Chr. xxiv. 25). The predicted dan- to the city was, however, only postponed. viah began his reign (B. C. 837) with a prom- f good; his first act showed that, while he how to avenge the murder of his father, he 1 also restrain his wrath within the bounds ribed by the law of Jehovah. But with suc- came deterioration. He returned from his ries over the Edomites, and the massacre at a, with fresh idols to add to those which already ed Jerusalem — the images of the children of ,or of the Amalekites (Josephus), which were ed and worshipped by the king. His next act a challenge to Joash the king of Israel, and the danger so narrowly escaped from Hazael actually encountered. The battle took place at tshemesh of Judah, at the opening of the , about 12 miles west of Jerusalem. It ended total rout. Amaziah, forsaken by his people, was a prisoner by Joash, who at once proceeded to salem and threatened to put his captive to h before the walls, if he and his army were not itted. The gates were thrown open, the treas- of the Temple —still in the charge of the » family to whom they had been committed by id—and the king’s private treasures, were pil- j,and for the first time the walls of the city ‘injured. A clear breach was made in them )0 cubits in length “from the gate of Ephraim je corner gate,’ and through this Joash drove triumph, with his captive in the chariot, into sity. This must have been on the north side, \probably at the present northwest corner of walls. If so, it is the first recorded attempt hat spot, afterwards the favorite point for the tk of the upper city. the long reign of Uzziah (2 K. xv. 1-7; 2 Chr. +) brought about a material improvement in ‘fortunes of Jerusalem. He was a wise and > prince (Joseph. ix. 10, § 3), very warlike, ‘agreat builder. After some campaigns against ‘gn enemies, he devoted himself to the care of salem for the whole of his life (Joseph.). The 's were thoroughly repaired, the portion broken 11 by Joash was rebuilt and fortified with towers le corner gate; and other parts which had been ved to go to ruin —as the gate opening on the vey of Hinnom,¢ a spot called the “turning” ) Neh. iii. 19, 20, 24), and others, were renewed t fortified, and furnished for the first time with lines, then expressly invented, for shooting This is an addition by Josephus (ix. 9, § 9). If ally happened, the chariot must have been sent d by a flatter road than that which at present d be the direct road from Ain-Shems. Since the ‘of Solomon, chariots would seem to have become 10wn in Jerusalem. At any rate we should infer, the notice in 2 K. xiv. 20, that the royal estab- lent could not at that time boast of one. The story of his leprosy at any rate shows his for Jehovah. 20Chr. xxvi.9. The word rendered “ the valley ” : 30, always employed for the valley on the west stones and arrows against besiegers. reign happened the great earthquake, which, al- though unmentioned in the historical books of the Bible, is described by Josephus (ix. 10, § 4), and alluded to by the Prophets as a kind of era (see Stanley, S. ¢ P. pp. 184, 125). was made in the Temple itself, and below the city a large fragment was detached from the hill@ at En-rogel, and, rolling down the slope, overwhelmed the king’s gardens at the junction of the valleys of Hinnom and Kedron, and rested against the bottom of the slope of Olivet. of Uzziah, he left the sacred precincts, in which the palace would therefore seem to have been sit- uated, and resided in the hospital or lazar-house till his death.¢ kings (2 K. xv. 7); not in the sepulchre itself, but in a garden or field attached to the spot. 1286 Later in thia JERUSALEM A serious breach After the leprosy He was buried on Zion, with the Jotham (cir. 756) inherited his father’s sagacity, as well as his tastes for architecture and warfare. His works in Jerusalem were building the upper gateway to the Temple—apparently a gate com- municating with the palace (2 Chr. xxiii. 20) — and also porticoes leading to the same (Ant. ix. 11, § 2). He also built much on Ophel, — probably on the south of Moriah (2 K. xv. 35; 2 Chr. xxvii. 3), — repaired the walls wherever they were dilapidated, and strengthened them by very large and strong towers (Joseph.). c. 740) the clouds of the Syrian invasion began to gather. cessor; Rezin king of Syria and Pekah king of Israel joined their armies and invested Jerusalem Before the death of Jotham (B. They broke on the head of Ahaz his suc- (2 K. xvi. 5). The fortifications of the two pre- vious kings enabled the city to hold out during a siege of great length (ém) roady xpdvor, Joseph.). During its progress Rezin made an expedition against the distant town of Elath on the Red Sea, from which he expelled the Jews, and handed it over to the Edomites (2 K. xvi. 6; Ant. ix. 12, § 1). [AnAz.] Finding on his return that the place still held out, Rezin ravaged Judxa and re- turned to Damascus with a multitude of captives, leaving Pekah to continue the blockade. Ahaz, thinking himself a match for the Israelite army, opened his gates and came. forth. A tre- mendous conflict ensued, in which the three chiefs of the government next to the king, and a hundred and twenty thousand of the able warriors of the army of Judah, are stated to have been killed, and Pekah returned to Samaria with a crowd of cap- tives, and a great quantity of spoil collected from the Benjamite towns north of Jerusalem (Joseph. ). Ahaz himself escaped, and there is no mention, in any of the records, of the city having been plun- dered. The captives and the spoil were however sent back by the people of Samaria —a fact which, as it has no bearing on the history of the city, need here only be referred to, because from the narrative and south of the town, as rss is for that on the east. d This will be the so-called Mount of Evil Counsei, or the hill below Moriah, according as En-rogel is taken to be the “ Well of Joab” or the * Fount of the Virgin.” e PYWHTT M2, The interpretation giver above is that of Kimchi, adopted by Gesenius, Furst and Bertheau. Keil (on 2 K. xv. 5) and Hengstenberg however, contend for a different meaning. 1286 JERUSALEM JERUSALEM we learn that the nearest or most convenient route’ a meaner fate was awarded him than that § from Samaria to Jerusalem at that time was not, as now, along the plateau of the country, but by the depths of the Jordan Valley, aud through Jeri- cho (2 K. xvi. 5; 2 Chr. xxviii. 5-15; Joseph. Ant. ix. 12, § 2). To oppose the confederacy which had so injured him, Ahaz had recourse to Assyria. He appears first to have sent an embassy to Tiglath-Pileser with presents of silver and gold taken from the treasures,of the Temple and the palace (2 K. xvi. 8), which had been recruited during the last two reigns, and with a promise of more if the king would overrun Syria and Israel (Ant. ix. 12, § 3). This Tiglath-Pileser did. He marched to Damas- cus, took the city, and killed Rezin. While there, Ahaz visited him, probably to make his formal sub- mission of vassalage,* and gave him the further presents. To collect these he went so far as to lay hands on part of the permanent works of the Temple — the original constructions of Solomon. which none of his predecessors had been bold enough or needy enough to touch. He cut off the richly chased panels which ornamented the brass bases of the cisterns, dismounted the large tank or “sea”? from the brazen bulls, and supported it on a ped- estal of stone, and removed the “cover for the sab- bath,’ and the ornamental stand on which the kings were accustomed to sit in the Temple (2 K. xvi. 17, 18). Whether the application to Assyria relieved Ahaz from one or both of his enemies, is not clear. From one passage it would seem that Tiglath- Pileser actually came to Jerusalem (2 Chr. xxviii. 20). At any rate the intercourse resulted in fresh idolatries, and fresh insults to the Temple. A new brazen altar was made after the profane fashion of one he had seen at Damascus, and was set up in the centre of the court of the Temple, to occupy the place and perform the functions of the original altar of Solomon, now removed to a less prominent position (see 2 K. xvi. 12-15, with the expl. of Keil); the very sanctuary itself (6 > i], and wey) was polluted by idol-worship of some kind or other (2 Chr. xxix. 5, 16). Horses dedicated to the sun were stabled at the entrance to the court, with their chariots (2 K. xxiii. 11). Altars for sacrifice to the moon and stars were erected on the flat roofs of the Temple (ibid. 12). Such conse- crated vessels as remained in the house of Jehovah were taken thence, and either transferred to the service of the idols (2 Chr. xxix. 19), or cut up and re-manufactured; the lamps of the sanctuary were extinguished © (xxix. 7), and for the first time the doors of the Temple were closed to the worshippers (xxviii. 24), and their offerings seized for the idols (Joseph. Ant. ix. 12, § 3). The famous sun-dial was erected at this time, probably in the Temple.¢ When Ahaz at last died, it is not wonderful that @ This follows from the words of 2 K. xviii. 7. 6 In the old Jewish Calendar the 18th of Ab was kept as a fast, to commemorate the putting out the western light of the great candlestick by Ahaz. ¢ There is ana priori probability that the dial would be placed in a sacred precinct ; but may we not infer, from comparing 2 K. xx. 4 with 9, that it was in the “middle court,” and that the sight of it there ‘as he passed through had suggested to Isaiah the ¢ sign”? which was to accompany the king’s recovery ? @ Such is the express statement of 2 Chr. xxviii. the leprous Uzziah. He was excluded n9 from the royal sepulchres, but from the pr of Zion, and was buried “in the city —in salem.” ¢ The very first act of Hezekiah 724) was to restore what his father had dese (2 Chr. xxix. 3; and see 36, “ suddenly”). Levites were collected and inspirited; the 1 freed from its impurities both actual and monial; the accumulated abominations beir charged into the valley of the Kedron. musical service of the Temple was reorg: with the instruments and the hymns ordain David and Asaph; and after a solemn sin-o; for the late transgressions had been offered presence of the king and princes, the publi allowed to testify their acquiescence in the c by bringing their own thank-offerings (2 Chr 1-86). This was done on the 17th of th month of his reign. The regular time for cel ing the Passover was therefore gone by. But was a law (Num. ix. 10, 11) which allowe feast to be postponed for a month on special sions, and of this law Hezekiah took adyanta his anxiety to obtain from the whole of bis | a national testimony to their allegiance to Je and his laws (2 Chr. xxx. 2, 3). Accordin the special invitation of the king a vast mull not only from his own dominions, but fro northern kingdom, even from the remote — and Zebulun, assembled at the capital. The’ act was to uproot and efface all traces of the id of the preceding and former reigns. High- altars, the mysterious and obscene symbols o and Asherah, the venerable brazen serpent of itself, were torn down, broken to pieces, ar fragments cast into the valley of the Kedr Chr. xxx. 14; 2 K. xviii. 4). This done, th was kept for two weeks, and the vast concour' persed. The permanent service of the Temp) next thoroughly organized, the subsistence — officiating ministers arranged, and provision} for storing the supplies (2 Chr. xxxi. 2-21 was probably at this time that the decurati: the Temple were renewed, and the gold o precious plating,’ which had been remoy former kings, reapplied to the doors and I (2 K. xviii. 16). Al And now approached the greatest crisis had yet occurred in the history of the cit) dreaded Assyrian army was to appear unc walls. Hezekiah had in some way intimatet he did not intend to continue as a dependent ;: the great king was now (in the 14th year of/e kiah, cir. 711 B. c.) on his way to chastise The Assyrian army had been for some ti? Pheenicia and on the sea-coast of Philistia (R)! son, Herod. i. 476), and Hezekiah had thif had warning of his approach. The delay wast! advantage of to prepare for the siege. As (0 / 27. The book of Kings repeats its regular foi Josephus omits all notice of the burial. | * The record, we apprehend, does not recogni t distinction between Zion and Jerusalem. See} ! Amer. ed. é¢ And yet it would seem, from the accor Josiah’s reforms (2 K, xxiii. 11, 12), that m Ahaz’s intrusions survived even the zeal of H J The word “ gold” is supplied by our trans but the word * overlaid ” (TIES) shows tha metallic coating is intended. . JERUSALEM kinh made the movement a national one. A t concourse came together. ‘The springs round galem were stopped — that is, their outflow was ented, and the water diverted underground to interior of the city (2 K. xx. 20; 2 Chr. xxxii. This was particularly the case with the spring h formed the source of the stream of the (mn, elsewhere called the “ upper springhead jhon ’’ (2 Chr. xxxii. 30; A. V. most incor- “water-course’’). It was led down by a raneous channel “ through the hard rock” hr. xxxii. 80; Kcclus. xlviii. 17), to the west of the city of David (2 K. xx. 20), that is, into alley which separated the Mount Moriah and from the Upper City, and where traces of its mee appear to this day (Barclay, 310, 538). ‘done, he carefully repaired the walls of the furnished them with additional towers, and a second wall (2 Chr. xxxii. 5; Is. xxii. 10). water of the reservoir, called the “lower pool,” “old pool,”’ was diverted to a new tank in ity between the two walls? (Is. xxii. 11). Nor this all: as the struggle would certainly be one fe and death, he strengthened the fortifications le citadel (2 Chr. xxxii. 5, “ Millo;”’ Is. xxii. nd prepared abundance of ammunition. He organized the people, and officered them, red them together in the open place at the and inspired them with confidence in Jehovah 6). e details of the Assyrian invasion or invasions be found under the separate heads of SENNA- uBand HezKKiAn. It is possible that Jeru- ‘Was once regularly invested by the Assyrian . It is certain that the army encamped there other occasion, that the generals—the Tartan, aief Cup-bearer, and the chief Eunuch — held versation with Ilezekiah’s chief officers outside alls, most probably at or about the present Jélud at the N. W. corner of the city, while all above was crowded with the anxious in- ints. At the time of ‘l'itus's siege the name he Assyrian Camp" was still attached to a lorth of the city, in remembrance either of this | Subsequent visit of Nebuchadnezzar (Joseph. vy. 22,§ 2). But thougl untaken — though fadel was still the ‘virgin daughter of Zion” ‘Jerusalem did not escape unharmed. Heze- ‘treasures had to be emptied, and the costly ents he had added tw the Temple were stripped make up the tribute. ‘I'his, however, he had ted by the time of the subsequent visit of the Sadors from Babylon, as we see from the it in 2 K. xx. 12; and 2 Chr. xxxii. 27-29. *ath of this good and great king was indeed ‘mal calamity, and so it was considered. He tied in one of the chief of the royal sepul- and a vast concourse from the country, as 8 of the citizens of Jerusalem, assembled to We authority for this is the use here of the word ‘Which is uniformly applied to the valley east ‘tity, as Ge is to that west and south. There ‘t grounds which are stated in the concluding ) of this article. Similar measures were taken . Moslems on the approach of the Crusaders of Tyre, viii. 7, quoted by Robinson, i. 346 ‘© Teservoir between the Jaffa Gate and the Of the Sepulchre, now usually called the Pool Man, cannot be either of the works alluded to If an ancient construction, it is probably the | | ‘ aya JERUSALEM 1287 join in the wailings at the funeral (2 Chr xxxii. 33). The reign of Manasseh (B. Cc. 696) must have been an eventful one in the annals of Jerusalem though only meagre indications of its events are te be found in the documents. He began by plunging into all the idolatries of his grandfather — restoring all that Hezekiah had destroyed, and desecrating the Temple and the city with even more offensive idolatries than those of Ahaz (2 Chr. xxxiii. 2-9; 2 K. xxi. 2-9). In this career of wickedness he was stopped by an invasion of the Assyrian army, * by whom he was taken prisoner and carried to Babylon, where he remained for some time. The rest of his long reign was occupied in attempting to remedy his former misdoings, and in the repair and conservation of the city (Joseph. Ant. x. 3, § 2). He built a fresh wall to the citadel, “ from the west side of Gihon-in-the-valley to the Fish Gate,’ 7. e. apparently along the east side of the central valley, which parts the upper and lower cities from S. to N. He also continued the works which had been begun by Jotham at Ophel, and raised that fortress or structure to a great height. On his death he was buried in « private tomb in the garden attached to his palace, called also the garden of Uzza (2 K. xxi. 18; 2 Chr. xxxiii. 20). Here also was interred his son Amon after his violent death, following an uneventful but idolatrous reign of two years (2 Chr. xxxiii. 21-25; 2 K. xxi. 19-26). The reign of Josiah (B. Cc. 639) was marked by a more strenuous zeal for Jehovah than even that of Hezekiah had been. He began his reign at eight years of age, and by his 20th year (12th of his - reign — 2 Chr. xxxiv. 3) commenced a thorough removal of the idolatrous abuses of Manasseh and Amon, and even some of Ahaz, which must have escaped the purgations of Hezekiahe (2 K. xxiii. 12). As on former occasions, these abominations were broken up small and carried down to the bed of the Kidron — which seems to have served almost the purpose of a common sewer, and there calcined and dispersed. The cemetery, which still paves the sides of that valley, had already begun to exist, and the fragments of the broken altars and statues were scattered on the graves that they might be effec- tually defiled, and thus prevented from further use. On the opposite side of the valley, somewhere on the Mount of Olives, were the erections which Solomon had put up for the deities of his foreign wives. Not one of these was spared; they were all annihilated, and dead bones scattered over the places where they had stood. These things occu- pied six years, at the expiration of which, in the first month of the 18th year of his reign (2 Chr. xxxv. 1; 2 K. xxiii. 23), a solemn passover was held, emphatically recorded to have been the greatest since the time of Samuel (2 Chr. xxxv. 18). This seems to have been the crowning ceremony of the Almond Pool of Josephus. (For the reasons, see Wil liams, Holy City, 35-88, 488.) * See opposite view by Robinson, Bibl. Res. i. 512 f. : 1852, p. 248 f. 8. W. ‘¢ The narrative in Kings appears to place the de- struction of the images after the king’s solemn covenant in the Temple, 7. e. after the completion of the repairs But, on the other hand, there are the dates given in 2 Chr# xxxiv. 8, xxxv. 1,19, which fix the Passover to the 14th of the Ist month of his 18th year, too early in the year for the repair which was begun in the same year to have preceded it. 1288 JERUSALEM purification of the Temple; and it was at once fol- lowed by a thorough renovation of the fabric (2 Chr. xxxiv. 8; 2 K. xxii. 3). The cost was met by offerings collected at the doors (2 K. xxii. 4), and also throughout the country (Joseph. Ant. x. 4, § 1), not only of Judah and Benjamin, but also of Ephraim and the other northern tribes (2 Chr. xxxiv. 9). It was during these repairs that the book of the Law was found; and shortly after all the people were convened to Jerusalem to hear it _ Tead, and to renew the national covenant with Je- hovah.¢ The mention of Huldah the prophetess (2 Chr. xxxiv. 22; 2 K. xxii. 14) introduces us to the lower city under the name of “the Mishneh ”’ (TW, A. VY. “college,” “school,’’ or “second part ’’).o The name also survives in the book of Zephaniah, a prophet of this reign (i. 10), who seems to recognize “the Fish Gate,’ and “the lower city,’ and “ the hills,’ as the three main divisions of the city. Josiah’s death took place at a distance from Jerusalem ; but he was brought there for his burial, and was placed in “ his own sepulchre”’ (2 K. xxiii. 30), or “in the sepulchre of his fathers’? (2 Chr. xxxy. 24), probably that already tenanted by Manas- seh and Amon. (See 1 Esdr. i. 31.) Josiah’s rash opposition to Pharaoh-Necho cost him his life, his son his throne, and Jerusalem much suffering. Before Jehoahaz (B. ¢c. 608) had been reigning three months, the Egyptian king found opportunity to send to Jerusalem,¢ from Riblah where he was then encamped, a force suffi- cient to depose and take him prisoner, to put his brother Eliakim on the throne, and to exact a heavy fine from the city and country, which was paid in advance by the new king, and afterwards extorted by taxation (2 K. xxiii. 33, 35). The fall of the city was now rapidly approaching. During the reign of Jehoiakim — such was the new name which at Necho’s order Eliakim had assumed — Jerusalem was visited by Nebuchadnezzar, with the Babylonian army lately victorious over the Egyptians at Carchemish. The visit was possibly repeated once, or even twice.¢ A siege there must have been; but of this we have no account. We may infer how severe was the pressure on the sur- rounding country, from the fact that the very Bedouins were driven within the walls by “the fear of the Chaldeans and of the Syrians’ (Jer. xxxy. 11). We may also infer that the Temple was entered, since Nebuchadnezzar carried off some of the vessels therefrom for his temple at Babylon (2 Chr. xxxvi. 7), and that Jehoiakim was treated with great indignity (did. 6). In the latter part of this reign we discern the country harassed and @ This narrative has some interesting correspon- dences with that of Joash’s coronation (2 K. xi.). Amongst these is the singular expression, the king stood “on the pillar.” In the present case Josephus understands this as an official spot — éri rod Bxjuaros. b See Keil on 2 K. xxii. 14. [In regard to this ren- dering of the A. V., see addition to Cottecs, Amer. ed. H.] ¢ This event would surely be more emphatically related in the Bible, if Jerusalem were the Cadytis which Necho is recorded by Herodotus to have de- stroyed after the battle at Megiddo. The Bible records pass over in total silence, or notice only in a casual way, events which occurred close to the Israelite ter- ritory, when those events do not affect the Israelites | themselves ; instance the 29-years’ siege of Ashdod by JERUSALEM pillaged by marauding bands from the east | dan (2 K. xxiy. 2). Jehoiakim was succeeded by his son Jehi (B. C. 597). Hardly had his short reign before the terrible army of Babylon reat before the city, again commanded by Neb nezzar (2 K. xxiv. 10,11). Jehoiachin’s ¢ tion appears to have made him shrink from ing on the city the horrors of a long siege vi. 2, § 1), and he therefore surrendered third month of his reign. The treasures palace and Temple were pillaged, certain | articles of Solomon’s original establishment, had escaped the plunder and desecrations | previous reigns, were cut up (2 K. xxiv. 1 the more desirable objects out of the Tem] ried off (Jer. xxvii. 19). The first deportati: we hear of from the city now took place king, his wives, and the queen mother, wit eunuchs and whole establishment, the prince; warriors, and 1,000 artificers — in all 10,00¢ were carried off to Babylon (bid. 14-16) uncle of Jehoiachin was made king in his by the name of Zedekiah, under a solem (“by God’’) of allegiance (2 Chr. xxxvi. I xvii. 13, 14, 18). Had he been content_to | quiet under the rule of Babylon, the city} have stood many years longer; but he w)/ He appears to have been tempted with the’ of relief afforded by the accession of Pi Hophra, and to have applied to him for ance (Ez. xvii. 15). Upon this Nebucha marched in person to Jerusalem, arriving ~ ninth year of Zedekiah, on the 10th day/ 10th monthe (B. c. 588), and at once I regular siege, at the same time wasting the « far and near (Jer. xxxiv. 7). The siege w ducted by erecting forts on lofty mounds rou! city, from which, on the usual Assyrian plan) siles were discharged into the town, and th) and houses in them battered by rams (Jer 24, xxxili. 4, ii, 4; Ez. xxi. 22; Joseph. | 8, § 1). The city was also surrounded with (Jer. lil. 7). The siege was once abandoned to the approach of the Egyptian army (Jer. 5, 11), and during the interval the gates of { were reopened (iid. 13). But the relief w) temporary, and, in the 11th of Zedekiah (B. on the 9th day of the 4th month (Jer. lii. 6)) just a year and a half from the first inven the city was taken. Nebuchadnezzar had | mean time retired from Jerusalem to Rith watch the more important siege of Tyre, 2 the last year of its progress. The besiegels to have suffered severely both from hunger a ease (Jer. xxxii. 24), but chiefly from the | Tp gs Psammetichus, Necho’s predecessor; the desi of Gezer by a former Pharaoh (1 K. ix. 16), eti when events do affect them, they are mention) more or less detail. The question of Cadytis} cussed by Sir G@. Wilkinson, in Rawlinson’s Helo ii. 246, note ; also by Kenrick, Anc. Egypt. ii.|6 @ It seems impossible to reconcile the acccté this period in Kings, Chronicles, and Jeremia| ¥ Josephus and the other sources. For one W JEHOIAKIM. For an opposite one see Rawis Herodotus, i. 509-514. e According to Josephus (Ant. x. 7, § 4), t was the commencement of the final portion! siege. But there is nothing in the Bible support this. - : J For the sieges see Layard’s Nineveh ii. 360? JERUSALEM f. xxv. 3; Jer. lii. 6; Lam. v. 10). in the wall been effécted on the day named. at midnight (Joseph. ). ‘the middle court? (Jer. xxxix. 3; Joseph. Ant. 8, § 2). Then the alarm was given to Zedekiah, , collecting his remaining warriors, K re near the present Bab el-Mugharibeh, crossed ) Kedron above the royal gardens, and made eir way over the Mount of Olives to the Jordan alley. At break of day information of the flight s brought to the Chaldeans by some deserters. A pursuit was made: Zedekiah was overtaken rae the mple, the royal palace, and all the more impor- it buildings of the city, were set on fire, and the lls thrown down and left as heaps of disordered dbish on the ground (Neh. iv. 2). The spoil of + city consisted apparently of little more than ‘furniture of the Temple. A few small vessels gold ¢ and silver, and some other things in brass ee carried away whole — the former under the cial eye of Nebuzaradan himself (2 K. xxv. 15 ap. Jer. xxvii. 19). But the larger objects, (omon’s huge brazen basin or sea with its twelve ls, the ten bases, the two magnificent pillars, ‘hin and Boaz, too heavy and too cumbrous for asport, were broken up. The pillars were al- st the only parts of Solomon’s original construc- which had not been mutilated by the sacrile- as hands of some Baal-worshipping monarch or ®t, and there is quite a touch of pathos in the ‘in which the chronicler lingers over his recol- jons of their height, their size, and their orna- ‘its—capitals, wreathen work, and pomegran- , “all of brass.” ‘he previous deportations, and the sufferings ‘red in the siege, must to a great extent have ned the place of its able-bodied people, and } the captives, on this oceasion, were but few ‘Unmmportant. The high-priest, and four other ts of the Temple, the commanders of the —————————— . n JERUSALEM 128¢ But they | fighting men, five @ people of the court, the mus. perhaps have held out longer had not a | tering officer of the army, and sixty selected private persons, were reserved to be submitted to the king The whole city was | at Riblah. The daughters of Zedekiah, with their in the pitchy darkness @ characteristic of an | children town, and nothing was known by the Jews | Ant. x. 9, § 4), t had happened till the generals of the army | 5), d the Temple (Joseph.) and took their seats | the charge of Gedaliah ben-Ahikam, who had been and establishment (Jer. xli. 10, 16; comp. and Jeremiah the prophet (ibid. xl. were placed by Nebuzaradan at Mizpeh under appointed as superintendent of the few poor laboring people left to carry on the necessary husbandry and they stole | vine-dressing. In addition to these were some small of the city by a gate at the south side, some- bodies of men in arms, who had perhaps escaped from the city before the blockade, or in the interval of the siege, and who were hovering on the out- skirts of the country watching what might turn up (Jer. xl. 7, 8). to remain in quiet. Five years afterwards — the 23d of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign — the insatiable Nebuzaradan, on his way to 7), again visited the and swept off 745 more of the wretched peasants (Jer. lii. 30). Thus Jerusalem at last had fallen, and the Tem- ple, set up under such fair auspices, was a heap of blackened ruins.e The spot, however, was none the less sacred because the edifice was destroyed, and it was still the resort of devotees, sometimes from great distances, who brought their offerings — in strange heathenish guise indeed, but still with a true feeling — to weep and wail over the holy place (Jer. xli. 5). It was still the centre of hope to the people in captivity, and the time soon arrived for their return to it. The decree of Cyrus author- izing the rebuilding of the “ house of Jehovah, God of Israel, which is in Jerusalem,” was issued B. c. 536. In consequence thereof a very large caravan of Jews arrived in the country. The expedition comprised all classes —the royal family, priests, Levites, inferior ministers, lay people belonging to various towns and families — and numbered 42,360 / in all. They were well provided with treasure for the necessary outlay; and —a more precious bur- den still — they bore the vessels of the old Temple which had been preserved at Babylon, and were now destined again t9 find a home at Jerusalem (Ezr. v. 14, vi. 5). A short time was occupied in settling in their former cities, but or. the first day of the 7th month (Ezr. iii. 6) a general assembly was called together at Jerusalem in “the ope: nlace of the first gate towards the east”? (1 Est ¢. 37); the altar was set up, and the daily mornivg #2d evening sacri- The moon being but nine days old, there can ' been little or no moonlight at this hour. This was the regular Assyrian custom at the con- ‘on of a siege (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 375). ‘Josephus (x. 8, § 5) says the candlestick and the ‘m table of shewbread were taken now; but these doubtless carried off on the previous occasion. Jeremiah (li. 25) says ‘ seven.” The events of this period are kept in memory by ews of the present day by various commemorative Which were instituted immediately after the oc- “Rees themselves. These are : the 10th Tebeth (Jan. 5), the day of the inves+ment of the city by Nebuchadnezzar ; the 10th Ab \alv 29), destruction of the Temple by Nebuzaradan, an'\ subsequently by Titus ; the 3d Tisri (Sept. 19); murder of Gedaliah ; 9th Tebeth, when Ezekiel and the other captives at Babylon received the news of the destruction of the Temple. The entrance of the Chaldees into the city is commemorated on the 17th Tammuz (July 8), the day of the breach of the Antonia by Titus. The modern dates here given are the days on which the fasts are kept in the present year, 1860. J Josephus says 42,4632. 1290 JERUSALEM fices commenced.¢ Other festivals were re-insti- tuted, and we have a record of the celebration of at least one anniversary of the day of the first assembly at Jerusalem (Neh. viii. 1, &c.). Ar- rangements were made for stone and timber for the fabric and in the 2d year after their return (B. Cc. 534), on the Ist day of the 2d month (1 Esdr. v. 57), the foundation of the Temple was laid amidst the songs and music of the priests and Levites (according to the old rites of David), the tears of the old men and the shouts of the young. But the work was destined to suffer material interrup- tions. The chiefs of the people by whom Samaria had been colonized, finding that the Jews refused their offers of assistance (Kzr. iv. 2), annoyed and hindered them in every possible way; and by this and some natural drawbacks — such as_ violent storms of wind by which some of the work had been blown down (Hag. i. 9), drought, and conse- quent failure of crops, and mortality amongst both animals and men — the work was_ protracted through the rest of the reign of Cyrus, and that of Ahasuerus, till the accession of Artaxerxes (Da- rius I.) to the throne of Persia (B. c. 522). The Samaritans then sent to the court at Babylon a formal memorial (a measure already tried without success in the preceding reign), representing that the inevitable consequence of the restoration of the city would be its revolt from the empire. This produced its effect, and the building entirely ceased for a time. In the mean time houses of some pre- tension began to spring up — ‘ceiled houses ”’ (Hag. i. 4), —and the enthusiasm of the builders of the Temple cooled (idzd. 9). But after two years the delay became intolerable to the leaders, and the work was recommenced at all hazards, amidst the encouragements and rebukes of the two prophets, Zechariah and Haggai, on the 24th day of the 6th month of Darius’ 2d year. Another attempt at interruption was made by the Persian governor of the district west of the Euphrates ° jEzr. v. 3), but the result was only a confirmation by Darius of the privileges granted by his prede- cessor (vi. 6-13), and an order to render all possi- ble assistance. The work now went on apace, and the Temple was finished and dedicated ¢ in the 6th year of Darius (B. C. 516), on the 3d (or 23d, 1 Esdr. vii. 5) of Adar — the last. month, and on the 14th day of the new year the first Passover was celebrated. The new Temple was 60 cubits less in altitude than that of Solomon (Joseph. Andé. xv. 11, § 1); but its dimensions and form — of which there are only scanty notices — will be best con- sidered elsewhere. [TEMPLE.] All this time the walls of the city remained as the Assyrians had left them (Neh. ii. 12, &.). A period of 58 years now passed of which no accounts are preserved to us; but at the end of that time, in the year 457, Ezra arrived from Babylon with a caravan of Priests, Levites, Nethinims, and lay people, among the lat- ter some members of the royal family, in all 1,777 @ The feast of Tabernacles is also said to have been celebrated at this time (iii. 4; Joseph. Ant. xi. 4, § 1); but this is in direct opposition to Neh. viii. 17, which states that it was first celebrated when Ezra was present (comp. 13), which he was not on the for- mer occasion. 6 FTW ANDY = beyond the river, but by our translators rendered “on this side,” as if speaking from Jerusalem. (See Ewald, iv. 110, nofr.) JERUSALEM persons (Ezr. vii., viii.),and with valuable off from the Persian king and his court, as w from the Jews who still remained in Bab; (tbid. vii. 14, viii. 25). He left Babylon o Ist day of the year and reached Jerusalem ¢ Ist of the 5th month (Ezr. vii. 9, viii. 32). | Ezra at once set himself to correct some ii larities into which the community had fallen. chief of them was the practice of marryin; native women of the old Canaanite nations people were assembled at three days’ notice) harangued by Ezra — so urgent was the cas¢ the midst of a pouring rain, and in very, weather, in the open space in front of et entrance to the Temple (Ezr. x. 9; 1 Esdr. | His exhortations were at once acceded to, ¢) of trespass-offering was arranged, and no tal 17 priests, J0 Levites, and 86 laymen, renc| their foreign wives, and gave up an inter) which had been to their fathers the cause ai accompaniment of almost all their misfo The matter took three months to carry ou: was completed on the Ist day of the new yea] the practice was not wholly eradicated (Nelx 23), though it never was pursued as befo| Captivity. We now pass another period of eleven year) the arrival of Nehemiah, about B. c. 445. ]] been moved to come to Jerusalem by the acu given him of the wretchedness of the comnii and of the state of ruin in which the walls! city continued (Neh. i. 3). Arrived there Ik his intentions quiet for three days, but on thei of the third he went out by himself, and, asi the ruins would allow, made the circuit of th)l (ii. 11-16). On the following day he em | chief people, and proposed the immediate rebid \ of the walls. One spirit seized them. le rulers, Levites, private persons, citizens of |t towns,? as well as those dwelling on the A put their hand vigorously to the work. Ai/p withstanding the taunts and threats of Sei the ruler of the Samaritans, and Tobiah tA monite, in consequence of which one half people had to remain armed while the othh built, the work was completed in 52 days,) 25th of Elul. The wall thus rebuilt was \ the city of Jerusalem as well as the city oia or Zion, as will be shown in the next section/l the account of the rebuilding is examined ile (Section III. p. 1322). At this time the eil have presented a forlorn appearance; but few? were built, and large spaces remained unocp! or occupied but with the ruins of the Assy: structions (Neh. vii. 4). In this respect it 5 unlike much of the modern city. The sen cation of the wall, recorded in Neh. xii. !- probably took place at a later period, wh works had been completely finished. Whether Ezra was here at this time is e Psalm xxx. by its title purports to have be} ¥ on this oceasion (Ewald, Dichter, i. 210, 228). also suggests that Ps. lxviii. was finally used! festival (Gesch. iv. 127, note). d Among these we find Jericho and the Jor¢ y ley (A. V. * plain’), Beth-zur, near Hebron, Beth-horon, perhaps Samaria, and the other e Jordan (see iv. 12, referring to those who liv, 3 Sanballat and Tobiah). JERUSALEM in.@ [EzRA, i. 803 0.] But we meet him during e government of Nehemiah, especially on one in- resting occasion — the anniversary, it would ap- ar, of the first return of Zerubbabel’s caravan — | the Ist of the 7th month (Neh. viii. 1). He ere appears as the venerable and venerated in- ructor of the people in the forgotten law of Moses, aongst other reforms reinstituting the feast of ibernacles, which we incidentally learn had not en celebrated since the time that the Israelites iginally entered on the land (viii. 17). Nehemiah remained in the city for twelve years 14, xiii. 6), during which time he held the office d maintained the state of governor of the province 14) from his own private resources (v. 15). He s indefatigable in his regulation and maintenance the order and dignity both of the city (vii. 3, xi. xii. 15, &c.) and Temple (x. 32, 39, xii. 44); lished the excessive rates of usury by which the her citizens had grievously oppressed the poor 6-12); kept up the genealogical registers, at te so characteristic of, and important to, the wish nation (vii. 5, xi., xii.); and in various ter ways showed himself an able and active gov- or, and possessing a complete ascendency over fellow-citizens. At the end of this time he urned to Babylon; but it does not appear that absence was more than a short one, and he was nagain at his post, as vigilant and energetic as r (xili. 7). Of his death we have no record. The foreign tendencies of the high-priest Eliashib | his family had already given Nehemiah some cern (xiii. 4, 28), and when the checks exercised his vigilance and good sense were removed, they ckly led to serious disorders, unfortunately the y Occurrences which have come down to us during next epoch. Eliashib’s son Joiada, who suc- ‘Ted him in the high-priesthood (apparently a ‘years before the death of Nehemiah), had two 3, the one Jonathan (Neh. xii. 11) or Johanan ih. xii. 22; Joseph. Ant. xi. 7, § 1), the other qua (Joseph. ibid.). Joshua had made interest ‘ithe general of the Persian army that he should jhee his brother in the priesthood: the two quar- ‘id, and Joshua was killed by Johanan in the iple (B. ©. cir. 366): a horrible occurrence, and 1 aggravated by its consequences; for the Per- ‘general made it the excuse not ouly to pollute ‘Sanetuary (vads) by entering it, on the ground ; he was certainly less unclean than the body ‘te murdered man — but also to extort a tribute ) darics on every lamb offered in the daily sacri- for the next seven years (Joseph. Ant. ibid.). chanan in his turn had two sons. Jaddua (Neh. tL, 22) and Manasseh (Joseph. Ant. xi. 7, § 2). !yasseh married the daughter of Sanballat the ‘nite? and eventually became the first priest bo Samaritan temple on Gerizim (Joseph. Ant, ry §§ 2,4). But at first he seems to have been } ee The name occurs among those who assisted in the s ‘ation of the wall (xii. 83) ; but so as to make us » ve that it was some inferior person of the same . Prideaux Says five years ; but his reasons are not factory, and would apply to ten as well as to five. _ According to Neh. xiii. 28, the man who married allat’s daughter was “son of Joiada ;”’ but this | direct contradiction to the circumstantial state- 8 of Josephus, followed in the text ; and the word '” is often used in Hebrew for ‘ grandson,” or r K ). 4 More remote descendant (see, & g. CARMI, wear! Anttq, i. 8, 5) JERUSALEM associated in the priesthood of Jerusalem with his brother (Joseph. weréyew ris apxrepwotvns), and have relinquished it only on being forced to do go on account of his connection with Sanballat. Tha foreign marriages against which Ezra and Nehe- miah had acted so energetically had again become common among both the priests and laymen. A movement was made by a reforming party against the practice; but either it had obtained a firmer hold than before, or there was nothing to replace the personal influence of Nehemiah, for the move- ment only resulted in a large number going over with Manasseh to the Samaritans (Joseph. Art. xi. 8, §§ 2,4). During the high-priesthood of Jaddua occurred the famous visit of Alexander the Great to Jerusalem. Alexander had invaded the north of Syria, beaten Darins’s army at the Granicus, and again at Issus, and then, having besieged Tyre, sent a letter to Jaddua inviting his allegiance, and desiring assistance in men and provisions. The answer of the high-priest was, that to Darius his allegiance had been given, and that to Darius he should remain faithful while he lived. Tyre was taken in July B. c. 331 (Kenrick’s Pheniciu, 431), and then the Macedonians moved along the flat strip of the coast of Palestine to Gaza, which in its turn was taken in October. The road to Egypt being thus secured, Alexander had leisure to visit Jerusalem, and deal in person with the people who had ventured to oppose him. This he did appar- ently by the same route which Isaiah (x. 28-32) describes Sennacherib as taking. The “Sapha”’ at which he was met by the high-priest must be Mizpeh — Scopus—the high ridge to the north of the city, the Nob of Isaiah, which is crossed by the northern road, and from which the first view — and that a full one—of the city and Temple is procured. The result to the Jews of the visit was an exemption from tribute in the Sabbatical year: a privilege which they retained for long.¢ We hear nothing more of Jerusalem until it was taken by Ptolemy Soter, about B. c. 320, during his incursion into Syria. The account given by Josephus (Ant. xii. 1; Apion, i. § 22), partly from Agatharchides, and partly from some other source, is extremely meagre, nor is it quite consistent with itself. But we can discern one point to which more than one parallel is found in the later history — that the city fell into the hands of Ptolemy because the Jews would not fight on the Sabbath. Great hardships seem to have been experienced by the Jews after this conquest, and a large number were transported to Egypt and to Northern Africa. A stormy period succeeded — that of the strugg]s between Antigonus and Ptolemy for the possession of Syria, which lasted until the defeat of the former at Ipsus (B. c. 301), after which the country came into the possession of Ptolemy. The contention however was confined to the maritime region of 129 d The details of this story, and the arguments for and against its authenticity, are given under ALEX- ANDER (i. 60); see also Hicu-Prugst (ii. 1072). It should be observed that the part of the Temple which Alex- ander entered, and where he sacrificed to God, was not the vads, into which Bagoas had forced himself after the murder of Joshua, but the iepdy — the court only (Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, § 5). The Jewish tradition is that he was induced to put off his shoes before treading the sacred ground of the court, by being told that they would slip on the polished marble (Meg. Tuanith, in 1292 JERUSALEM Palestine,? and Jerusalem appears to have escaped. Scanty as is the information we possess concerning the city, it yet indicates a state of prosperity; the only outward mark of dependence being an annual tax of twenty talents of silver payable by the high- priests. Simon the Just, who followed his father Onias in the high-priesthood (cir. B. Cc. 800), is one of the favorite heroes of the Jews. Under his care the sanctuary (vads) was repaired, and some foun- dations of great depth added round the Temple, possibly to gain a larger surface on the top of the hill (Eccelus. 1. 1, 2). The large cistern or “sea”’ of the principal court of the Temple, which hitherto would seem to have been but temporarily or roughly constructed, was sheathed in brass? (bed. 3); the walls of the city were more strongly fortified to guard against such attacks as those of Ptolemy (ib. 4); and the Temple service was maintained with great pomp and ceremonial (ib. 11-21). His death was marked by evil omens of various kinds presaging disasters © (Otho, Lea. Rab. “ Messias’’). Simon’s brother Eleazar succeeded him as high- priest (B. c. 291), and Antigonus of Socho as president of the Sanhedrim @ (Prideaux). The dis- asters presaged did not immediately arrive, at least in the grosser forms anticipated. The intercourse with Greeks was fast eradicating the national char- acter, but it was at any rate a peaceful intercourse during the reigns of the Ptolemies who succeeded Soter, namely, Philadelphus (B. c. 285), and Euer- getes (B. C. 247). It was Philadelphus, who, ac- cording to the story preserved by Josephus, had the translation of the Septuagint ¢ made, in connection with which he sent Aristeas to Jerusalem during the priesthood of Eleazar. He also bestowed on the Temple very rich gifts, consisting of a table for the shewbread, of wonderful workmanship, basins, bowls, phials, ete., and other articles both for the private and public use of the priests (Joseph. Ant. xii. 2,§ 5 — 10,15). A description of Jerusalem at this period under the name of Aristeas still sur- vives,‘ which supplies a lively picture of both Tem- ple and city. The Temple was “ enclosed with three walls 70 cubits high, and of proportionate thickness. . The spacious courts were paved with marble, and beneath them lay immense reser- voirs of water, which by mechanical contrivance was made to rush forth, and thus wash away the blood of the sacrifices.’’ The city occupied the summit and the eastern slopes of the opposite hill —the modern Zion. The main streets appear to have run north and south; some “along the brow . others lower down but parallel, following the course of the valley, with cross streets connecting them.” They were “furnished with raised pave- ments,”’ either due to the slope of the ground, or @ Diod. Sic. xix. ; Hecatzeus in Joseph. Apion. i. 22. b So the A. V., apparently following a different text from either LXX. or Vulgate, which state that the reservoir was made smaller. But the passage is prob- ably corrupt. c One of the chief of these was that the scapegoat was not, as formerly, dashed in pieces by his fall from the rock, out got off alive into the desert, where he was eaten by the Saracens. d Simon the Just was the last of the illustrious men who formed “ the Great Synagogue.” Antigonus was the first of the Tanaim, or expounders of the written law, whose dicta are embodied in the Mishna. From Sadoc, one of Antigonus’s scholars, is said to have sprung the sect of the Sadducees (Prideaux, ii. 2; Ewald, Gesch. iy. 318). It is remarkable that Antig- possibly adopted for the reason given by Aris namely, to enable the passengers to avoid cor with persons or things ceremonially unclean. bazaars were then, as now, a prominent featui the city. stones, and spices brought by caravans from uncle Manasseh, brother to Onias I.; and he: A, JERUSALEM : | There were to be found gold, pre East, and other articles imported from the | by way of Joppa, Gaza, and Ptolemais, which s¢ as its commodious harbor. that among these Pheenician importations fron It is not impos West may have figured the dyes and the tin o remote Britain. Eleazar was succeeded (cir. B. C. 276) | (cir. 250) by Onias Il. Onias was a son A great Simon the Just; but he inherited nor) his father’s virtues, and his ill-timed avari length endangered the prosperity of Jerus For, the payment of the annual tax to the cou} Egypt having been for several years evaded, k emy Euergetes, about 226, sent a commissior Jerusalem to enforce the arrears (Joseph. Ank 4, § 1; Prideaux). Onias, now in his si childhood (Ant. xii. 4, § 3), was easily prevail) by his nephew Joseph to allow him to returni the commissioner to Alexandria, to endeay arrange the matter with the king. Joseph, a2 evidently, of great ability,9 not only procuret remission of the tax in question,” but alsoy suaded Ptolemy to grant him the lucrative ilege of farming the whole revenue of Judes maria, Coele-Syria, and Phcenicia—a prie which he retained till the province was taken’ the Ptolemies by Antiochus the Great. " Hi the family of the high-priest had been the x powerful in the country; but Joseph haci founded one able to compete with it, and thec tention and rivalry between the two — pe i itself at one time in enormous bribes to the at another in fierce quarrels at home — at I] to the interference of the chief power wilt affairs of a city, which, if wisely and quietly erned, might never have been molested. Onias II. died about 217, and was succeec! Simon II. In 221 Ptolemy Philopator has ceeded Euergetes on the throne of Egypt. Fh only been king three years when Antioch Great attempted to take Syria from him. — ochus partly succeeded, but in a battle at Bh south of Gaza, fought in the year 217 (thea as that of Hannibal at’ Thrasymene), he wa‘ pletely routed and forced to fly to Antioch. ’t emy shortly after visited Jerusalem. He ® sacrifice in the court of the Temple, and % have entered the sanctuary, had he not bee'P onus is the first Jew we meet with bearing ie name. e The legend of the translation by 72 inte! t is no longer believed ; but it probably rests 0% foundation of fact. The sculpture of the tal bowls (lilies and vines, without any figures) S¢ : have been founded on the descriptions in the I/- 5 Mace. ii. 14, &c., it is said to have had alsc® of Egypt upon it. f It is to be found in the Appendix to Have’ Josephus, and in Gallandii Bibl. Vet. Padr. ti. 8) extract is given in article ‘ Jerusalem x HD ich h Geogr. ii. 25, 26). g The story of the stratagem by whi his fortune is told in Prideaux (anno 226), ai man’s Hist. of the Jews (ii. 84). A At least we hear nothing of it afterwards. h Pe JERUSALEM sted by the firmness of the high-priest Simon, d also by a supernatural terror which struck him d stretched him paralyzed on the pavement of » court (3 Mace. ii. 22).¢ This repulse Ptolemy yer forgave, and the Jews of Alexandria suffered rely in consequence. Like the rest of Palestine, Jerusalem now be- ne alternately a prey to each of the contending rties (Joseph. Ant. xii. 3, § 3). In 203 it was cen by Antiochus. In 199 it was retaken by as the Alexandrian general, who left a garrison the citadel. In the following year Antiochus ain beat the Egyptians, and then the Jews, who d suffered most from the latter, gladly opened ir gates to his army, and assisted them in lueing the Egyptian garrison. This service itiochus requited by large presents of money and icles for sacrifice, by an order to Ptolemy to mish cedar and other materials for cloisters and ier additions to the Temple, and by material re- * from taxation. He also published a decree rming the sacredness of the Temple from the rusion of strangers, and forbidding any infrac- ns of the Jewish law (Joseph. Ant. xii. 3, §§ 3, Simon was followed in 195 by Onias III. In 1 Antiochus the Great died, and was succeeded his son Seleucus Soter (Joseph. Ant. xii. 4, § ), Jerusalem was now in much apparent pros- ‘ity. Onias was greatly respected, and governed sha firm hand; and the decree of the late king 3so far observed, that the whole expenditure of ) sacrifices was borne by Seleucus (2 Mace. iii. 3). But the city soon began to be much dis- ‘bed by the disputes between Hyrcanus, the ille- ‘imate son of Joseph the collector, and his elder legitimate brothers, on the subject of the divi- ‘na of the property left by their father. The high- est, Onias, after some hesitation, seems to have ‘en the part of Hyrcanus, whose wealth — after ‘suicide of Hyrcanus (about B. c. 180) — he se- ved in the treasury of the Temple. The office of ‘ernor (rpoordrns) of the Temple was now held ‘one Simon, who is supposed to have been one of ‘legitimate brothers of Hyrcanus. By this man eucus was induced to send Heliodorus to Jeru- +m to get possession of the treasure of Hyreanus. /w the attempt failed, and the money was for the / preserved from pillage, may be seen in 2 Mace. / 24-30, and in the well-known picture of Raf- le Sanzio. ‘175 Seleucus Soter died, and the kingdom of “ia came to his brother, the infamous Antiochus ‘phanes. His first act towards Jerusalem was sell the office of high-priest — still filled by the /d Onias III.—to Onias’s brother Joshua (2 ce, iy. 7; Ant. xii.5,§ 1). Greek manners had ‘Te many a step at Jerusalem, and the new high- vst was not likely to discourage their further ‘gress. His first act was to Grecize his own ae, and to become “Jason;”’ his next to set up ymnasium — that is a place where the young 1 of the town were trained naked — to intro- e the Greek dress, Greek sports, and Greek éllations. Now (1 Mace. i. 13, &c.; 2 Mace. ——— |The third book of the Maccabees, though so i has no reference to the Maccabeean heroes, but ‘ \ken Up with the relation of this visit of Ptolemy ‘erusalem, and its consequences to the Jews. This visit is omitted in 1 Macc. Josephus men- " it, but says that it was marked by a great | 7 ’ — JERUSALEM 12934 iv. 9, 12) for the first time we hear of an attempt to efface the distinguishing mark of a Jew — again to ‘become uncircumcised.’’ The priests quickly followed the example of their chief (2 Mace. iv. 14), and the Temple service was neglected. A special deputation of the youth of Jerusalem — “ Anti- ochians ’’ they were now called — was sent with of- ferings from the Temple of Jehovah to the festival of Hercules at Tyre. In 172 Jerusalem was visited by Antiochus. He entered the gity at night by torch-light and amid the acclamations of Jason and his party, and after a short stay returned? (2 Mace. iv. 22). And now the treachery of Jason was to be requited to him. His brother Onias, who had assumed the Greek name of Menelaus, in his turn bought the high-priesthood from Anti- ochus, and drove Jason out to the other side of the Jordan (2 Mace. iv. 26). To pay the price of the office, Menelaus had laid hands on the conse- erated plate of the Temple. This became known, and a riot was the consequence (2 Mace. iv. 32, 39, 40). During the absence of Antiochus in Egypt, Jason suddenly appeared before .Jerusalem with a thousand men, and whether by the fury of his attack, or from his having friends in the city, he entered the walls, drove Menelaus into the citadel, and slaughtered the citizens without mercy. Ja- son seems to have failed to obtain any of the val- uables of the Temple, and shortly after retreated beyond Jordan, where he miserably perished (2 Mace. v. 7-10). But the news of these tumults reaching Antiochus on his way from Egypt brought him again to Jerusalem (B. c. 170). He appears to have entered the city without much difficulty.¢ An indiscriminate massacre of the adherents of Ptolemy followed, and then a general pillage of the contents of the Temple. Under the guidance of Menelaus, Antiochus went into the sanctuary, and took from thence the golden altar, the candlestick, the magnificent table of shewbread, and all the vessels and utensils, with 1,800 talents out of the treasury. These things occupied three days. He then quitted for Antioch, carrying off, besides his booty, a large train of captives; and leaving, as governor of the city, a Phrygian named Philip, a man of a more savage disposition than himself (1 Mace. i. 20-24; 2 Mace. v. 11-21; Joseph. Ant. xii. 5, § 38; B. J. i. 1,§ 1). But something worse was reserved for Jerusalem than pillage, death, and slavery, worse than even the pollution of the pres- ence of this monster in the holy place of Jehovah. Nothing less than the total extermination of the Jews was resolved on, and in two years (B. C. 168) an army was sent under Apollonius to carry the resolve into effect. He waited till the Sabbath, and then for the second time the entry was made while the people were engaged in their devotions. Au- other great slaughter took place, the city was now in its turn pillaged and burnt, and the walls de- stroyed. The foreign garrison took up its quarters in what had from the earliest times been the strongest part of the place —the ancient city of David (1 Mace. i. 33, vii. 32), the famous hill of Zion, described slaughter of the Jewish party and by plunder (Ani. xii. 5, § 3). This, however, does not agree with the festal character given to it in the 2 Macc., and followed above. c There is a great discrepancy between the accounts of 1 Macc., 2 Macc., and Josephus. 1294 JERUSALEM as being on an eminence adjoining “ the north wall of the Temple, and so high as to overlook it (Ant. xii. 5, § 4). This hill was now fortified with a very strong wall with towers, and within it the garrison secured their booty, cattle, and other pro- visions, the women of their prisoners, and a certain number of the inhabitants of the city friendly to them. Antiochus next issued an edict to compel heathen worship in all his dominions, and one Athenzus was sent to Jerusalem to enforce compliance. As a first step, the Temple was reconsecrated to Zeus Olympius (2 Mace. vi. 2). The worship of idols (1 Mace. i. 47), with its loose and obscene accom- paniments (2 Mace. vi. 4), was introduced there — an altar to Zeus was set up on the brazen altar of Jehovah, pig’s-flesh offered thereon, and the broth or liquor sprinkled ahout the Temple (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 8, § 2). And while the Jews were compelled not only to tolerate but to take an active part in these foreign abominations, the observance of their own rites and ceremonies — sacrifice, the sabbath, circumcision — was absolutely forbidden. Many no doubt complied (Ant. xii. 5, § 4); but many also resisted, and the torments inflicted, and the heroism displayed in the streets of Jerusalem at this time, almost surpass belief. But though a severe, it was a wholesome discipline, and under its rough teaching the old spirit of the people began to revive. The battles of the Maccabees were fought on the outskirts of the country, and it was not till the defeat of Lysias at Beth-zur that they thought it safe to venture into the recesses of the central hills. Then they immediately turned their steps to Jeru- salem. On ascending the Mount Moriah, and en- tering the quadrangle of the Temple, a sight met their eyes, which proved at once how complete had been the desecration, and how short-lived the tri- umph of the idolaters; for while the altar still stood there with its abominable burden, the gates in ashes, the priests’ chambers in ruins, and, as they reached the inner court, the very sanctuary itself open and empty — yet the place had been so long disused that the whole precincts were full of veg- etation, ‘‘the shrubs grew in the quadrangle like a forest.” The precincts were at once cleansed, the polluted altar put aside, a new one constructed, and the holy vessels of the sanctuary replaced, and on the third anniversary of the desecration — the 25th of the month Chisleu, in the year B. c. 165, the Temple was dedicated with a feast which lasted for eight days.? After this the outer wall of the Tem- ple ¢ was very much strengthened (1 Mace. iv. 60), and it was in fact converted into a fortress (comp. a@ This may be inferred from many of the expres- sions concerning this citadel; but Josephus expressly uses the word émékeito (Ant. xii. 9, § 8), and says it was on an eminence in the lower city, 7. e. the eastern hill, as contradistinguished from the western hill or upper city. * The term Zion is not applied to this eminence by either of these writers, and “the city of David,” as used by one, is synonymous with Jerusalem. Fora critical examination and clear elucidation of the tes- timony here referred to, in its connection, by Dr. Rob- inson, see Bibl. Sacra, iii. 629-684. It should be noted, moreover, as is stated further on, that the above * em- Inence in the lower city *? was subsequently removed by Simon “and brought to an entire level with the plain” (Ant. xiii. 6, § 7). According to the above JERUSALEM vi. 26, 61, 62), and occupied by a garrison (iy. ( The Acra was still held by the soldiers of A) ochus. One of the first acts of Judas on enter the Temple had been to detach a party to wa them, and two years later (B. c. 163) so frequ had their sallies and annoyances become — par ularly an attempt on one occasion to confine worshippers within the Temple inclosure @ (1 M, vi. 18) — that Judas collected his people to tak and began a siege with banks and engines. In| mean time Antiochus had died (B. c. 164), and - succeeded by his son Antiochus Eupator, a yor The garrison in the Acra, finding themselves pre; by Judas, managed to communicate with the k' who brought an army from Antioch and attac Beth-zur, one of the key-positions of the Ma bees. This obliged Judas to give up the siege the Acra, and to march southwards against the! truder (1 Mace. vi. 82; Joseph. Ant. xii. 9, \ Antiochus’s army proved too much for his Ij) force, his brother Eleazar was killed, and he | compelled to fall back on Jerusalem and shut b self up in the Temple. Thither Lysias, Antioch) general — and later, Antiochus himself — follo him (vi. 48, 51, 57, 62) and commenced an ac: sieye. How long it lasted we are not inforn but the provisions of the besieged were rapidly: coming exhausted, ana famine had driven Pa make their escape (ver. 54), when news of an in: rection elsewhere induced Lysias to advise Aj ochus to offer terms to Judas (vi. 55-58). \ terms, which were accepted by him were, libert) live after their own laws, and immunity to 4 persons and their fortress. On inspection, hy ever, Antiochus found the place so strong thai refused to keep this part of the agreement, « before he left the walls were pulled down (vi.) Ant. xii. 9, § 7). Judas apparently remainect Jerusalem for the next twelve months. Du‘ this time Antiochus and Lysias had been killed \c the throne seized by Demetrius (B. c. 162), andi new king had despatched Bacchides and Aleirs the then high-priest, — a man of Grecian princijs —with a large force, to Jerusalem. Judas }t again within the walls of the Temple, which ini interval he must have rebuilt. He could not tempted forth, but sixty of the Assideans 1 treacherously murdered by the Syrians, who tn moved off, first to a short distance from the (Vj. and finally back to Antioch (1 Mace. vii. 1-): Ant. xii. 10, §§ 1-3). Demetrius then sent other’ army under Nicanor, but with no be success. An action was fought at a | an unknown place not far from the city. Jus was victorious, and Nicanor escaped and °k h theory, then, “the famous hill of Zion” vanisd, bodily, about a century and a half before on ; b This feast is alluded to in John x. 22. Ch was the mid-winter month. The feast of the De® tion falls this year (1860) on the 9th Dec. c In 1 Mace. iv. 60 it is said that they buildeciP Mount Sion ;” but in the parallel passages, vi- / the word used is “ sanctuary,” or rather “ holy pla ayiaoua, The meaning probably is the entire a) » ure. Josephus (Ant xii. 7, § 7) says “ the city.” * Both writers probably refer to the whole city. ” ) d Svykdelovres Tov IapayA kuKdw Tov aylwy. Met A. V. “shut up the Israelites round about the £¢ tuary,” does not here give the sense, which be as above. JERUSALEM ge in the Acra at Jerusalem. Shortly after anor came down from the fortress and paid a | to the Temple, where he insulted the priests Mace. vii. 33, 34; 2 Macc. xiv. 31-33). He ‘caused the death of Razis, one of the elders in ysalem, a man greatly esteemed, who killed him- in the most horrible manner, rather than fall . his hands (2 Macc. xiv. 37-46). He then sured some reinforcements, met Judas at Adasa, bably not far from Rivmleh, was killed, and his y thoroughly beaten. Nicanor’s head and right . were brought to Jerusalem. The head was ed on the wall of the Acra, and the hand and | on a conspicuous spot facing the Temple (2 s¢. xv. 30-35), where their memory was perhaps yetuated in the name of the gate Nicanor, the ern entrance to the Great Court (Reland, Antig. 4). fe dat of Judas took place in 161. After it chides and Alcimus again established themselves ‘erusalem in the Acra (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 1, § 3), in the intervals of their contests with Jonathan Simon added much to its fortifications, fur- ied it with provisions, and confined there the dren of the chief people of Judzea as hostages their good behavior (1 Mace. ix. 50-53). In ‘second month (May) of 160 the high-priest mus began to make some alterations in the aple, apparently doing away with the inclosure yeen one court and another, and in particular olishing some wall or building, to which pecu- ‘sanctity was attached as “the work of the jhets” (1 Mace. ix. 54). The object of these vations was doubtless to lessen the distinction yeen Jew and Gentile. But they had hardly 1commenced before he was taken suddenly ill died. ‘acchides now returned to Antioch, and Jeru- m remained without molestation for a period even years. It does not appear that the Mac- ves resided there; part of the time they were at Amash, in the entangled country seven or eight ‘s north of Jerusalem, and part of the time ‘ing with Bacchides at Beth-basi in the Jordan vey near Jericho. All this time the Acra was by the Macedonian garrison (Ant. xiii. 4, § and the malcontent Jews, who still held the ages taken from the other part of the com- ity (1 Mace. x. 6). In the year 153 Alexander ,8, the real or pretended son of Antiochus hanes, having landed at Ptolemais, Demetrius (4 communication to Jonathan with the view eping him attached to his cause (1 Mace. x. 1, Ant. xiii. 2, § 1). Upon this Jonathan moved 10 Jerusalem, rescued the hostages from the f and began to repair the city. The destruc- ls of the last few years were remedied, the walls (d Mount Zion particularly being rebuilt in the 1) substantial manner, as a regular fortification { 1). From this time forward Jonathan received ) leges and professions of confidence from both 1. First, Alexander authorized him to assume Inffice of high-priest, which had not been filled oi the death of Alcimus (comp. Ant. xx. 10, This he took at the Feast of Tabernacles, in swutumn of the year 153, and at the same time 4 cted soldiers and ammumition (1 Mace. x. 21). :, Demetrius, amongst other immunities granted "© Country, recognized Jerusalem and its en- 18 a8 again “holy and free,” relinquished all 1 to the Acra — which was henceforward to be Nxt to the high-priest (x. 31, 32), endowed the | | | } F va tial JERUSALEM 1298 Temple with the revenues of Ptolemais, and also with 15,000 shekels of silver charged in other places, and ordered not only the payment of the same sum, in regard to former years, but the release of an annual tax of 5,000 shekels hitherto exacted from the priests. Lastly, he authorized the repairs of the holy place, and the building and fortifying of the walls of Jerusalem to be charged to the roya accounts, and gave the privilege of sanctuary to all persons, even mere debtors, taking refuge in the Temple or in its precincts (1 Macc. x. 31, 32, 39-: 45). The contentions between Alexander and Deme: trius, in which he was actively engaged, prevented Jonathan from taking advantage of these grants till the year 145. He then began to invest the Acra (xi. 20; Ant. xiii. 4, § 9), but, owing partly to the strength of the place, and partly to the con-: stant dissensions abroad, the siege made little prog- ress during fully two years. It was obvious that no progress could be made as long as the inmates of the Acra could get into the city or the country, and there buy provisions (xili. 49), as hitherto was the case; and, therefore, at the first opportunity, Jonathan built a wall or bank round the base of the citadel-hill, cutting off all communication both with the city on the west and the country on the east (xii. 836; comp. xiii. 49), and thus completing the circle of investment, of which the Temple wall formed the south and remaining side. At the same time the wall of the Temple was repaired and strengthened, especially on the east side, towards the Valley of Kedron. In the mean time Jonathan was killed at Ptolemais, and Simon succeeded him both as chief and as high-priest (xiii. 8, 42). The investment of the Acra proved successful, but three years still elapsed before this enormously strong place could be reduced, and at last the garrison capitulated only from famine (xiii. 49; comp. 21). Simon entered it on the 23d of the 2d month B. c. 142. The fortress was then entirely demolished, and the eminence on which it had stood lowered, until it was reduced below the height of the Temple hill beside it. The last operation occupied three years (Ant. xiii. 6, § 7). The valley north of Moriah was probably filled up at this time (B. J. v. 5, § 1). A fort was then built on the north side of the Temple hill, apparently against the wall, so as directly to command the site of the Acra, and here Simon and his immediate followers resided (xiii. 52). This was the Baris—so called after the Hebrew word Birah — which, under the name 0f Antonia, became subsequently so prominent a feature of the city. Simon’s other achievements, and his alliance with the Romans, must be reserved for another place. We hear of no further occur- rences at Jerusalem during his life except the placing of two brass tablets, commemorating his exploits on Mount Zion, in the precinct of the sanctuary (xiv. 27, 48). In 185 Simon was mur- dered at Dok near Jericho, and then all was again confusion in Jerusalem. One of the first steps of his son John Hyrcanus was to secure both the city and the Temple (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 7, § 4). The people were favorable to him, and repulsed Ptolemy, Simon's murderer, when he attempted to enter (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 7, § 4; B. J. i. 2, § 3). Hyreanus was made high-priest. Shortly after this, Antiochus Sidetes, king of Syria, brought an army into southern Palestine, ravaged and burnt the country, and attacked Jerusalem To invest the city, and cut off ali chance of escape, 1296 JERUSALEM it was encircled by a girdle of seven camps. ‘The active operations of the siege were carried on as usual at the north, where the level ground comes up to the walls. Here a hundred towers of attack were erected, each of three stories, from which pro- jectiles were cast into the city, and a double ditch, broad and deep, was excavated before them to pro- tect them from the sudden sallies which the be- sieged were constantly making. On one occasion the wall of the city was undermined, its timber foundations burnt, and thus a temporary breach effected (5 Macc. xxi. 5). For the first and last time we hear of a want of water inside the city, but from this a seasonable rain relieved them. In other respects the besieged seem to have been well off. Hyrcanus however, with more prudence than humanity, anticipating a long siege, turned out of the city all the infirm and non-fighting people. The Feast of Tabernacles had now arrived, and, at the request of Hyrcanus, Antiochus, with a mod- eration which gained him the title of “the Pious,” agreed toatruce. This led to further negotiations, which ended in the siege being relinquished. Anti- ochus wished to place a garrison in the city, but this the late experience of the Jews forbade, and hostages and a payment were substituted. The money for this subsidy was obtained by Hyrcanus from the sepulchre of David, the outer chamber of which he is said to have opened, and to have taken 3,000 talents of the treasure which had been buried with David, and had hitherto escaped undiscovered (Ant. vii. 15, § 3; xiii. 8, § 4; B. J. i 2, § 5). After Antiochus’s departure Hyrcanus carefully repaired the damage done to the walls (6 Mace. xxi. 18); and it may have been at this time that he enlarged the Baris or fortress adjoining the northwest wall of the Temple inclosure, which had been founded by his father, and which he used for his own residence and for the custody of his sacred vestments worn as high-priest (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 4, § 3). During the rest of his long and successful reign John Hyrcanus resided at Jerusalem, ably admin- istering the government from thence, and regularly fulfilling the duties of the high-priest (see 5 Mace. xxili. 3; Joseph. Ant. xiii. 10,§ 3). The great sects of Pharisees and Sadducees first appear in prom- inence at this period. Hyrcanus, as a Maccabee, had belonged to the Pharisees, but an occurrence which happened near the end of his reign caused him to desert them and join the Sadducees, and even to persecute his former friends (see the story in Joseph. Ant. xiii. 10, § 5; 5 Mace. xxv. 7-11; Milman, ii. 73). He died in peace and honor (Ant. xiii. 10, § 7). There is no mention of his burial, but it is nearly certain that the “ monument of John the high-priest,’’ which stood near the north- west corner of the city and is so frequently referred to in the account of the final siege, was his tomb; at least no other bigh-priest of the name of John is mentioned. [H1GH-PRIEST, ii. 1074.] Hyreanus was succeeded (B. c. 107) by his son Aristobulus.e Like his predecessors he was high- priest; but unlike them he assumed the title as well a The adoption of Greek names by the family of the Maccabees, originally the great opponents of every- thing Greek, shows how much and how unconsciously the Jews were now departing from their ancient standards. b For the story of his death, and the accomplish- ment of the prediction that he should die in Strato’s JERUSALEM as the power of a king (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 11, 5 Mace. xxvii. 1). Aristobulus resided in the ] (Ant. xiii. 11, § 2). A passage, dark and su raneous (B. J. i. 8, § 3), led from the Barj the Temple; one part of this passage was ¢ ‘‘ Strato’s tower,’’ and here Antigonus, broth Aristobulus, was murdered by his order.> Aj bulus died very tragically immediately after, he reigned but one year. His brother Alexander neus (B. C. 105), who succeeded him, was m engaged in wars at a distance from Jerus:’ returning thither however in the intervals (Ant. 12, § 3, ad jin.). About the year 95 the ani ities of the Pharisees and Sadducees came t; alarming explosion. Like his father, | belonged to the Sadducees. The Pharisees; never forgiven Hyrcanus for having deserted i and at the feast of Tabernacles, as the king officiating, they invited the people to pelt him, the citrons which they carried in the feast (Jo) Ant. xiii. 13, § 5: comp. 10, § 5; Reland, 2 j 5, § 9). Alexander retaliated, and six thor persons were at that time killed by his orders. the dissensions lasted for six years, and | than 50,000 are said to have lost. their lives 17 xiii. 13, § 5; 5 Macc. xxix. 2). These sevei made him extremely unpopular with both ol and led to their inviting the aid of Demei Eucherus, king of Syria, against him. The ac) between them were fought at a distance from salem; but the city did not escape a share i horrors of war; for when, after some fluctuain Alexander returned successful, he crucified pu'e 800 of his opponents, and had their wives and ii dren butchered before their eyes, while he am concubines feasted in sight of the whole 4 (Ant. xiii. 14, § 2). Such an iron sway as thi’: enough to crush all opposition, and Alex:1 reigned till the year 79 without further disturb: ¢ He died while besieging a fortress called Rab somewhere beyond Jordan. He is commemo as having at the time of his disputes witltl people erected a wooden screen round the alta the sanctuary (vads), as far as the parapet a priests’ court, to prevent access to him as hy: ministering ¢ (Ant, xiii. 18, § 5). The “monvel of king Alexander’ was doubtless his tom. stood somewhere near, but outside, the nortly of the Temple (B. J. v. 7, § 3), probably nef from the situation of the tombs of the old 4 (see section III. p. 1825). In spite of oppoit the Pharisees were now by far the most pov party in Jerusalem, and Alexander had the’ before his death instructed his queen, Alexan¢- whom he left to succeed him with two sons-' commit herself to them. She did so, and theo sequence was that though the feuds anh fos two great parties continued at their height, y' government, being supported by the stronges' always secure. The elder of the two sons, a was made high-priest, and Aristobulus hai command of the army. The queen lived t year 70. On her death, Hyrcanus attempt take the crown, but was opposed by-his broth Bd on Sh, oe as Ven ae Tower — 7. e. Caesarea — compare the base a of the death of Henry IV. in Jerusalem, 7. é. the salem Chamber at Westminster. | ¢ Josephus’s words are not very clear: — dpv4 EvAwwov ep Tov Bwwdy Kat TOV VaoY Badhépev SX! Tod Oprykod, eis Sv movors eéjv ToLs Lepevow etal ere a JERUSALEM om in three months he yielded its possession, istobulus becoming king in the year 69. Before xandra’s death she had imprisoned the family Aristobulus in the Baris (B. J. i. 5, § 4). There Hyreanus took refuge during the negotiations h his brother about the kingdom, and from nee had attacked and vanquished his opponents 9 were collected in the Temple (Ant. xiv. 1, § 2). ephus here first speaks of it as the Acropolis,“ | as being above the Temple (émép rod iepod). er the reconciliation, Aristobulus took possession the royal palace (r& BaciAera). This can hardly other than the “ palace of the Asmoneans,’’ of ich Josephus gives some notices at a subsequent t of the history (Ant. xx. 8, § 11; B. J. ii. 16, ). From these it appears that it was situated it of the Temple, on the extreme highest point the upper city (the modern Zion) immediately ing the southwest angle of the Temple inclosure, lat the west end of the bridge which led from Temple to the Xystus. [he brothers soon quarreled again, when Hyr- us called to his assistance Aretas, king of Da- seus. Before this new enemy Aristobulus fled Jerusalem and took refuge within the fortifica- as of the Temple. And now was witnessed the inge anomaly of the high-priest in alliance with eathen king besieging the priests in the Temple. Idenly a new actor appears on the scene; the te is interrupted and eventually raised by the srference of Scaurus, one of Pompey’s lieuten- 3, to whom Aristobulus paid 400 talents for the 2f. This was in the year 65. Shortly after, apey himself arrived at Damascus. Both the thers came before him in person (Ant. xiv. 3, ), and were received with moderation and civility. stobulus could not make up his mind to submit, | after a good deal of shuffling betook himself Jerusalem and prepared for resistance. Pompey anced by way of Jericho. As he approached asalem, Aristobulus, who found the city too h divided for effectual resistance, met him and ed a large sum of money and surrender. Pom- ‘sent forward Gabinius to take possession of the ‘e; but the bolder party among the adherents Aristobulus had meantime gained the ascend- 7, and he found the gates closed. Pompey on ‘threw the king into chains and advanced on ‘tsilem. Hyrcanus was in possession of the city ) Teceived the invader with open arms. The iple on the other hand was held by the party \Aristobulus, which included the priests (xiy. 4, ). They cut off the bridges and causeways zh connected the Temple with the town on the sand north, and prepared for an obstinate de- ® Pompey put a garrison into the palace of t Asmoneans, and into other positions in the 2 city, and fortified the houses adjacent to the iple. The north side was the most practicable, i there he commenced his attack. But even € the hill was intrenched by an artificial ditch I ddition to the very deep natural valley, and was ‘nded by lofty towers on the wall of the Temple vi. xiv. 4,§2; B. J. i. 7, § 1). i appears to have stationed some part of foree on the high ground west of the city eph. B. J. y. 12, § 2), but he himself commanded lerson at the north. The first efforts of his ee a | He also here applies to it the term ¢povprov (Ant. «16, §5; B.S. 5, § 4), which he commonly uses ‘maller fortresses. 82 a JERUSALEM 1297 soldiers were devoted to filling up the ditch® and the valley, and to constructing the banks on which to place the military engines, for which purpose they cut down all the timber in the environs. These had in the mean. time been sent for from Tyre, and as soon as the banks were sufficiently raised the balistee were set to work to throw stones over the wall into the crowded courts of the Tem- ple; and lofty towers were erected, from which to discharge arrows and other missiles. But these operations were not carried on without great diffi- culty, for the wall of the Temple was thronged with slingers, who most seriously interfered with the progress of the Romans. Pompey, however, remarked that on the seventh day the Jews regu- larly desisted from fighting (Ant. xiv. 4, § 2; Strab. xvi. p. 763), and this afforded the Romans a great advantage, for it gave them the opportunity of moving the engines and towers nearer the walls, filling up the trenches, adding to the banks, and in other ways making good the damage of the past six days without the slightest molestation. In fact Josephus gives it as his opinion, that but for the opportunity thus afforded, the necessary works never could have been completed. In the Temple itself, however fierce the attack, the daily sacrifices and other ceremonials, down to the minutest detail, were never interrupted, and the priests pursued their duties undeterred, even when men were struck down near them by the stones and arrows of the besiegers. At the end of three months the be- siegers had approached so close to the wall that the battering rams could be worked, and a breach was effected in the largest of the towers, through which the Romans entered, and after an obstinate resist ance and loss of life, remained masters of the Tem- ple. Many Jews were killed by their countrymen of Hyrcanus’s party who had entered with the Ro- mans; some in their confusion set fire to the houses which abutted on a portion of the Temple walls, and perished in the flames, while others threw themselves over the precipices (8. J. i. 7, § 4). The whole number slain is reported by Josephus at 12,000 (Ant. xiv. 4, § 4). During the assault the priests maintained the same calm demeanor which they had displayed during the siege, aud were act- ually slain at their duties while pouring their drink- offerings and burning their incense (2. J.i.7, § 4). It should be observed that in the account of this siege the Baris is not once mentioned; the attack was on the Temple alone, instead of on the fortress, as in Titus’s siege. The inference is that at this time it was a small and unimportant adjunct to the main fortifications of the Temple. Pompey and many of his people explored the recesses of the Temple, and the distress of the Jews was greatly aggravated by their holy places being thus exposed to intrusion and profanation (B. J. i. 7,§ 6). In the sanctuary were found the great golden vessels — the table.of shew-bread, the candle- stick, the censers, and other articles proper to that place. But what most astonished the intruders, on passing beyond the sanctuary and exploring the total darkness of the Holy of Holies, was to find in the adytum neither image nor shrine. It evidently caused much remark (“ inde vulgatum ’’), and was the one fact regarding the Temple which the historian thought worthy of preservation — b The size of the ditch is given by Strabo as 60 feet deep and 250 wide (xvi. p. 768). (1298 JERUSALEM “ nulla intus deum effigie; vacuam sedem et inania arcana” (Tacitus, Hist. v. 9). Pompey’s conduct on this occasion does him great credit. He left the treasures thus exposed to his view — even the spices and the money in the treasury — untouched, ar’ his examination over, he ordered the T emple to be cleansed and purified from the bodies of the slain, and the daily worship to be resumed. Hyr- canus was continued in his high-priesthood, but’ without the title of king (Ant. xx. 10); a tribute was laid upon the city, the walls were entirely de- molished (karaomdcat .. . . Ta Telyn mdvra. Strabo, xvi. p. 763), and Pompey took his depar- ture for Rome, carrying with him Aristobulus, his sous Alexander and Antigonus, and his two daugh- ters. The Temple was taken in the year 63, in the 8d month (Sivan), on the day of a great fast (Ant. xiv. 4, § 3); probably that for Jeroboam, which was held on the 23d of that month. During the next few years nothing occurred to affect Jerusalem, the struggles which desolated the unhappy Palestine during that time having taken place away from its vicinity. In 56 it was made the seat of one of the five senates or Sanhedrim, to which under the constitution of Gabinius the civil power of the country was for a time committed. Two years afterwards (B. Cc. 54) the rapacious Cras- sus visited the city on his way to Parthia, and plundered it not only of the money which Pompey had spared, but of a considerable treasure accumu- lated from the contributions of Jews throughout the world, in all a sum of 10,000 talents, or about 2,000,000/. sterling. The pillage was aggravated by the fact of his having first received from the priest in charge of the treasure a most costly beam of solid gold, on condition that everything else should be spared (Ant. xiv. 7, § 1). During this time Hyrecanus remained at Jerusa- salem, acting under the advice of Antipater the Idumean, his chief minister. The assistance which they rendered to Mithridates, the ally of Julius Cesar, in the Egyptian campaign of 48-47, in- duced Cesar to confirm Hyrcanus in the high- priesthood, and to restore him to the civil govern- ment under the title of Ethnarch (Ant. xiv. 10). At the same time he rewarded Antipater with the procuratorship of Judzea (Ant. xiv. 8, § 5), and allowed the walls of the city to be rebuilt (Amt. xiv. 10,§ 4) The year 47 is also memorable for the first appearance of Antipater’s son Herod in Jerusalem, when, a youth of fifteen (or more prob- ably 4 25), he characteristically overawed the as- sembled Sanhedrim. In 43 Antipater was mur- dered in the palace of Hyrcanus by one Malichus, who was very soon after himself slain by Herod (Ant. xiv. 11, §§ 4,6). The tumults and revolts consequent on these murders kept Jerusalem in commotion for some time (B. J. i. 12). But a more serious danger was at hand. Antigonus, the younger and now the only surviving son of Aristob- ulus, suddenly appeared in the country supported by a Parthian army. Many of the Jews of the district about Carmel and Joppa? flocked to him, and he instantly made for Jerusalem, giving out that his only object was to pay a visit of devotion to the Temple (5 Mace. xlix. 5). So sudden was his approach, that he got into the city and reached the palace in the upper market-place — the modern Zion — without resistance. Here however he was a See the reasons urged by Prideaux, ad loc. b At that time, and even as late as the Crusades, | Joseph Ant xiv. 18, § 8). = a JERUSALEM met by Hyrcanus and Phasaelus (Herod's bro{ with a strong party of soldiers. A fight ens which ended in Antigonus being driven oyer bridge into the Temple, where he was const harassed and annoyed by Hyrcanus and Phas; from the city. Pentecost arrived, and the and the suburbs between it and the Temple, | crowded with peasants and others who had , up to keep the feast. Herod too arrived, and a small party had taken charge of the pa Phasaelus kept the wall. Antigonus’ people ; (though the account is very obscure) to have out through the Baris into the part north of Temple. Here Herod and Phasaelus attac. dispersed, and cut them up. Pacorus, the | thian general, was lying outside the walls, an: the earnest request of Antigonus, he and 500 b. were admitted, ostensibly to mediate. ‘The 4 was, that Phasaelus and Hyrcanus were outwit and Herod overpowered, and the Parthians: possession of the place. Antigonus was made k and as Hyrcanus knelt a suppliant before him, new king — with all the wrongs which hig fa. and himself had suffered full in his mind — bit the ears of his uncle, so as effectually to incay: tate him from ever again taking the high pri hood. Phasaelus killed himself in prison. Hi alone escaped (Ant. xiv. 18). Thus did Jerusalem (B. c. 40) find itself in. hands of the Parthians. i In three months Herod returned from Rh king of Judza, and in the beginning of 39 appe'' before Jerusalem with a force of Romans, ¢) manded by Silo, and pitched his camp on the ‘3 side of the city (B. J. i. 15, § 5). Other oer rences, however, called him away from the sieg) this time, and for more than two years he i occupied elsewhere. In the mean time Antig« held the city, and had dismissed his Parthian als In 37 Herod appeared again, now driven to far the death of his favorite brother Joseph, whose ( body Antigonus had shamefully mutilated (B. i 17, § 2). He came, as Pompey had done, {1 Jericho, and, like Pompey, he pitched his eamp \ made his attack on the north side of the Tene The general circumstances of the siege seem x very much to have resembled the former, ne that there were now two walls north of the Ten and that the driving of mines was a great fea in the siege operations (B. J. i. 18, § 1; Ant. ¥ 16, § 2). The Jews distinguished themselves) the same reckless. courage as before; and altho'h it is not expressly said that the services of \¢ Temple were carried on with such minute reguls}) as when they excited the astonishment of Pomy, yet we may infer it from the fact that, during1e hottest of the operations, the besieged desire a short truce in which to bring in animals for sé1- fice (Ant. xiv. 16, § 2). In one respect — the ’- tions which raged among the besieged — this s/ somewhat foreshadows that of Titus. For a short time after the commencement of 1 operations Herod absented himself for his marrsé at Samaria with Mariamne. On his return he joined by Sosius, the Roman governor of S)) with a force of from 50,000 to 60,000 ag the siege was then resumed in earnest (Ant. ¥ 16). The first of the two walls was taken in fiy called the Woodland or the Forest country (Apu il JERUSALEM 7 and the second in fifteen more. Then the r court of the Temple, and the lower city — g in the hollow between the Temple and the ern Zion — was taken, and the Jews were driven the inner parts of the Temple and to the upper ket-place, which communicated therewith by the ye. At this point some delay seems to have mn, as the siege is distinctly said to have occu- in all five months (2. J. i. 18, § 23 see also xiv. 16, § 2). At last, losing patience, Herod ved the place to be stormed; and an indis- inate massacre ensued, especially in the narrow ts of the lower city, which was only terminated lis urgent and repeated solicitations.o Herod his men entered first, and in his anxiety to ent any plunder and desecration of the Temple, imself hastened to the entrance of the sanctuary, there standing with a drawn sword in his hand, atened to cut down any of the Roman soldiers attempted to enter. hrough all this time the Baris had remained egnable: there Antigonus had taken refuge, thence, when the whole of the city was in the r of the conquerors, he descended, and in an It was ted, but only to be taken from him later at the it manner craved his life from Sosius. : of Antony. atigonus was thus disposed of, but the Asmo- _ party was still strong both in numbers and mee. Herod’s first care was to put it down. chiefs of the party, including the whole of the edrim but two,¢ were put to death, and their arty, with that of others whose lives were spared, seized. The appointment of the high-priest the next consideration. Hyrcanus returned Parthia soon after the conclusion of the siege; yen if his mutilation had not incapacitated for the office, it would have been unwise to ‘ata member of the popular family. Herod ‘ore bestowed the office (B. c. 36) on one ‘ela former adherent of his, and a Babylonian Ant. xv. 3,§ 1), a man without interest or nee in the politics of Jerusalem (xv. 2, § 4). el was soon displaced through the machina- of Alexandra, mother of MHerod’s wife “tne, who prevailed on him to appoint her ristobulus, a youth of sixteen. But the young /nean was too warmly received by the people ') 1. 22, § 2) for Herod to allow him to remain. y had he celebrated his first feast before he urdered at Jericho, and then Ananel resumed ‘ee (Ant. xv. 3, § 3). : intrigues and tragedies of the next thirty ‘we too complicated and too long to be treated ». A general sketch of the events of Herod’s be found under his name, and other oppor- is will occur tor noticing them. Moreover, it part of these occurrences have no special es with Jerusalem, and therefore have no ‘na brief notice, like the present, of those | which more immediately concern the city. “any respects this period was a repetition of i the Maccabees and Antiochus Epiphanes. i fe86 Periods probably date from the return of je Sosius, and the resumption of more active ae he was one of the same race who at a former ‘Jerusalem had cried Down with it, down with te the ground!” But times had altered since 8 two were Hillel and Shammai, renowned in ' a JERUSALEM 1299 True, Herod was more politic, and more prudent, and also probably had more sympathy with the Jewish character than Antiochus. But the spirit of stern resistance to innovation and of devotion to the law of Jehovah burnt no less fiercely in the breasts of the people than it had done before; and it is curious to remark how every attempt on Herod’s part to introduce foreign customs was met by outbreak, and how futile were all the benefits which he conferred both on the temporal and ecclesiastical welfare of the people when these ob- noxious intrusions were in question.@ In the year 34 the city was visited by Cleopatra, who, having accompanied Antony to the Euphrates, was now returning to Kgypt through her estates at Jericho (Ant. xv. 4, § 2). In the spring of 31, the year of the battle of Actium, Judea was visited by an earthquake, the effects of which appear .to have been indeed tre- mendous: 10,000 (Ané. xv. 5, § 2) or, according to another account (B. J. i. 19, § 3), 20,000 persons were killed by the fall of buildings, and an immense quantity of cattle. The panic at Jeru- salem was very severe; but it was calmed by the arguments of Herod, then departing to a campaign on the east of Jordan for the interests of Cleopatra. The following year was distinguished by the death of Hyrecanus, who, though more than 80 years old, was killed by Herod, ostensibly for a treasonable correspondence with the Arabians, but really to remove the last remnant of the Asmonean race, who, in the fluctuations of the times, and in Herod’s absence from his kingdom, might have been dangerous to him. He appears to have re- sided at Jerusalem since his return; and his accu- sation was brought before the Sanhedrim (Ant. xv. 6, § 1-3). Mariamne was put to death in the year 29, whether in Jerusalem or in the Alexandreion, in which she had been placed with her mother when Herod left for his interview with Octavius, is not certain. But Alexandra was now in Jerusalem again; and in Herod's absence, ill, at Samaria (Sebaste), she began to plot for possession of the Baris, and of another fortress situated in the city. The attempt, however, cost her her life. The same year saw the execution of Costobaras, husband of Herod's sister Salome, and of several other persons of distinction (Ant. xv. 7, § 8-10). Herod now began to encourage foreign practices and usages, probably with the view of “ counter- balancing by a strong Grecian party the turbulent and exclusive spirit of the Jews.” Amongst his acts of this description was the building of a theatre¢ at Jerusalem (Ant. xv. 8, § 1). Of its situation no information is given, nor have any indications yet been discovered. It was ornamented with the names of the victories of Octavius, and with trophies of arms conquered in the wars of Herod. Quinquennial games in honor of Cesar were instituted on the most magnificent scale, with racing, boxing, musical contests, fights of gladiators and wild beasts. The zealous Jews took fire at the Jewish literature as the founders of the two great rival schools of doctrine and practice. d The principles and results of the whole of this later period are ably summed up in Merivale’s Romans, lii., chap. 29. é The amphitheatre ‘tin the plain” mentioned in this passage is commonly supposed to have been also at Jerusalem (Barclay, City of Great King, 174, and 1300 JERUSALEM these innovations, but their wrath was specially excited by the trophies round the theatre at Jeru- salem, which they believed to contain figures of men. Even when shown that their suspicions were groundless, they remained discontented. The spirit of the old Maccabees was still alive, and Herod only narrowly escaped assassination, while his would-be assassins endured torments and death with the greatest heroism. At this time he occupied the old palace of the Asmoneans, which crowned the eastern face of the upper city, and stood adjoining the Xystus at the end of the bridge which formed the communication between the south part of the Temple and the upper city (xv. 8, § 5; comp. xx. 8, § 11, and B&B. J. ii. 16, § 3). This palace was not yet so magnificent as he afterwards made it, but it was already most richly furnished (xv. 9, § 2). Herod had now also completed the improvements of the Baris — the fortress built by John Hyrcanus on the foundations of Simon Maccabzeus — which he had enlarged and strengthened at great expense, and named Antonia — after his friend Mark Antony.@ A description of this celebrated fortress will be given in treating of the TEMPLE, of which, as reconstructed by Herod, it formed an intimate part. It stood at the west end of the north wall of the Temple, and was inaccessible on all sides but that. See section III. p. 1318. The year 25—the next after the attempt on Herod’s life in the theatre — was one of great mis- fortunes. A long drought, followed by unproduc- tive seasons, involved Judea in famine, and its usual consequence, a dreadful pestilence (Ant. xv. 9,§ 1). Herod took a noble and at the same time a most politic course. He sent to Egypt for corn, sacrificing for the purchase the costly decorations of his palace and his silver and gold plate. He was thus able to make regular distribution of corn and clothing, on an enormous scale, for the present necessities of the people, as well as to supply seed for the next year's crop (Ant. xv. 9,§ 2). The result of this was to remove to a great degree the animosity occasioned by his proceedings in the previous year. In this year or the next, Herod took another wife, the daughter of an obscure priest of Jerusalem named Simon. Shortly before the marriage Simon was made high-priest in the room of Joshua, or Jesus, the son of Phaneus, who appears to have succeeded Ananel, and was now deposed to make way for Herod's future father-in-law (Ant. xv. 9, § 3). It was probably on the occasion of this mar- riage that he built a new and extensive palace? immediately adjoining the old wall, at the north- west corner of the upper city (B. J. v. 4, § 4), about the spot now occupied by the Latin convent, in which, as memorials of his connection with Cesar and Agrippa, a large apartment — superior in size to the Sanctuary of the Temple — was named after each (Ant. ibid.; B. J. i. 21, § 1). This palace was very strongly fortified; it communicated with the three great towers on the wall erected shortly after, and it became the citadel, the special fortress others); but this is not a necessary inference. The word zediov is generally used of the plain of the Jordan near Jericho, where we know there was an amphi- theatre (B. J. i. 83, § 8). From another passage (B. J. i. 21, § &) it appears there was one at Czsarea. Still the weSiov at Jerusalem is mentioned in B. J. ii. 1,§3 a The name was probably not bestowed later than JERUSALEM ({810v dpovpiov, B. J. v. 5, § 8), of the uppe A road led to it from one of the gates — nat the northern — in the west wall of the Tem closure (Ant. xv. 14, § 5). But all Herod’s in Jerusalem were eclipsed by the rebuilding Temple in more than its former extent and nificence. He announced his intention in th 19, probably when the people were collec’ Jerusalem at the Passover. At first it me some opposition from the fear that what h begun he would not be able to finish, and th sequent risk involved in demolishing the old T This he overcame by engaging to make ¢ necessary preparations before pulling down a1 of the existing buildings. Two years app have been occupied in these preparations —; which Josephus mentions the teaching of s¢ the priests and Levites to work. as masons ar penters — and then the work began (xv. 11 Both Sanctuary and Cloisters — the latter | in extent and far larger and loftier than be were built from the very foundations (B. J § 1; Ant. xv. 11, § 3). [TEmpLE.] Th! house itself (vads), 7. e. the Porch, Sanetua Holy of Holies — was finished in a year and, (xv. 11, § 6). Its completion on the arinit of Herod’s inauguration, B. Cc. 16, was celi by lavish sacrifices and a great feast. ah after this, Herod made a journey to Romet home his two sons, Alexander and Aristob; with whom he returned to Jerusalem, app: in the spring of 15 (Ant. xvi. 1, § 2). | autumn of this year he was visited by his Marcus Agrippa, the favorite of Augustus. 4: was well received by the people of Jerusalem he propitiated by a sacrifice of a hundred 03: by a magnificent entertainment (Amt. xvi. | Herod left again in the beginning of 14 | Agrippa in the Black Sea. On his returnn autumn or winter of the same year, he adé the people assembled at Jerusalem — for a of Tabernacles — and remitted them a fourt:) annual tax (xv. 2, § 4). Another journey ‘ lowed by a similar assembly in.the year 11, av time Herod announced Antipater as his imi successor (xvi. 4, § 6; B. J. i. 93, § 4). | About B. c. 9 — eight years from the cone rhent — the court and cloisters of the Tem} ’ finished (Ant. xv. 11, § 5), and the bridge | the south cloister and the upper city — den)! by Pompey — was doubtless now rebuilt a massive masonry of which some remains S' vive (see the wood-cut, p. 1314). At th) equally magnificent works were being carri¢0 another part of the city, namely, in the old the northwest corner, contiguous to thea where three towers of great size and magn were erected on the wall, and one as an out) a small distance to the north. The lat called Psephinus (B. J. v. 4, §§ 2, 8, 4), tt former were Hippicus, after one of his fr) Phasaelus, after his brother — and Mariam) | his queen (Ant. xvi. 5, § 2; B.J.v. 4,8: : ee | B. 0. 84 or 83—the date of Herod’s closest with Antony: and we may therefore infer at alterations to the fortress had been at leas years in progress. bd The old palace of the Asmoneans contint { known as “the royal palace,” 7d BaotA«tov 8, § 11) i ir positions see section III. p. 1317. Phasaelus ears to have been erected first of the three (Ax. . 10, § 2), though it cannot have been begun he time of Phasaelus’s death, as that took place 1e year's before Jerusalem came into Herod’s ds. About this time occurred — if it occurred at all, ch seems more than doubtful (Prideaux, Anno 1) —Herod’s unsuccessful attempt to plunder sepulchre of David of the remainder of the sures left there by Hyrcanus (Joseph. Ant. xvi. JERUSALEM JERUSALEM 1301 over the whole city. Archelaus meanwhile tempo- rized and promised redress when his government should be confirmed by Rome. ‘The Passover was close at hand, and the city was fast filling with the multitudes of rustics and of pilgrims (é« Ts bme- poptas), who crowded to the great Feast (B. J. ii. 1, § 3; Ant. xvii. 9, § 3). These strangers, not being able or willing to find admittance into the houses, pitched their tents (robs avrdO: éoxnyw- xéras) on the open ground around the ‘Temple (Ant. ibid.). Meanwhile the tumult in the Temple itself was maintained and increased daily; a mul- titude of fanatics never left the courts, but con- tinued there, incessantly clamoring and impre- cating. Longer delay in dealing with such a state of things would have been madness; a small party of soldiers had already been roughly handled by the mob (B. J. ii. 1, § 3), and Archelaus at last did what his father would have done at first. He de- spatched the whole garrison, horse and foot, the foot-soldiers by way of the city to clear the Temple, the horse-soldiers by a detour round the level ground north of the town, to surprise the pilgrims on the eastern slopes of Moriah, and prevent their rushing to the succor of the fanatics in the Temple. The movement succeeded: 3,000 were cut up and the whole concourse dispersed over the country. During Archelaus’ absence at Rome, Jerusalem was in charge of Sabinus, the Roman procurator of the province, and the tumults — ostensibly on the occasion of some exactions of Sabinus, but doubtless with the same real ground as before — were renewed with worse results. At the next feast, Pentecost, the throng of strangers was enor- mous. They formed regular encampments round the Temple, and on the western hill of the upper city, and besieged Sabinus and his legion, who appear to have been in the Antonia.* At last the Romans made a sally and cut their way into the Temple. The struggle was desperate, a great many Jews were killed, the cloisters of the outer court burnt down, and the sacred treasury plundered of immense sums. But no reverses could quell the fury of the insurgents, and matters were not ap- peased till Varus, the prefect of the province, arrived from the north with a large force and dispersed the strangers. On this quiet was restored. In the year 3 B. c. Archelaus returned from Rome ethnarch of the southern province. He im- mediately displaced Joazar, whom his father had made high-priest after the affair of the Eagle, and put Joazar’s brother Eleazar in his stead. T his is the only event affecting Jerusalem that is recorded in the 10 years between the return of Archelaus and his summary departure to trial at Rome (a. D. 6). Judea was now reduced to an ordinary Roman province; the procurator of which resided, not at In or about the year 7 occurred the affair of the den Eagle, a parallel to that of the theatre, and, s that, important, as showing how strongly the wcabeean spirit of resistance to innovations on . Jewish law still existed, and how vain were any essions in the other direction in the presence such innovations. Herod had fixed a large den eagle, the symbol of the Roman empire, of ich Judwa was now a province, over the entrance the Sanctuary, probably at the same time that inseribed the name of Agrippa on the gate (B. i. 21,§ 8). Asa breach of the 2d command- nt—not asa badge of dependence — this had sited the indignation of the Jews, and especially two of the chief Rabbis, who instigated their ciples to tear it down. A false report of the ig’s death was made the occasion of doing this open day, and in the presence of a large num- >of people. Being taken before Herod, the Rab- . defended their conduct and were burnt alive. ¢ high-priest Matthias was deposed, and Joazar dk his place. This was the state of things in Jerusalem when mod died, in the year 4 B. c. of the common ronology (Dionysian era), but really a few months er the birth of Christ. [Jesus CHRIST.] The government of Judea, and therefore of Jeru- ‘em, had by the will of Herod been bequeathed Archelaus. He lost no time after the burial of 4 father in presenting himself in the Temple, d addressing the people on the affairs of the agdom —a display of confidence and modera- in, strongly in contrast to the demeanor of the ‘eking. It produced an instant effect on the ited minds@# the Jews, still smarting from the lure of the affair of the eagle, and from the chas- ment it had brought upon them; and Arche- 1s was besieged with clamors for the liberation the numerous persons imprisoned by the late ag, and for remission of the taxes. As the peo- ‘ eollected for the evening sacrifice the matter tame more serious, and assumed the form of a ‘blie demonstration, of lamentation for the two irtyrs, Judas and Matthias, and indignation ‘ainst the intruded high-priest. So loud and till were the cries of lament that they were heard Roman commander to be off from his troops! The only suggestion that occurs to the writer is that Pha- saelus was the name not only of the tower on the wall, but of the southeast corner turret of Antonia, which we know to have been 20 cubits higher than the other three (B. J. v. 5, §8). This would agree with all the circumstances of the narrative, and with the account that Sabinus was ‘in the highest tower of the fortress ;” the very position occupied by Titus during the assault on the Temple from Antonia. But thie suggestion is quite unsupported by any direct evi- dence. : |@ The determination of the locality of the legion Ming this affair is most puzzling. On the one hand, ? position of the insurgents, who lay completely md the Temple, South, East, North, and West, and (0 are expressly said thus to have hemmed in the mans on all sides (Ant. xvii. 10, § 2), and also the ae used about the sally of the legion, namely, Mi they “leaped out” into the Temple, seem to point }vitably to the Antonia. On the other hand, Sabi- |$ gave the signal for the attack from the tower /asaelus (Ant. ibid). But Phasaelus was on the old ll, close to Herod’s palace, fully half a mile, as the _)W flies, from the Temple — a strange distance for a | yre’ | 1302 JERUSALEM ‘JERUSALEM - | verusalem, but at Caesarea on the coast (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 3,§ 1). The first appointed was Copo- itius, who accompanied Quirinus to the country immediately on the disgrace of Archelaus. Quiri- hus (the CyrEntus of the N. T.)— now for the second time prefect of Syria — was charged with the unpopular measure of the enrolment or assess- ment of the inhabitants of Judea. Notwithstand- ing the riots which took place elsewhere, at Jeru- salem the enrollment was allowed to proceed without resistance, owing to the prudence of Joazar (And. xviii. 1, § 1), again high-priest for a short time. One of the first acts of the new governor had been to take formal possession of the state vestments of the high-priest, worn on the three Festivals and on the Day of Atonement. Since the building of the Baris by the Maccabees these robes had always been kept there, a custom continued since its re- construction by Herod. But henceforward they were to be put up after use in an underground stone chamber, under the seal of the priests, and in charge of the captain of the guard. Seven days before use they were brought out, to be consigned again to the chamber after the ceremony was over (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 4, § 3). Two incidents at once most opposite in their character, and in their significance to that age and to ourselves, occurred during the procuratorship of Coponius. First, in the year 8, the finding of Christ in the Temple. Annas had been made high- priest about a year before. The second occurrence must have been a most distressing one to the J ews, unless they had become inured to such things. But of this we cannot so exactly fix the date. It was nothing less than the pollution of the Temple by some Samaritans, who secretly brought human bones and strewed them about the cloisters during the night of the Passover. Up to this time the Samaritans had been admitted to the Temple; they were henceforth excluded. In or about A. D. 10, Coponius was succeeded by M. Ambivius, and he by Annius Rufus. In 14, Augustus died, and with Tiberius came a new pro- curator — Val. Gratus, who held office till 26, when he was replaced by Pontius Pilate. During this period the high-priests had been numerous, but it is only necessary here to say that when Pilate ar- rived at his government the office was held by Joseph Caiaphas, who had been appointed but a few months before. The freedom from disturbance which marks the preceding 20 years at Jerusalem was probably due to the absence of the Roman troops, who were quartered at Caesarea out of the way of the fierce fanatics of the Temple. But Pilate transferred the winter quarters of the army to Jerusalem (Ant. xviii. 3, § 1), and the very first day there was a collision. The offense was given by the Roman standards — the images of the em- peror and of the eagle —which by former com- manders had been kept out of the city. A repre- sentation was made to Pilate; and so obstinate was the temper of the Jews on the point, that he yielded, and the standards were withdrawn (Ant. ibid.). He afterwards, as if to try how far he might go, consecrated some gilt shields — not con- taining figures, but inscribed simply with the name of the deity and of the donor — and hung them in the palace at Jerusalem. This act again aroused the resistance of the Jews; and on appeal to ' rius they were removed (Philo, ™pos Tdiov, Mai ii. 589). ; Another riot was caused by his appro, the Corban —a sacred revenue arising from redemption of vows —to the cost of an aque which he constructed for bringing water to the from a distance of 200 (Ant. xviii. 3, § 2) or! (B. J. ii. 9, § 4) stadia. This aqueduct has | supposed to be that leading from « Solon; Pools” at Urtas to the Temple hill (Kraffi; Ritter, Lrdkunde, Pal. 276), but the distane: Urtas is against the identification. A.D. 29. At the Passover of this year our tt made his first recorded visit to the city since: boyhood (John ii. 13). ; A. D. 33. At the Passover of this year, occu his crucifixion and resurrection. In A. D. 87, Pilate having been recalled to Ry Jerusalem was visited by Vitellius, the prefec Syria, at the time of the Passover. Vitellius | ferred two great benefits on the city. He remiy the duties levied on produce, and he allowed) Jews again to have the free custody of the hi priest’s vestments. He removed Caiaphas from| high-priesthood, and gave it to Jonathan gon, Annas. He then departed, apparently leavin : Roman officer (ppodpapxos) in charge of the » tonia (Ant. xviii. 4, § 3). Vitellius was again Jerusalem this year, probably in the autumn, il Herod the tetrarch (xviii. 5, § 3); while there: again changed the high-priest, substituting for «)- athan, Theophilus his brother. The news of Ke death of Tiberius and the accession of Calis reached Jerusalem at this time. Marcellus was)- pointed procurator by the new emperor. In e following year Stephen was stoned. The Chi- tians were greatly persecuted, and all, except e Apostles. driven out of Jerusalem (Acts viii. Li. 19)... In A. D. 40, Vitellius was superseded by a tronius, who arrived in Palestine with an ordeio place in the Temple a statue of Caligula. Ts order was ultimately, by the intercession of Agrir,, countermanded, but not until it had roused | whole people as one man (Ant. xviii. 8, §§ 2-9; 4 see the admirable narrative of Milman, Hist. ” Jews, bk. x.). | With the accession of Claudius in 41 came edict of toleration to the Jews. Agrippa annie Palestine to take possession of his kingdom, :! one of his first acts was to visit the Temple, wip he offered sacrifice and dedicated the golden ch which the late emperor had presented him after release from captivity. It was hung over the Tre ury (Ant. xix. 6, § 1). Simon was made hig: priest; the house-tax was remitted. Agrippa resided very much at Jerusalem, a added materially to its prosperity and conyenien The city had for some time been extending its towards the north, and a large suburb had co into existence on the high ground north of t Temple, and outside of the “second wall” whi inclosed the northern part of the great central v ley of the city. Hitherto the outer portion of t] suburb — which was called Bezetha, or “ Ni Town,” and had grown up very rapidly — was u protected by any formal wall, and practically ] er ee (eee @ The mode of pollution adopted by Josiah towards| ‘ b Their names and succession will be found und the idolatrous shrines (see p. 1287). HicH-Prigst, p. 1074. See also ANNAS. ¢ 5 JERUSALEM n to attack.¢ This defenseless condition at- ted the attention of Agrippa, who, like the first rod, was a great builder, and he commenced in- ing it in so substantial and magnificent a man- as to excite the suspicions of the Prefect, at yse instance it was stopped by Claudius (Ant. .; B. J. ii. 11, § 6, v. 4, § 2). Subsequently Jews seem to have purchased permission to plete the work (Tac. Hist. v. 12; Joseph. B. J. , § 2, ad fin.). ‘This new wall, the outermost ‘he three which inclosed the city on the north, ted from the old wall at the Tower Hippicus, r the N. W. corner of the city. It ran north- d, bending by a large circuit to the east, and ast returning southward along the western brink she Valley of Kedron till it joined the southern lof the Temple. Thus it inclosed not only the ‘suburb, but also the district immediately north northeast of the Temple on the brow of the lron Valley, which up to the present date had open to the country. The huge stones which lie— many of them undisturbed — in the east south walls of the Haram area, especially the theast corner under the “ Bath and Cradle of 1s,’ are parts of this wall.? “he year 43 is memorable as that of St. Paul's . visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. The + 44 began with the murder of St. James by ‘ippa (Acts xii. 1), followed at the Passover by ‘imprisonment and escape of St. Peter. Shortly ‘t, Agrippa himself died. Cuspius Fadus arrived 1 Rome as procurator, and Longinus as prefect syria. An attempt was made by the Romans egain possession of the pontifical robes; but on venee to the emperor the attempt was aban- ad. In 45 commenced a severe famine which sd two years (Ewald, Gesch. vi. 409, note). ‘the people of Jerusalem it was alleviated by the ence of Helena, queen of Adiabene, a convert ae Jewish faith, who visited the city in 46 and orted corn and dried fruit, which she distrib- to the poor (Ant. xx. 2, § 5; 5,§ 2). Dur- her stay Helena constructed, at a distance of e stadia from the city, a tomb, marked by three imids, to which her remains, with those of her ' were afterwards brought (Ant. xx. 4, § 3). It situated to the north, and formed one of the its in the course of the new wall (B. J. v. 4, § At the end of this year St. Paul arrived in ‘salem for the second time. | D. 48. Fadus was succeeded by Ventidius anus. A frightful tumult happened at the [Piss of this year, caused, as on former occa- 13, by the presence of the Roman soldiers in the er, and in the courts and cloisters of the Tem- ‘luring the festival. ‘Ten, or, according to an- |: account, twenty thousand, are said to have t their deaths not by the sword, but trodden to (1 in the crush through the narrow lanes which * com the Temple down into the city (Anté. xx. 3; B. J. ii. 12, § 1). Cumanus was recalled, | FELIX appointed in his room (Ant. xx. 7, | B. J. ii. 12, § 8), partly at the instance of than, the then high-priest (Ant. xx. 8, § 5). SE Ths statements of Josephus are not quite recon- if In one passage he says distinctly that Be- lay quite naked (B. J. v. 4, § 2), in another that af Some kind of wall (Ant. xix. 7, § 2). For the view which claims a higher antiquity for Walls — making them coeval with the remaining " Fuctions — see § IV., Amer. ed, 8S. W. JERUSALEM 1308 A set of ferocious fanatics, whom Josephus calls Sicarii, had lately begun to make their appearance in the city, whose creed it was to rob and murder all whom they judged hostile to Jewish interests Felix, weary of the remonstrances of Jonathan ot. his vicious life, employed some of these wretches to assassinate him | He was killed in the Temple. while sacrificing. The murder was never inquired into, and, emboldened by this, the Sicarii repeated their horrid act, thus adding, in the eyes of the Jews, the awful crime of sacrilege to that of mur- der (B. J. ii. 138, § 38; Ant. ibid.). The city, too, was filled with impostors pretending to inspiration, but inspired only with hatred to all government and order. Nor was the disorder confined to the lower classes: the chief people of the city, the very high-priests themselves, robbed the threshing-floors of the tithes common to all the priests, and led parties of rioters to open tumult and fighting in the streets (Ant. xx. 8, § 8). In fact, not only Je- rusalem, but the whole country far and wide, was in the most frightful confusion and insecurity. At length a riot at Caesarea of the most serious description caused the recall of Felix, and in the end of 60 or the beginning of 61, Porcius FEstus succeeded him as procurator. Festus was an able and upright officer (B. J. ii. 14, § 1), and at the same time conciliatory towards the Jews (Acts xxv. 9). In the brief period of his administration he kept down the robbers with a strong hand, and gave the province a short breathing time. His in- terview with St. Paul (Acts xxv., xxvi.) took place, not at Jerusalem, but at Caesarea. On one occa- sion both Festus and Agrippa came into collision with the Jews at Jerusalem. Agrippa — who had been appointed king by Nero in 52—had added an apartment to the old Asmonean palace on the eastern brow of the upper city, which commanded a full view into the interior of the courts of the Temple. This view the Jews intercepted by build- ing a wall on the west side of the inner quad- rangle.¢ But the wall not only intercepted Agrippa, it also interfered with the view from the outer cloisters in which the Roman guard was stationed during the festivals. Both Agrippa and Festus interfered, and required it to be pulled down; but the Jews pleaded that once built it was a part of the Temple, and entreated to be allowed to appeal to Nero. Nero allowed their plea, but retained as hostages the high-priest and treasurer, who had headed the deputation. Agrippa appointed Joseph, called Cabi, to the vacant priesthood. In 62 (prob- ably) Festus died, and was succeeded by Albinus; and he again very shortly after by Annas or Ana- nus, son of the Annas before whom our Lord was taken. In the interval a persecution was com- menced against the Christians at the instance of the new high-priest, a rigid Sadducee, and St. James and others were arraigned before the San- hedrim (Joseph. Ant. xx. 9, § 1). They were “delivered to be stoned.’’ but St. James at any rate appears not to have been killed till a few years later. The act gave great offense to all, and cost Annas his office after he had held it but three ¢ No one in Jerusalem might build so high that his house could overlook the Temple. It was the subject of a distinct prohibition by the Doctors. See Maimon- ides, quoted by Otho, Lex. Rab. 266. Probably this furnished one reason for so hostile a step to so friendly @ person as Agrippa, 304 JERUSALEM months. Jesus (Joshua), the son of Damneus, succeeded him. Albinus began his rule by en- deavoring to keep down the Sicarii and other dis- turbers of the peace; and indeed hesypreserved throughout a show of justice and vigor (Ant. xx. 11, § 1), though in secret greedy and rapacious. | But ‘before his recall he pursued his end more openly, and ‘priests, people, and governors alike seem to have been bent on rapine and bloodshed: rival high-priests headed bodies of rioters, and stoned each other, and in the words of Josephus, ‘all things grew from worse to worse’? (Ant. xx. 9,§ 4). The evils were aggravated by two occur- rences — first, the release by Albinus, before his departure, of all the smaller criminals in the pris- ons (Ant. xx. 9, § 5); and secondly, the sudden discharge of an immense body of workmen, on the completion of the repairs to the Temple (xx. 9, § 7). An endeavor was made to remedy the latter by inducing Agrippa to rebuild the eastern cloister ; but he refused to undertake a work of such mag- nitude, though he consented to pave the city with marble. The repairs of a part of the sanctuary that had fallen, and the renewal of the foundations of some portions were deferred for the present, but the materials were collected and stored in one of the courts (B. J. v. 1, § 5). Bad as Albinus had been, Gessius Florus, who succeeded him in 65, was worse. In fact, even Tacitus admits that the endurance of the oppressed JERUSALEM dreadful tumult must be passed over.? Florus foiled in his attempt to press through the old up into the Antonia — whence he would haye nearer access to the treasures — and finding the Jews had broken down the north and— cloisters where they joined the fortress, so as te off the communication, he relinquished the atte and withdrew to Cesarea (B. J. ii. 15, § 6). Cestius Gallus, the prefect, now found it n sary for him to visit the city in person. He one of his lieutenants to announce him, but bi he himself arrived events had become past rem; Agrippa had shortly before returned from Ale’ dria, and had done much to calm the people. his instance they rebuilt the part of the cloi | which had been demolished, and collected the ute in arrear, but the mere suggestion 4 that they should obey Florus until he was repla produced such a storm that he was obligec leave the city (B. J. ii. 16, § 5; 17, § 1). | seditious party in the Temple led by young I: zar, son of Ananias, rejected the offerings of Roman emperor, which since the time of Ji. Cesar had been regularly made. This, as a | renunciation of allegiance, was the true begin’ of the war with Rome (B. J. ii. 17, § 2). & acts were not done without resistance from | older and wiser people. But remonstrance 4 unavailing, the innovators would listen to no re¢ sentations. The peace party, therefore, despat:? Jews could last no longer — « duravit patientia Ju- dis usque ad Gessium Florum ” (fist. v.10). So great was his rapacity, that whole cities and dis- tricts were desolated, and the robbers openly allowed to purchase immunity in plunder. At the Passover, probably in 66, when Cestius Gallus, thé prefect of Syria, visited Jerusalem, the whole assembled people? besought him for redress; but without effect. Florus’s next attempt was to obtain some of the treasure from the Temple. He demanded 17 talents in the name of the emperor. The de- mand produced a frantic disturbance, in the midst of which he approached the city with both cavalry and foot-soldiers. That night Florus took up his quarters in the royal palace — that of Herod, at the N. W. corner of the city. On the following morn- ing he took his seat on the Bema, and the high- priest and other principal people being brought before him, he demanded that the leaders of the late riot should be given up. On their refusal he ordered his soldiers to plunder the upper city. This order was but too faithfully carried out; every house was entered and pillaged, and the Jews driven out. In their attempt to get through the narrow streets which lay in the valley between the upper city and the Temple, many were caught and slain, others were brought before Florus, scourged, and then crucified. No grade or class was exempt. Jews who bore the Roman equestrian order were among the victims treated with most indignity. Queen Berenice herself (B. J. ii. 15, § 1)— residing at that time in the Asmonean palace in the very midst of the slaughter — was so af- fected by the scene, as to intercede in person and barefoot before Florus, but without avail, and in returning she was herself nearly killed, and only escaped by taking refuge in her palace and calling her guards about her. The further details of this a Josephus says three millions in number! Three millions is very little under the population of London with all its suburbs. 4 some of their number to Florus and to Agri: and the latter sent 3,000 horse-soldiers to assi:i keeping order. | Hostilities at once began. The peace pij headed by the high-priest, and fortified by Agri) soldiers, thréw themselves into the upper city. 1 insurgents held the Temple and the lower city. the Antonia was a small Roman garrison. Fi contests lasted for seven days, each side endeavo'; to take possession of the part held by the oir At last the insurgents, who behaved with 1 greatest ferocity, and were reinforced by a nur? of Sicarii, were triumphant. They gained the u2 city, driving all before them — the high-priest \ other leaders into vaults and sewers, the soli into Herod’s palace. The Asmonean palace, 1 high-priest’s house, and the repository of 1 Archives —in Josephus’s language, “the ne» of the city’’ (B. J. ii. 17, § 6) — were set on e Antonia was next attacked, and in two days 1?) had effected an entrance, sabred the garrison, ¢ burnt the fortress. The balistee and catayls found there were preserved for future use yi § 3). The soldiers in Herod’s palace were it besieged ; but so strong were the walls, and so sit the resistance, that it was three weeks before entrance could be effected. The soldiers wert last forced from the palace into the three gi towers on the adjoining wall with great loss; \4 ultimately were all murdered in the most treact- ous manner, The high-priest and his brother ' discovered hidden in the aqueduct of the pal? they were instantly put to death. Thus the aE gents were now completely masters of both city d Temple. But they were not to remain so 43 After the defeat of Cestius Gallus at Beth-horon, sensions began to arise, and it soon became kn? that there was still a large moderate party; d b The whole tragic story is most forcibly told)y Milman (ii, 219-224) a | | } JERUSALEM us took advantage of this to advance from us on the city. He made his way through tha, the new suburb north of the Temple,“ and vh the wood-market. burning everything as ent (B. J. v. 7, § 2), and at last encamped site the palace at the foot of the second wall. Jews retired to the upper city and to the ple. For five days Cestius assaulted the wall yut success; on the sixth he resolved to make nore attempt, this time at a different spot — north wall of the Temple, east of, and behind, Antonia. The Jews, however, fought with such from the top of the cloisters, that he could , nothing, and when night came he drew off to amp at Scopus. ‘hither the insurgents fol- | him, and in three days gave him one of the complete defeats that a Roman army had ever rgone. His catapults and baliste were taken him, and reserved by the Jews for the final (v. 6, § 3). This occurred on the 8th of thesvan (beginning of November), 66. 1¢ war with Rome was now inevitable, and it svident that the siege of Jerusalem was only a jion of time. Ananus, the high-priest, a mod- and prudent man, took the lead; the walls repaired, arms and warlike instruments and tines of all kinds fabricated, and other prepara- made. In this attitude of expectation — with jional diversions, such as the expedition to lon (B. J. iii. 2, §§ 1, 2), and the skirmishes ‘Simon Bar-Gioras (ii. 22, § 2) —the city ined while Vespasian was reducing the north e country, and till the fall of Giscala (Oct. or 67), when John, the son of Levi, escaped xe to Jerusalem, to become one of the most ‘inent persons in the future conflict. om the arrival of John, two years and a half ed till ‘Titus appeared before the walls of Jeru- 1. The whole of that time was occupied in sts between the moderate party, whose desire ‘o take such a course as might yet preserve the nality of the Jews and the existence of the Jand the Zealots or fanatics, the assertors of nal independence, who scouted the idea of womise, and resolved to regain their freedom ‘rish. The Zealots, being utterly unscrupulous, resorting to massacre on the least resistance, \ triumphed, and at last reigned paramount, ' no resistance but such as sprang from their ‘internal factions. For the repulsive details of rightful period of contention and outrage the 'r must be referred to other works.’ It will "Ta to say that at the beginning of 70, | Titus made his appearance, the Zealots them- i were divided into two parties — that of John "scala and Kleazar, who held the Temple and ies and the Antonia — 8,400 men; that of ‘0 Bar-Gioras, whose head-quarters were in the * Phasaelus (v. 4, § 3), and who held the upper \ from the present Coenaculum to the Latin ‘ent, the lower city in the valley, and the dis- | where the old Acra had formerly stood, north _ t is remarkable that nothing is said of any oc to his passage through the great wall of pa, which encircled Bezetha. ean Milman’s History of the Jews, bks. xiv., xv., ‘and Merivale’s History of the Romans, vi. ch. To both of these works the writer begs leave to 8s his obligations throughout the above meagre 1 of “the most soul-stirring struggle of all Nat history.” Of course the materials for all un accounts are in Josephus only, excepting the JERUSALEM 1305 of the Temple — 10,000 men, and 5,000 Idumzanse (B. J. v. 6, § 1), in all, a force of between 23,000 and 24,000 soldiers trained in the civil encounters of the 1a two years to great skill and thorough recklessness.© ‘The numbers of the other inhabi- tants, swelled, as they were, by the strangers and pilgrims who flocked from the country to the Pass- over, it is extremely difficult to decide. ‘Tacitus doubtless from some Roman source, gives the whol at 600,000. Josephus states that 1,100,000 perisher during the siege (Bb. J. vi. 9, § 8; comp. v. 13, § 7) and that more than 40,000 were allowed to depart into the country (vi. 8, § 2), in addition to an ‘¢immense number ”’ sold to the army, and who of course form a proportion of the 97,000 ‘carried captive during the whole war” (vi. 9, § 3). We may therefore take Josephus’s computation of the numbers at about 1,200,000. Reasons are given in the third section of this article for believing that even the smaller of these numbers is very greatly in excess, and that it cannot have exceeded 60,00( or 70,000 (see p. 1320). Titus’s force consisted of four legions, and some auxiliaries — at the outside 30,000 men (B. J. v. 1, § 6). These were disposed on their first arrival in three camps—the 12th and 15th legions on the ridge of Scopus, about a mile north of the city; the 5th a little in the rear; and the 10th on the top of the Mount of Olives (v. 2, §§ 3, 5), to guard the road to the Jordan Valley, and to shell the place (if the expression may be allowed) from that com- manding position. The army was well furnished with artillery and machines of the latest and most approved invention — ‘ cuncta expugnandis urbibus, reperta apud veteres, aut novis ingeniis,’’ says Tacitus (fist. v.13). The first operation was to clear the ground between Scopus and the north wall of the city — fell the timber, destroy the fences of the gardens which fringed the wall, and level the rocky protuberances. ‘This occupied four days. After ‘it was done the three legions were marched forward from Scopus, and encamped off the north- west corner of the walls, stretching from the Tower Psephinus to opposite Hippicus. The first step was to get possession of the outer wall. ‘The point of attack chosen was in Simon’s portion of the city, at a low and comparatively weak place near the monument of John Hyrcanus (v. 6, § 2), close to the junction of the three walls, and where the upper city came to a level with the surrounding ground. Round this spot the three legions erected banks, from which they opened batteries, pushing up the rams and other engines of attack to the foot of the wall. One of the rams, more powerful than the rest, went among the Jews by the sobriquet of Nikon,@ “the conqueror.’’ ‘Three large towers, 75 feet high, were also erected, overtopping the wall. Meantime from their camp on the Mount of Olives the 10th legion opened fire on the Temple and the east side of the city. They had the heaviest baliste, and did great damage. Simon and his men did not suffer these works to go on without molestation. few touches — strong, but not always accurate —in the 5th book of Tacitus’ Histories. ce These are the numbers given by Josephus ; but it is probable that they are exaggerated. d‘O Nikwv ... ard rod ravta vKav (B. J. v. 7, § 2). A curious question is raised by the occurrence of this and other Greek names in Josephus ; so stated as to lead to the inference that Greek was familiarly used by the Jews indiscriminately with Hebrew. Seo the catalogues of names in B. J. v. 4, § 2. 1806 JERUSALEM The catapults, both those taken from Cestius, and those found in the Antonia, were set up on the wall, and constant desperate sallies were made. At last the Jews began to tire of their fruitless assaults. They saw that the wall must fall, and, as they had done during Nebuchadnezzar’s siege, they left their posts at night, and went home. A breach was made by the redoubtable NikOn on the 7th Arte- misius (cir. April 15); and here the Romans entered, driving the Jews before them to the second wall. A great length of the wall was then broken down; such parts of Bezetha as had escaped destruction by Cestius were levelled, and a new camp was formed, on the spot formerly oceupied by the As- syrians, and still known as the “ Assyrian camp.”’ 4 This was a great step in advance. Titus now lay with the second wall of the city close to him on his right, while before him at no considerable distance rose Antonia and the Temple, with no obstacle in the interval to his attack. Still, how- ever, he preferred, before advancing, to get posses- sion of the second wall, and the neighborhood of John’s monument was again chosen. Simon was no less reckless in assault, and no less fertile in stratagem, than before; but notwithstanding all his efforts, in five days a breach was again effected. The district into which the Romans had now pene- trated was the great Valley which lay between the two main hills of the city, occupied then, as it is still, by an intricate mass of narrow and tortuous lanes, and containing the markets of the city — no doubt very like the present bazaars. Titus’s breach was where the wool, cloth, and brass bazaars came up to the wall (v. 8,§ 1). This district was held by the Jews with the greatest tenacity. Knowing, as they did, every turn of the lanes and alleys, they had an immense advantage over the Romans, and it was only after four days’ incessant fighting, much loss, and one thorough repulse, that the Romans were able to make good their position. However, at last, Simon was obliged to retreat, and then Titus demolished the wall. This was the second step in the siege. Meantime some shots had been interchanged in the direction of the Antonia, but no serious attack was made. Before beginning there in earnest, Titus resolved to give his troops a few days’ rest, and the Jews a short opportunity for reflection. He there- fore called in the 10th legion from the Mount of Olives, and held an inspection of the whole army on the ground north of the Temple — full in view of both the Temple and the upper city, every wall and house in which were crowded with spectators (B. J. v. 9, § 1). But the opportunity was thrown away upon the Jews, and, after four days, orders were given to recommence the attack. Hitherto the assault had been almost entirely on the city: it was now to be simultaneous on city and Temple. Accordingly two pairs of large batteries were con- structed, the one pair in front of Antonia; the other at the old point of attack — the monument of John Hyrcanus. ‘The first pair was erected by the 5th and 12th legions, and was near the pool Struthius — probably the present Birket /srail, by the St. Stephen’s Gate; the second by the 10th and 15th, at the pool called the Almond Pool — possibly that now known as the Pool of Hezekiah — and near the high-priest’s monument (v. 11, § 4). These banks seem to have been constructed of timber and _fas- a Compare Mahaneh-Dan, “camp of Dan” (Judg. xviii. 12). 1’ oe G JERUSALEM cines, to which the Romans must have been d by the scarcity of earth. They absorbed the j isant labor of seventeen days, and were comp on the 29th Artemisius (cir. May 7). John jj mean time had not been idle; he had employe seventeen days’ respite in driving mines, thr the solid limestone of the hill, from within fortress (v. xi. § 4; vi. 1, § 3) to below the by The mines were formed with timber roofs and ports. When the banks were quite complete, the engines placed upon them, the timber of galleries was fired, the superincumbent ground way, and the labor of the Romans was totall’ stroyed. At the other point Simon had maint: a resistance with all his former intrepidity, }more than his former success. He had now or increased the number of his machines, and people were much more expert in handling | than before, so that he was able to impede mate; the progress of the works. And when they: completed, and the battering rams had begu make a sensible impression on the wall, he m: furious assault on them, and succeeded in firin| rams, seriously damaging the other engines,| destroying the banks (v. 11, §§ 5, 6). It now became plain to Titus that some 4 measures for the reduction of the place mu adopted. It would appear that hitherto the sout: and western parts of the city had not been inye: and on that side a certain amount of commu: tion was kept up with the country, whieh, vu: stopped, might prolong the siege indefinitely (., v. 12,§ 1; 10, § 8; 11, § 1; 12, § 8). “Phe it ber who thus escaped is stated by Josephus at ) than 500 a day (vy. 11, § 1). A council of wai therefore held, and it was resolved to encor) the whole place with a wall, and then recomm the assault. The wall began at the Roman 1 —a spot probably outside the modern north 3 between the Damascus Gate and the N. E. ect From thence it went to the lower part of Bell — about St. Stephen’s Gate; then across Kei to the Mount of Olives; thence south, by a» called the “‘ Pigeon’s Rock,’ — possibly the m¢ “Tombs of the Prophets’? — to the Mour« Offense. It then turned to the west; again diy into the Kedron, ascended the Mount of | Counsel, and so kept on the upper side of the ri1 ; to a village called Beth-Erebinthi, whence it outside of Herod’s monument to its starting | at the camp. Its entire length was 39 furlon- very near 5 miles; and it contained 19 statio ' guard-houses. The whole strength of the army employed on the work, and it was completed i short space of three days. The siege was | vigorously pressed. The north attack was 1! quished, and the whole force concentrated or Antonia (12, § 4). Four new banks of greate'l than before were constructed, and as all the ti) in the neighborhood had been already eut ¢? the materials had to be procured from a dis} of eleven miles (vi. 1, § 1). ‘Twenty-one days ® occupied in completing the banks. Their pot'¢ is not specified, but it is evident, from some ¢ expressions of Josephus, that they were at a siderable distance from the fortress (vi. 1, § 3. length on the 1st Panemus or Tamuz (cir. Juz the fire from the banks commenced, under cov) ° which the rams were set to work, and that nit part of the wall fell at a spot where the found: had been weakened by the mines employed ag! the former attacks. Still this was but an out , JERUSALEM between it and the fortress itself a new wall discovered, which John had taken the pre- ion to build. At length, after two desperate mpts, this wall and that of the inner fortress scaled by a bold surprise, and on the 5th @ emus (June 11) the Antonia was in the hands he Romans (vi. 1, § 7). Another week was pied in breaking down the outer walls of the ess for the passage of the machines, and a her delay took place in erecting new banks, on fresh level, for the bombardment and battery 1e Temple. During the whole of this time — miseries of which are commemorated in the itional name of yomin deéka, * days of wretch- iss,”’ applied by the Jews to the period between 17th Tamuz and the 9th Ab —the most des te hand-to-hand encounters took place, some in passages from the Antonia to the cloisters, some 1e cloisters themselves, the Romans endeavoring sree their way in, the Jews preventing them. ‘the Romans gradually gained ground. First western, and then the whole of the northern mal cloister was burnt (27th and 28th Pan.), then the wall enclosing the court of Israel and ioly house itself. In the interval, on the 17th emus, the daily sacrifice had failed, owing to vant of officiating priests; a circumstance which greatly distressed the people, and was taken ntage of by Titus to make a further though less invitation to surrender. At length, on the a day of Lous or Ab (July 15), by the wanton of a soldier, contrary to the intention of Titus, ‘in spite of every exertion he could make to stop te sanctuary itself was fired (vi. 4, § 5-7). It by one of those rare coincidences that some- 3 occur, the very same month and day of the th that the first temple had been burnt by achadnezzar (vi. 4,§ 8). John, and such of arty as escaped the flames and the carnage, 2 their way by the bridge on the south to the ‘ceity. The whole of the cloisters that had rto escaped, including the magnificent triple nade of Herod on the south of the Temple, sreasury chambers, and the rooms round the | courts, were now all burnt and demolished. the edifice of the sanctuary itself still remained. js solid masonry the fire had had comparatively t effect, and there were still hidden in its re- 23 a few faithful priests who had contrived to i. the most valuable of the utensils, vessels, ‘pices of the sanctuary (vi. 6, § 1; 8, § 3). ‘te Temple was at last gained; but it seemed i half the work remained to be done. ‘The * city, higher than Moriah, inclosed by the ir wall of David and Solomon, and on all ( precipitous except at the north, where it was ded by the wall and towers of Herod, was still “i taken. Titus first tried a parley — he stand- | | Josephus contradicts himself about this date, Tin vi. 2, § 1, he says that the 17th Panemus was very day” that Antonia was entered. The date iy in the text agrees best with the narrative. But n 2 other hand the 17th is the day commemorated 1» Jewish Calendar. | The reader will note that all which remained to ‘en was the western hill, protected as above de- d. Tf the topographical theory of this article *\rrect, namely, that Zion, the city of Davil, was “or to this hill, then these monarchs deprived (elves and their royal residence not only of the SS eee, | ' JERUSALEM 1307 ing on the east end of the bridge between the Temple and the upper city, and John and Simon on the west end. His terms, however, were re- jected, and no alternative was left him but to force on the siege. ‘The whole of the low part of the town — the crowded lanes of which we have so often heard — was burnt, in the teeth of a frantic resist- ance from the Zealots (vi. 7, § 1), together with the council-house, the repository of the records (doubtless occupied by Simon since its former de- struction), and the palace of Helena, which were situated in this quarter —the suburb of Ophel under the south wall of the Temple, and the houses as far as Siloam on the lower slopes of the Temple Mount. It took 18 days to erect the necessary works for the siege; the four legions were once more stationed at the west or northwest corner where Herod’s palace abutted on the wall, and where the three magnificent and impregnable towers of Hippicus, Phasaelus, and Mariamne rose conspicuous (vi. 8, § 1, and § 4, ad jin.). This was the main attack. Opposite the Temple, the precipitous nature of the slopes of the upper city rendered it unlikely that any serious attempt would be made by the Jews, and this part accordingly, between the bridge and the Xystus, was left to the auxiliaries. The attack was commenced on the 7th of Gorpizus (cir. Sept. 11), and by the next day a breach was made in the wall, and the Romans at last entered the city. During the attack John and Simon appear to have stationed themselves in the towers just alluded to; and had they remained there they would probably have been able to make terms, as the towers were considered impregnable (vi. 8, § 4). But on the first signs of the breach, they took flight, and, traversing the city, descended into the Valley of Hinnom below Siloam, and endeavored to force the wall of circumyallation and so make their escape. On being repulsed there, they took refuge apart in some of the subterraneous caverns or sewers of the city. John shortly after surrendered himself; but Simon held out for several weeks, and did not make his appearance until after Titus had quitted the city. They were both reserved for the Triumph at Rome. The city being taken, such parts as had escaped the former conflagrations were burned, and the whole of both city and Temple was ordered to be demolished, excepting the west wall of the upper city, and Herod’s three great towers at the north- west corner, which were left standing as memorials of the massive nature of the fortifications. Of the Jews, the aged and infirm were killed; the children under seventeen were sold as slaves; the rest were sent, some to the Egyptian mines, some to the provincial amphitheatres, and some to grace the Triumph of the Conqueror.¢ Titus then of the protection of their own wall! There is no escape from this conclusion ; and the above statement of Mr. Grove, which is strictly accurate, is a complete refutation of Mr. Fergusson’s theory. Ss. W. ¢ The prisoners were collected for this final partition in the Court of the Women. Josephus states that during the process eleven thousand died! It is a good instance of the exaggeration in which he indulges on these matters; for taking the largest estimate of the Court of the Women (Lightfoot’s), it contained 85,000 square feet, %. e. little more than 8 square feet for each of those who died, not to speak of the | tage of the strongest natural position, but also | living. 13808 JERUSALEM departed, leaving the tenth legion under the com- mand of Terentius Rufus to carry out the work of demolition. Of this Josephus assures us that “the whole ¢ was so thoroughly leveled and dug up that no one visiting it would believe it had ever been inhabited’ (A. ./. vii. 1, § 1). Medal of Vespasian, commemorating the capture From its destruction by Titus to the present time. — For more than fifty years after its destruction by Titus Jerusalem disappears from history. During the revolts of the Jews in Cyrenaica, Egypt, Cy- prus, and Mesopotamia, which disturbed the latter years of Trajan, the recovery of their city was never attempted. There is indeed reason to believe that Lucuas, the head of the insurgents in Egypt, led his followers into Palestine, where they were de- feated by the Roman general Turbo, but Jerusalem is not once mentioned as the scene of their opera- tions. Of its annals during this period we know nothing. Three towers and part of the western wall alone remained of its strong fortifications to protect the cohorts who occupied the conquered city, and the soldiers’ huts were. long the only buildings on its site. But in the reign of Hadrian it again emerged from its obscurity, and became the centre of an insurrection, which the best blood of Rome was shed to subdue. In despair of keep- ing the Jews in subjection by other means, the Emperor had formed a design to restore Jerusalem, and thus prevent it from ever becoming a rallying point for this turbulent race. In furtherance of his plan he had sent thither a colony of veterans, in numbers sufficient for the defense of a position. so strong by nature against the then known modes of attack. To this measure Dion Cassius (lxix. 12) attributes a renewal of the insurrection, while Eusebius asserts that it was not carried into execu- tion till the outbreak was quelled. Be this as it may, the embers of revolt, long smouldering, burst into a flame soon after Hadrian’s departure from the East in A. D. 132. The contemptuous indif- ference vf the Romans, or the secrecy of their own ~ plans, enabled the Jews to organize a wide-spread conspiracy. Bar Cocheba, their leader, the third, according to Rabbinical writers, of a dynasty of the same name, princes of the Captivity, was crowned king at Bether by the Jews who thronged to him, and by the populace was regarded as the Messiah. His armor-bearer, R. Akiba, claimed descent from Sisera, and hated the Romans with the fierce rancor of his adopted nation. All the Jews in Palestine flocked to his standard. At an early period in the revolt they became masters of Jerusalem, and at- 7 The word used by Josephus — mepiBoAos trys 16- Aews —may mean either the whole place, or the in- dosing walls, or the precinct of the Temple. The statements of the Talmud perhaps imply that the JERUSALEM tempted to rebuild the Temple. The exact of this attempt is uncertain, but the fact is in from allusions in Chrysostom (Or. 3 in Ju Nicephorus (. £. ili. 24), and George Ced (Hist. Comp. p. 249), and the collateral evider a coin of the period. Hadrian, alarmed at the spread of the insurrectior the ineffectual efforts o troops to repress it, sumr from Britain Julius Se the greatest general of his \ to take the command o jarmy of Judea. Two W were spent in a fierce gr warfare before Jerusalem taken, after a desperate di in which Bar Cocheba per The courage of the defe was shaken by the falling the vaults on Mount Zion the Romans became m of the position (Milman, Hist. of Jews, iii. But the war did not end with the eaptu the city. The Jews in great force had occ the fortress of Bether, and there maintair struggle with all the tenacity of despair a: the repeated onsets of the Romans. At le worn out by famine and disease, they yielde the 9th of the month Ab, A. D. 135, an grandson of Bar Cocheba was among the The slaughter was frightful. The Romans, s: Rabbinical historians, waded to their horse-b in blood, which flowed with the fury of a mov torrent. The corpses of the slain, according | same veracious authorities, extended for more thirteen miles, and remained unburied till the of Antoninus. Five hundred and eighty tho are said to have fallen by the sword, whil number of victims to the attendant calamit war was countless. On the side of the Rc the loss was enormous, and so dearly bough their victory, that Hadrian, in his letter t Senate, announcing the conclusion of the wa not adopt the usual congratulatory phrase.’ Cocheba has left traces of his occupation of | salem in coins which were struck during thi two years of the war. Four silver coins, thr them undoubtedly belonging to Trajan, have discovered, restamped with Samaritan char: But the rebel leader, amply supplied with th: cious metals by the contributions of his folli afterwards coined his own money. ‘The mir’ probably during the first two years of the Jerusalem; the coins struck during that / bearing the inscription, “to the freedom of ' salem,’’ or “ Jerusalem the holy.’’ They are’ tioned in both Talmuds. : Hadrian’s first policy, after the suppressi the revolt, was to obliterate the existence of | salem as a city. The ruins which Titus hi) were razed to the ground, and the plough i over the foundations of the Temple. A eole/ Roman citizens occupied the new city whicl! from the ashes of Jerusalem, and their numb! afterwards augmented by the Emperor's vi legionaries. A temple to the Capitoline Ji was erected on the site of the sacred edifice ‘ Sec Meeee foundations of the Temple only were dug up « quotations in Schwarz, p. 835); and even aa to have been in existence in the time of Chry (Ad Jude@as, iii. 481). SS nent ‘ \ \ RR of Jerusalem. JERUSALEM and among the ornaments of the new city a theatre, two market-places (Snudoim), a ng called TETpPaVUULpoV, and another called _ It was divided into seven quarters, each ich had its own warden. Mount Zion lay 1, the walls (Jerome, Mic. iii. 12; Itin. s. p. 592, ed. Wesseling). That the northern nelosed the so-called sacred places, though ed by Deyling, is regarded by Miinter as a of a later date. A temple to Astarte, the ician Venus, on the site afterwards identified the sepulchre, appears on coins, with four ns and the inscription C. A. C., Colonia Capitolina, but it is more than doubtful er it was erected at this time. The worship rapis was introduced from Egypt. 13. One of the sons of Nebo, who returne) Ezra, and had married a foreign wife (Ezr. | He is called JuEL in 1 Esdr. ix. 35. | 14. The son of Zichri, a Benjamite, ple command over those of his own tribe and thi of Judah, who dwelt at Jerusalem after thet from Babylon (Neh. xi. 9). W. Ad JOE‘LAH (TONY) [perh. whom Jp helps]: "IeAta; [Vat. EAta; Comp. Ald.\ ‘IwnaAd: Joéla), son of Jeroham of Gedor, wi) his brother joined the band of warriors who! round David at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 7). JOBZER (“IY [whose help ts Sele "Iw(apd; Alex. Iw(aap, [Comp. ’Ioe¢ep*] v2 a Korhite, one of David’s captains who fou't his side while living in exile among the Phit (1 Chr. xii. 6). ! J OG’BEHAH (Tay [elevated]: the LXX. have translated it, as if from rps tbwour abrds; in Judg. *leyeBda; Alex. &) tlas ZeBée: Jegbaa), one of the cities on hf of Jordan which were built and fortified tribe of Gad when they took possession ¢? territory (Num. xxxii. 35). It is there asi! with JAAZER and BETH-NIMRAH, brn n there is reason to believe were not far fr Jordan, and gouth of the Jebel-Jilad. Tt ® tioned once again, this time in connecti( ' Nobah, in the account of Gideon’s pursuit! Midianites (Judg. viii. 11). They were at ' and he made his way from the upper partif Jordan valley at Suceoth and Penuel, and up’? — ascended from the Ghor by one of ® rent-beds to the downs of the higher level -)Y way of the dwellers in tents — the pastora i JOGLI ‘avoided the district of the towns — to the east obah and Jogbehah — making his way towards yaste country in the southeast. Here, accord- to the scanty information we possess, Karkor dseem to have been situated. No trace of name like Jogbehah has yet been met with in tbove, or any other direction. G. OGLI ("72> [exiled]: ‘Eyal [Vat. -rer]; . Exar; [Comp. *Ioxai:] Jogli), the father ‘ukki, a chief man among the Danites (Num. 1. 22). OHA. 1. (NTN [perh., Jehovah revives, jstolife]: "Iwdd: [ Vat. Iwayav:] Alex. Iwaxa: '.) One of the sons of Beriah, the Benjamite, was a chief of the fathers of the dwellers in ‘on, and had put to flight the inhabitants of | (1 Chr. viii. 16). His family may possibly ‘founded a colony, like the Danites, within the 3 of another tribe, where they were exposed, e men of Ephraim had been, to the attacks of ‘ittites. Such border-warfare was too common oder it necessary to suppose that the narratives ‘Chr. vii. 21 and viii. 13 refer to the same ne although it is not a little singular that ‘ame Beriah occurs in each. ‘CIa(aé; [Vat. FA.] Alex. Iwa¢ae; [Comp. it.]) The Tizite, one of David’s guard [1 Chr. |]. Kennicott decides that he was the son ‘mri, as he is represented in the A. V., though ( margin the translators have put “ Shimrite ”’ the son of Shimri’’ to the name of his brother (el. bas. AN (an > Iwavdy; [Vat. Iwavas, » Alex. ver. 10: Johanan]), a shortened form ‘hohanan = Jehovah's gift. It is the same hn. [JEHOHANAN.] 1. Son of Azariah RIAH, 1], and grandson of Ahimaaz the son dok, and father of Azariah, 6 (1 Chr. vi. 9, i V.). In Josephus (Ant. x. 8, § 6) the name cupted to Joramus, and in the Seder Olam thaz. The latter places him in the reign of lhaphat; but merely because it begins by “ly placing Zadok in the reign of Solomon. ‘however we know from 1 K. iv. 2, supported Jhr. vi. 10, A. V., that Azariah the father of an was high-priest in Solomon's reign, and lah his grandson was so in Jehoshaphat’s we may conclude without much doubt that I an’s pontificate fell in the reign of Rehoboam. €lervey’s Genenloyies, etc., ch. x.) (Alex. Iwavau.] Son of Elioénai, the son ariah, the son of Shemaiah, in the line of babel’s heirs [SHEMAIAH] (1 Chr. iii. 24). A. C “leva in 2 K. [xxv. 23], Iwdvay in Jer.; © loavay in 2 K., and Iwayvay in Jer., except b), xiii. 8, xliii. 2, 4,5; [Vat. Iwvay in Jer. : ‘FAA Avvay Jer. xl. 15, Iwavvay ver. 16:] “m.) The son of Kareah, and one of the pias of the scattered remnants of the army of @ who escaped in the final attack upon Jeru- oy the Chaldwans, and, after the capture of ©!ig, remained in the open country of Moab de Ammonites, watching the tide of events. 3 one of the first to repair to Mizpah, after hdrawal of the hostile army, and tender his tee to the new governor appointed by the ‘Babylon. From his acquaintance with the Tous designs of Ishmael, against which ‘hwas unhappily warned in vain, it is not ’ va iean Hi ' JOHN 1419 unreasonable to suppose that he may have been a companion of Ishmael in his exile at the court of Baalis king of the Ammonites, the promoter of the plot (Jer. xl. 8-16). After the murder of Gedaliah, Johanan was one of the foremost in the pursuit of his assassin, and rescued the captives he had carried off from Mizpah (Jer. xli. 11-16). Fearing the vengeance of the Chaldeans for the treachery of Ishmael, the captains, with Johanan at their head, halted by the Khan of Chimham, on the road to Egypt, with the intention of seeking refuge there; and, notwithstanding the warnings of Jeremiah, settled in a body at Tahpanhes. They were after- wards scattered throughout the country, in Migdol, Noph, and Pathros, and from this time we lose sight of Johanan and his fellow-captains. 4. CIwavay; [ Ald. "Iwxavav-]|) The firstborn son of Josiah king of Judah (1 Chr. iii. 15), who either died before his father, or fell with him at Megiddo. Junius, without any authority, identifies him with Zaraces, mentioned 1 Esdr. i. 38. 5. A valiant Benjamite, one of David’s captains, who joined him at Ziklag (1 Chr. xii. 4). 6. (Alex. "Iwvay : [ Vat. ] FA. Iway.) The eighth in number of the lion-faced warriors of Gad, who left their tribe to follow the fortunes of David, and spread the terror of their arms beyond Jordan in the month of its overflow (1 Chr. xii. 12). Vf (Jam: "Iwavis; [ Alex. Iwavayv. |) The father of Azariah, an Ephraimite in the time of Ahaz (2 Chr. xxviii. 12). 8. The son of Hakkatan, and chief of the Bene- Azgad [sons of A.] who returned with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 12). He is called JOHANNEs in 1 Esdr. viii. 38. 9. (JT): [FAS in Ezr., Iwvay.]) The son of Eliashib, one of the chief Levites (Neh. xii. 23) to whose chamber (or “ treasury,’ according to the LXX.) Ezra retired to mourn over the foreign marriages which the people had contracted (Kzr. x. 6). He is called JOANAN in 1 Esdr. ix. 1; and some have supposed him to be the same with Jon- athan, descendant of another Eliashib, who was after- wards high-priest (Neh. xii. 11). [JonaTHAN, 10.] 10. (Jan: "Iwvdy; Alex. Ilwva@av; FA. Iwavav.) The son of Tobiah the Ammonite, who had married the daughter of Meshullam the priest (Neh. vi. 18). Wer NG JOHANNES (Iwdvyns : Joannes) = Jeho- hanan son of Bebai (1 Esdr. ix. 29; comp. Ezr. x. 28). [JEHOHANAN, 4.] * JOHANNES (Iwavyns ; Vat. Iwayns : Joannes), son of Acatan or Hakkatan, 1 Esdr. viii. 38. See JOHANAN, 8. A JOHN (Iwavyns [see below]: [Joannes]), names in the Apocrypha. 1. The father of Mat- tathias, and grandfather of the Maccabzean family (1 Mace. ii. 1). 2. The (eldest) son of Mattathias (Iwayvdy; [Sin. Alex. Iwayyns], surnamed Caddis (Kaddis, ef. Grimm, ad 1 Mace. ii. 2), who was slain by “the children of Jambri”’ [JAMBRI] (1 Mace. ii. 2, ix. 36-38). In 2 Mace. viii. 22 he is called Joseph, by a common confusion of name. [Mac- CABEES. | 3. The father of Eupolemus, one of the envoys whom Judas Maccabeeus sent to Rome (1 Mace. viii. 17: 2 Mace. iv. 11). 4, The son of Simon, the brother of Judas Mae- 1420 JOHN cabseus (1 Mace. xiii. 53, xvi. 1), “a valiant man,” who, under the title of Johannes Hyrcanus, nobly supported in after time the glory of his house. [MACCABEES. | 5. An envoy from the Jews to Lysias (2 Macc. See AE Beta. JOHN (Iwdvyns [from OV = whom Jeho- vah has graciously given]: Cod. Bez, "Iwvadas: Joannes). 1. One of the high-priest’s family, who, with Annas and Caiaphas, sat in judgment. upon the Apostles Peter and John for their cure of the lame man and preaching in the Temple (Acts iv. 6). Lightfoot identifies him with R. Johanan ben Zac- eai, who lived forty years before the destruction of the Temple, and was president of the great Syna- gogue after its removal to Jabne, or Jamnia (Light- foot, Cent. Chor. Matth. pref. ch. 15; see also Selden, De Synedrivs, ii. ch. 15). Grotius merely says he was known to rabbinical writers as “ John the priest’? (Comm. im Act. iv.). \ 2. The Hebrew name of the Evangelist MARK, who throughout the narrative of the Acts is desig- nated by the name by which he was known among his countrymen (Acts xii. 12, 25, xili. 5, 13, xv. 37). JOHN, THE APOSTLE (Iwdyvns [see above]). It will be convenient to divide the life which is the subject of the present article into periods corre- sponding both to the great critical epochs which separate one part of it from another, and to marked differences in the trustworthiness of the sources from which our materials are derived. In no in- stance, perhaps, is such a division more necessary than in this. One portion of the Apostle’s life and work stands out before us as in the clearness of broad daylight. Over those which precede and follow it there brood the shadows of darkness and uncertainty. In the former we discern only a few isolated facts, and are left to inference and con- jecture to bring them together into something like a whole. In the latter we encounter, it is true, images more distinct, pictures more vivid; but with these there is the doubt whether the distinctness and vividness are not misleading — whether half- traditional, half-mythical narrative has not taken the place of history. I. Before the call to the discipleship. — We have no data. for settling with any exactitude the time of the Apostle’s birth. The general impression left on us by the Gospel-narrative is that he was younger than the brother whose name commonly precedes his (Matt. iv. 21, x. 2, xvii. 1, &c.; but comp. Luke ix. 28, where the order is inverted “), younger than his friend Peter, possibly also than his Master. The life which was protracted to the time of Trajan (Euseb. H. £. iii. 23, following [reneeus) can hardly have begun before the year B. 0. 4 of the Dionysian era. The Gospels give us the name of his father Zebedeeus (Matt. iv. 21) and his mother Salome (Matt. xxvii. 56, compared with Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1). Of the former we know nothing more. ‘The traditions of the fourth century (Kpiphan. iii. Hox. 78) make the latter the daughter of Joseph by his first wife, and consequently half-sister to our Lord. By some recent critics she has been identified with a * ‘The name John precedes. that of James also in Luke viii. 51 and Acts i. 18 in the critical editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. A. b Ewald (Gesch. Israels, vy. p. 171) adopts Wieseler’s conjecture, and connects it with his own hypothesis that the sons of Zebedee, and our Lord, as well as the JOHN, THE APOSTLE — the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, in Jo 25 (Wieseler, Stud. uw. Krit. 1840, p. 648). lived, it may be inferred from John i. 44 near the same town [BETHSAIDA] as tho: were afterwards the companions and _partr their children. There, on the shores of the Galilee, the Apostle and his brother grew up mention of the ‘“ hired servants ’’ (Mark i. | his mother’s ‘ substance” (dd tév bmapy Luke viii. 3), of “his own house”? (rd 76:0 xix. 27), implies a position removed by a some steps from absolute poverty. The fac the Apostle was known to the high-priest Ca as that knowledge was hardly likely to haye after he had avowed himself the disciple of of Nazareth, suggests the probability of som intimacy between the two men or their fa The name which the parents gave to their y child was too common to serve as the grot any special inference; but it deserves notice ( the name appears among the kindred of CO: (Acts iv. 6); (2) that it was given to a priestly child, the son of Zacharias (Lukei. the embodiment and symbol of Messianic The frequent occurrence of the name at this: unconnected as it was with any of the great of the old heroic days of Israel, is indeed significant as a sign of that yearning and e: tion which then characterized, not only th faithful and devout (Luke ii. 25, 28), but the people. The prominence given to it by the w connected with the birth of the future Bapti have given a meaning to it for the parents future Evangelist which it would not ol have had. Of the character of Zebedeus y hardly the slightest trace. He interposes no. when his sons are called on to leave him (M 21). After this he disappears from the scene Gospel-history, and we are led to infer that, died before his wife followed her children j work of ministration. Her character meets presenting the same marked features as thost were conspicuous in her son. From her, ¥ lowed Jesus and ministered to Him of hi stance (Luke viii. 3), who sought for her ty that they might sit, one on his right ha, other on his left, in his kingdom (Matt. 3 he might well derive his strong affectio capacity for giving and receiving loye, his ea for the speedy manifestation of the Messiah’ dom. The early years of the Apostle we ®) lieve to have passed under this influence. Hy be trained in all that constituted the 0} education of Jewish boyhood. Though not in the schools of Jerusalem, and therefore, i! life, liable to the reproach of having no rec position as a teacher, no rabbinical educatio iv. 13), he would yet be taught to read t and observe its precepts, to feed on the writ? the prophets with the feeling that their acco) ment was not far off.. For him too, as bo the Law, there would be, at the age of thirt«, periodical pilgrimages to Jerusalem. He’ become familiar with the stately worship Temple, with the sacrifice, the incense, th WEEE Baptist, were of the tribe of Levi. On the othi? more sober critics, like Neander (Phlanz. U. ¥ 609, 4th ed.), and Litcke (Johannes, i. p. 9), 4 the tradition and the conjecture. c Ewald (J. c.) presses this also into the se™ his strange hypothesis. | JOHN, THE APOSTLE e priestly robes May we not conjecture that the impressions were first made which never ards wore off? Assuming that there is some ny between the previous training of a prophet e form of the visions presented to him, may s recognize them in the rich liturgical imagery Apocalypse — in that union in one wonder- ion of all that was most wonderful and glorious predictions of the older prophets? currently with this there would be also the outward life as sharing in his father’s work. reat political changes which agitated the of Palestine would in some degree make elves felt even in the village-town in which sw up. The Galilean fisherman must have possibly with some sympathy, of the efforts (when he was too young to join in them) by of Gamala, as the great asserter of the free- f Israel against their Roman rulers. Like Jews he would grow up with strong and feelings against the neighboring Samaritans. , before we pass into a period of greater cer- , we must not forget to take into account 0 this period of his life belongs the com- ‘ment of that intimate fellowship with Simon nah of which we afterwards find so many | That friendship may even then have been, ntless ways, fruitful for good upon the hearts h. ‘From the Call to the Discipleship to the De- re from Jerusalem. — The ordinary life of the ‘an of the Sea of Galilee was at last broken ‘n by the news that a prophet had once more ed. The voice of John the Baptist was heard \ wilderness of Judzea, and the publicans, ‘ts, soldiers, and fishermen of Galilee gathered ‘him. Among these were the two sons of ‘eus and their friends. With them, perhaps, ne whom as yet they knew not. They heard, ‘be, of his protests against the vices of their ‘ler — against the hypocrisy of Pharisees and 3. But they heard also, it is clear, words \spoke to them of their own sins — of their eed of a deliverer. The words “ Behold the | of God that taketh away the sins’’ imply hose who heard them would enter into the tness of which they spoke. Assuming that jmamed disciple of John i. 37-40 was the alist himself, we are led to think of that 'g, of the lengthened interview that followed ‘he starting-point of the entire devotion of ind soul which lasted through his whole life. Jesus loved ‘nim as He loved all earnest seekers 2ighteousness and truth (comp. Mark x. 21). fords of that evening, though unrecorded, Nnighty in their effect. The disciples (John )utly among them) followed their new teacher ilee (John i. 44), were with him, as such, at atrmage-feast of Cana (ii. 2), journeyed with > Capernaum, and thence to Jerusalem (ii. |), Cathe back through Samaria (iv. 8), and Puy me uncertain interval of time, returned “former occupations. The uncertainty which 1 over the narratives of Matt. iv. 18, and Luke + (comp. the arguments for and against their "% to the same events in Lampe, Comment. “mm. i. 20), leaves us in doubt whether they €d a special call to become “ fishers of men” es a me prophecy of their work as preachers of ‘pel. _\€ consensus of patristic interpretation sees in | JOHN, THE APOSTLE 1421 once only or twice. In either case they gave up the employment of their life and went to do a work like it, and yet unlike, in God’s spiritual kingdom. From this time they take their place among the company of disciples. Only here and there are there traces of individual character, of special turn-- ing-points in their lives. Soon they find themselves in the number of the Twelve who’ are chosen, not as disciples only, but as their Lord’s delegates — representatives — Apostles. In all the lists of the Twelve those four names of the sons of Jonah and Zebedzeus stand foremost. They come within the innermost circle of their Lord’s friends, and are as the éxAexr@v éxAexrdérepor. ‘The three, Peter, James, and John, are with him when none else are in the chamber of death (Mark vy. 37), in the glory of. the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1), when he forewarns them of the destruction of the Holy City (Mark xiii. 3, Andrew, in this instance, with them), in the agony of Gethsemane. St. Peter is through- out the leader of that band; to John belongs the yet more memorable distinction of being the dis- ciple whom Jesus loved. This love is returned with a more single undivided heart by him than by any other. If Peter is the g:Adxpicros, John is the iAinoois (Grotius, Prolegom. in Joann.). Some striking facts indicate why this was so; what the character was which was thus worthy of the love of Jesus of Nazareth. They hardly sustain the popular notion, fostered by the received types of Christian art, of a nature gentle, yielding, fem- inine. - The name Boanerges (Mark iii. 17) implies a vehemence, zeal, intensity, which gave to those who had it the might of Sons of Thunder. That spirit broke out, once and again, when they joined their mother in asking for the highest places in the kingdom of their Master, and declared that they were ready to face the dark terrors of the cup that he drank and the baptism that he was baptized with (Matt. xx. 20-24; Mark x. 35-41)—when they rebuked one who cast out devils in their Lord’s name because he was not one of their company (Luke ix. 49) — when they.sought to call down fire from heaven upon a village of the Samaritans (Luke ix. 54). About this time Salome, as if her hus- band had died, takes her place among the women who followed Jesus in Galilee (Luke viii. 3), minis- tering to him of their substance, and went up with him in his last journey to Jerusalem (Luke xxiii. 55). Through her, we may well believe, St. John first came to know that Mary Magdalene whose character he depicts with such a life-like touch, and that other Mary to whom he was afterwards to stand in so close and special a relation. The fullness of his narrative of what the other Evangelists omit (John xi.) leads to the conclusion that he was united also by some special ties of intimacy to the family of Bethany. It is not necessary to dwell at length on the familiar history of the Last Supper. What is characteristic is that he is there, as ever, the dis- ciple whom Jesus loved; and, as the chosen and favored friend, reclines at table with his head upon his Master’s breast (John xiii. 23). To him the eager Peter —they had been sent together to pre- pare the supper (Luke xxii. 8) — makes signs of impatient questioning that he should ask what was not likely to be answered if it came from any other (John xiii. 24). As they go out to the Mount of of all distinguishing force. (Comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, 8. V. Bpovry ; and Lampe, i. 27.) This, however, would deprive the epithet | 1422 JOHN, THE APOSTLE a | JOHN, THE APOSTLE Olives the chosen three are nearest to their Master. | the persecutor came back as the convert, h They only are within sight or hearing of the con- flict in Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 37). When the betrayal is accomplished, Peter and John, after the first moment of confusion, follow afar off, while the others simply seek safety in a hasty flight ¢ (John xviii. 15). ‘The personal acquaintance which ex- isted between John and Caiaphas enabled him to gain access both for himself and Peter, but the latter remains in the porch with the officers and servants, while John himself apparently is admitted to the council-chamber, and follows Jesus thence, even to the pretorium of the Roman Procurator (John xviii. 16, 19, 28). Thence, as if the desire to see the end, and the love which was stronger than death, sustained him through all the terrors and sorrows of that day, he followed — accompanied probably by his own ‘mother, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene — to the place of cru- cifixion. The Teacher who had been to him as a brother leaves to him a brother's duty. He is to be as a son to the mother who is left desolate (John xix. 26-27). The Sabbath that followed was spent, it would appear, in the same company. He receives Peter, in spite of his denial, on the old terms of friendship. It is to them that Mary Magdalene first runs with the tidings of the emptied sepulchre (John xx. 2); they are the first to go together to see what the strange words meant. Not without some bearing on their respective characters is the fact that John is the more impetuous, running on most eagerly to the rock-tomb; Peter, the least re- strained by awe, the first to enter in and look (John xx. 4-6). For at least eight days they continued in Jerusalem (John xx. 26). Then, in the interval between’ the resurrection and the ascension, we find them still together on the sea of Galilee (John xxi. 1), as though they would calm the eager suspense of that period of expectation by a return to their old calling and their old familiar haunts. Here, too, there is a characteristic difference. John is the first to recognize in the dim forni seen.in the morning twilight the presence of his risen Lord; Peter the first to plunge into the water and swim towards the shore where He stood calling to them (John xxi. 7). The last words of the Gospel reveal to us the deep affection which united the two friends. It is not enough for Peter to know his own future. That at once suggests the question — “ And what shall this man do?”’ (John xxi. 21). The history of the Acts shows the same union. They are of course together at the ascension and on the day of Pentecost. Together they enter the Temple as worshippers (Acts iii. 1) and protest against the threats of the Sanhedrim (iv. 13). ‘They are fel- -low-workers in the first great step of the Church’s expansion. ‘The Apostle whose wrath had been roused by the unbelief of the Samaritans, overcomes his national exclusiveness, and receives them as his brethren (viii. 14). The persecution which was pushed on by Saul of Tarsus did not drive him or any of the Apostles from their post (viii. 1). When a A somewhat wild conjecture is found in writers of the Western Church. Ambrose, Gregory the Great, and Bede, identify the Apostle with the veavioxos ts ot Mark xiv. 51, 52 (Lampe, i. 38). 6 The hypothesis of Baronius and Tillemont, that the Virgin accompanied him to Ephesus, has not even the authority of tradition (Lampe, i. 51). c Lampe fixes a. D. 66, when Jerusalem was be- sieged by the Roman forces under Cestius, as the most orobable date. ithe Apostle during this period we have hai true, did not see him (Gal. i. 19), but this of does not involve the inference that he had | rusalem. The sharper though shorter persi which followed under Herod Agrippa bro: great sorrow to him in the, martyrdom brother (Acts xii. 2). His friend was dri seek safety in flight. Fifteen years after St. first visit he was still at Jerusalem, and he take part in the great settlement of the cont between the Jewish and. the Gentile Ch (Acts xv. 6). His position and reputatio were those of one ranking among the chie lars’? of the Church (Gal. ii. 9). Of they slightest trace. ‘There may have been spec to mission-work like that which drew him) maria. There may haye been the work of ing, organizing, exhorting the churches of | His fulfillment of the solemn charge intr him may have led him to a life of loving a erent thought rather than to one of cons activity. We may, at all events, feel sure was a time in which the natural element! character, with all their fiery energy, wet! purified and mellowed, rising step by step) high serenity which we find perfected in thil portion of his life. Here, too, we may, 1 much hesitation, accept the traditions of the as recording a historic fact when they asi him a life of celibacy (Tertull. de Monog The absence of his name from 1 Cor. ix.) to the same conclusion. It harmonizes wi’ know of his character to think of his hes absorbed in the higher and diviner love tl) was no room left for the lower and the hurt Ill. From his Departure from Jerusal : Death. — The traditions of a later age come more or less show of likelihood, to fill up 2 gap which separates the Apostle of J erusal the Bishop of Ephesus. It was a natural cj to suppose that he remained in Judeah death of the Virgin released him from hit When this took place we can only cce There are no signs of his being at Jeri the time of St. Paul’s last visit (Acts xx» pastoral epistles set. aside the notion thel come to Ephesus before the work of the A) the Gentiles was brought to its conclusi of many contradictory statements, fixing! parture under Claudius, or Nexo, or as la‘ Domitian. we have hardly any cata for dag than rejecting the two extremes.¢ , Nor is’ that his work as an Apostle was transferred? from Jerusalem to Ephesus. A traditio’ in the time of Augustine ( Quest. Yvan) and embodied in some MSS. of the N. sented the Ist Epistle of St. John as \adé the Parthians, and so far implied that tolic work had brought him into cout them. When the form of the aged dis; us again, in the twilight of the Aposto! d In the earlier tradition which made tl formally partition out the world known to } thia falls to the lot of Thomas, while Job the Proconsular Asia (Euseb. H. E. iii. 1 of the legends connected with the Apost Peter contributes the first article, John t but the tradition appears with great varia time and order (comp. Pseudo-August S ccexli.). sl JOHN, THE APOSTLE ill left in great doubt as to the extent of his and the circumstances of his outward life. ming the authorship of the Epistles and the ‘ation to be his, the facts which the N. T. ags assert or imply are— (1) that, having come jhesus, some persecution, local or general, drove ‘to Patmos (Rev. i. 9):@ (2) that the seven shes, of which Asia was the centre, were spe- objects of his solicitude (Rev. i. 11); that in “ork he had to encounter men who denied the on which his faith rested (1 John iv. 1; 2 7), and others who, with a railing and malig- ‘temper, disputed his authority (3 John 9, 10). this we add that he must have outlived all, arly all of those who had been the friends and anions even of his maturer years — that this cing age gave strength to an old imagination his Lord had promised him immortality (John 13) — that, as if remembering the actual words 1 had been thus perverted, the longing of his yathered itself up in the cry, ‘ Even so, come, Jesus” (Rev. xxii. 20) — that from some who with authority he received a solemn attesta- sof the confidence they reposed in him (John 14) — we have stated all that has any claim to itharacter of historical truth. The picture }1 tradition fills up for us has the merit of be- all and vivid, but it blends together, without } regard to harmony, things probable and im- ble. He is shipwrecked off Ephesus (Simeon \oh. wm vitd Johan. c. 2; Lampe, i. 47), and 13s there in time to check the proyiess of the jies which sprang up after St. Paul's departure. for ata later period, he numbers among his viles men like Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius Jon. de Vir. Illust.c. 17). In the persecution 1’ Domitian he is taken to Rome, and there, '3 boldness, though not by death, gains the (iof martyrdom. The boiling oil into which ) thrown has no power to hurt him (Tertull. de beript. c. 36.).o He is then sent to labor in (aines, and Patmos is the place of his exile yorinus, im Apoc. ix.; Lampe, i. 66). The (jion of Nerva frees him from danger, and he tis to Ephesus. There he settles the canon of K.ospel-history by formally attesting the truth @ first three Gospels, and writing his own to iy what they left wanting (Euseb. ZH. /’. iii. » The elders of the Church are gathered to- it, and he, as by a sudden inspiration, begins Whe wonderful opening, ‘In the beginning was ‘lere again the hypotheses of commentators range ) Jlaudius to Domitian, the consensus of patristic on preponderating in favor of the latter. [Comp. ATION. ] 1@ Scene of the supposed miracle was outside the Tatina, and hence the Western Church com- 7 tates it by the special festival of ‘ St. John Port. 1” on May 6th. *asebinis and Irenzeus make Cerinthus the heretic. hanius (Her. xxx. c. 24) Ebion is the hero of - To modern feelings the anecdote may seem @ with the character of the Apostle of Love, ‘+ f } Re story of the méradov is perhaps the most “ing of all the traditions as to the age of the *s. What makes it still stranger is the appear- ta like tradition (Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. JOHN, THE APOSTLE 1423 the word’ (Hieron. de Vir. JIlust. c. 29). Heresies continue to show themselves, but he meets them with the strongest possible protest. He refuses to pass under the same roof (that of the public baths of Ephesus) as their foremost leader, lest the house should fall down on them and crush them (Iren. ili. 3; Euseb. A. £. iii. 28, iv. 14).¢ Through his agency the great temple of Artemis is at last reft of its magnificence, and even (!) leveled with the ground (Cyril. Alex. Orat. de Mar. Virg.; Nicephor. H. £. ii. 42; Lampe, i. 90). He intro- duces and perpetuates the Jewish mode of celebrat- ing the Easter feast (Euseb. H. HE. iii. 3). At Ephesus, if not before, as one who was a true priest of the Lord, bearing on his brow the plate of gold (réradov; comp. Suicer. Z'hes. s. y.), with tke sacred name engraved on it, which was the badge of the Jewish pontiff (Polycrates, in Euseb. H. £. iii. 31, v. 24).¢ In strange contrast with this ideal exaltation, a later tradition tells how the old man used to find pleasure in the playfulness and fond- ness of a favorite bird, and defended himself against the charge of unworthy trifling by the familiar apologue of the bow that must sometimes be unbent (Cassian. Collat. xxiv. c. 2).¢ More true to the N. T. character of the Apostle is the story, told with so much power and beauty by Clement of Alexandria ( Quis dives, ce. 42), of his special and loving interest in the younger members of his flock; of his eagerness and courage in the attempt to rescue one of them who had fallen into evil courses. The scene of the old and loving man, standing face to face with the outlaw-chief whom, in days gone by, he had baptized, and winning him to repent- ance, is one which we could gladly look on as _be- longing to his actual life — part of a story which is, in Clement’s words, ob uiOos, GAAG Adyos- Not less beautiful is that other scene which comes before us as the last act of his life. When all capacity to work and teach is gone — when there is no strength even to stand — the spirit still retains its power to love, and the lips are still opened to repeat, without change and variation, the command which summed up all his Master’s will, “ Little children, love one another’ (Hieron. in Gal. vi.). Other stories, more apocryphal and less interesting, we may pass over rapidly. That he put forth his power to raise the dead to life (Euseb. 7. E. v. 18); that he drank the cup of hemlock which was in- tended to cause his death, and suffered no harm from it/ (Pseudo-August. Solilog.; Isidor. Hispal. ii. 23; Epiph. Her. 78) about James the Just. Meas- ured by our notions, the statement seems altogether improbable, and yet how can we account for its ap- pearance at so early a date? Is it possible that this was the symbol that the old exclusive priesthood had passed away? Or are we to suppose that a strong statement as to the new priesthood was misinterpreted, and that rhetoric passed rapidly into legend? (Comp. Neand. Pflanz. u. Leit. p. 618; Stanley, Sermons and Essays on Apostolic Age, p. 283.) Ewald (/. c.) finds in it an evidence in support of the hypothesis above referred to. e The authority of Cassian is but slender in such a case ; but the story is hardly to be rejected, on @ priori grounds, as incompatible with the dignity of an Apostle. Does it not illustrate the truth — “ He prayeth best who loveth best All things both great and small”? Ff The memory of this deliverance is preserved in the symbolic cup, with the serpent issuing from it. which appears in the medizval representations of the 1424 JOHN, THE APOSTLE de Morte Sanct. c. 73); that when he felt his death approaching he gave orders for the construc- tion of his own sepulchre, and when it was finished calmly laid himself down in it and died (Augustin. Tract. in Joann. exxiy.); that after his interment there were strange movements in the earth that covered him (¢bzd.); that when the tomb was sub- sequently opened it was found empty (Niceph. H. £. ii. 42); that he was reserved to reappear again in conflict with the personal Antichrist in the last days (Suicer. Thes. s. v. "Iwdyyns): these tradi- tions, for the most part, indicate little else than the uncritical spirit of the age in which they passed current. The very time of his death lies within the region of conjecture rather than of history, and the dates that have been assigned for it range from A. D. 89 to A. D. 120 (Lampe, i. 92). The result of all this accumulation of apocryphal materials is, from one point of view, disappointing enough. We strain our sight in vain to distin- guish between the false and the true — between the shadows with which the gloom is peopled, and the living forms of which we are in search. We find it better and more satisfying to turn again, for all our conceptions of the Apostle’s mind and character, to the scanty records of the N. T., and the writings which he himself has left. The truest thought that we can attain to is still that he was “the dis- ciple whom Jesus loved ” — § ériarhO.0s — return- ing that love with a deep, absorbing, unwavering devotion. One aspect of that feeling is seen in the zeal for his Master’s glory, the burning indignation against all that seemed to outrage it, which runs, with its fiery gleam, through his whole life, and makes him, from first to last, one of the Sons of Thunder. To him, more than to any other dis- ciple, there is no neutrality between Christ and Antichrist. The spirit of such a man is intolerant of compromises and concessions. The same strong personal affection shows itself, in another form, in the chief characteristics of his Gospel. While the other Evangelists record principally the discourses and parables which were spoken to the multitude, he treasures up every word and accent of dialogues and conversations, which must have seemed to most men Jess conspicuous. In the absence of any recorded narrative of his work as a preacher, in the silence which he appears to have kept for so many years, he comes before us as one who lives in the unseen eternal world, rather than in that of secular, or even spiritual activity. If there is less apparent power to enter into the minds and hearts of men of different temperament and education, less ability to become all things to all men than there is in St. Paul, there is a perfection of another kind. The image mirrored in his soul is that of the Son of Man, who is also the Son of God. He is the Apostle of Love, not because he starts from the easy temper of a general benevolence, nor again as being of a character soft, yielding, feminine, but because he has grown, ever more and more, into the likeness of Him whom he loved so truly. Nowhere is the vision of the Eternal Word, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, so un- clouded; nowhere are there such distinctive per- JOHN THE BAPTIST sonal reminiscences of the Christ, xaré odpx his most distinctively human characteristics was this union of the two aspects of the | which made him so truly the “ Theologus” ¢ whole company of the Apostles, the instinetiy ponent of all forms of a mystical, or logic; docetic Gnosticism. It was a true feeling v led the later interpreters of the mysterious { of the four living creatures round the throne | iv. 7)— departing in this instance from the e tradition @— to see in him the eagle that soars the highest heaven and looks upon the unelo sun. It will be well to end with the noble y from the hymn of Adam of St. Victor, in | that feeling is embodied : — | “ Ceelum transit, veri rotam Solis vidit, ibi totam | Mentis figens aciem ; Speculator spiritalis Quasi seraphim sub alis, Dei vidit faciem.” 6 (Comp. the exhaustive Prolegomena to Lar Commentary ; Neander, Pflanz. u. Leit. pp. | 652 [pp. 854-379, comp. pp. 508-531, Robin} ed., N. Y. 1865]; Stanley, Sermons and £) on the Apostolic Age, Sermon iv., and Lssay o| Traditions respecting St. John; Maurice 0) Gospel of St. John, Serm. i.; and an intere! article by Ebrard, s. v. Johannes, in Herzog’s ,/ Encyklopddie.) E. H. * See also Lardner, Hist. of the Apostles Evangelists, ch. ix. (Works, vol. y. ed. of 1! Francis Trench, Life and Character of St. | the Evangelist, Lond. 1850; and, on the leg: respecting the Apostle, Mrs. Jameson’s Sacrec' Legendary Art, i. 157-172, 5th ed. JOHN THE BAPTIST (Iodyqs 6 : tioThs [and 6 BamrriCwy]), a saint more sig! honored of God than any other whose nan recorded in either the O. or the N. T. Joh; of the priestly race by both parents, for his f1 Zacharias was himself a priest of the course of .1 or Abijah (1 Chr. xxiv. 10), offering incense al very time when a son was promised to him;n Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron (| i. 5). Both, too, were devout persons — walkii the commandments of God, and waiting fol fulfillment of his promise to Israel. The dt mission of John was the subject of prophecy tn centuries before his birth, for St. Matthew (i: tells us that it was John who was prefigurel Isaiah as “the Voice of one crying in the we ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, maki paths straight’’ (Is. xl. 3), while by the pri Malachi the spirit announces more definitely, | hold, I will send my messenger, and he shal pare the way before Me” (iii. 1). His birtl birth not according to the ordinary laws of né but through the miraculous interposition 0% mighty power — was foretold by an angel sent” jod, who announced it as an occasion of Jom gladness to many — and at the same time ass/é to him’ the name of John to signify either th! was to be born of God's especial favor, or, pet Y Evangelist. Is it possible that the symbol originated in Mark x. 89, and that the legend grew out of the symbol ? a The older interpretation made Mark answer to the eagle, John to .the lion (Suicer, Thes. s. vy. evayyeAcoTyHs): b Another verse of this hymn, “ Volat avis sine meta,”’ et seq., is familiar to most students a t motto prefixed by Olshausen to his commentary (® John’s Gospel. The whole hymn is to be fou' } Trench’s Sacred Latin Poetry, p. 71; [also in D 1 Thesaurus Hymnologicus, ii. 166, and Mone’s La” sche Hymnen des Mittelalters, iii. 118.] JOHN THE BAPTIST t he was to be the harbinger of grace. The ‘el Gabriel moreover proclaimed the character office of this wonderful child even before his ception, foretelling that he would be filled with ‘Holy Ghost from the first moment of his ex- ‘nee, and appear as the great reformer of his ‘atrymen — another Elijah in the boldness with ‘ch he would speak truth and rebuke vice — but, ye all, as the chosen forerunner and herald of Jong-expected Messiah. “hese marvelous revelations as to the character eareer of the son, for whom he had so long ved in vain, were too much for the faith of the | Zacharias; and when he sought some assur- of the certainty of the promised blessing, God » it to him in a judgment — the privation of ch—until the event foretold should happen — Jgment intended to serve at once as a token of 's truth, and a rebuke of his own incredulity. now the Lord’s gracious promise tarried not — vbeth, for greater privacy, retired into the hill- try, whither she was soon afterwards followed er kinswoman Mary, who was herself the object shannel of divine grace beyond measure greater more mysterious. The two cousins, who were ; honored above all the mothers of Israel, came /her in a remote city of the south (by some josed to be Hebron, by others Jurra), and im- ately God’s purpose was confirmed to them by saculous sign; for as soon as Elizabeth heard salutations of Mary, the babe leaped in her (0, thus acknowledging, as it were even before |, the presence of his Lord (Luke i. 43, 44), Je months after this, and while Mary still re- ted with her, Elizabeth was delivered of a son. Loirth of John preceded by six months that of ilessed Lord. [Respecting this date, see Jesus ‘st, p. 1381.] On the eighth day the child mise was, in conformity with the law of Moses Xi. 3), brought to the priest for cireumcision, 11s the performance of this rite was the accus- 11 time for naming a child, the friends of the Ly proposed to call him Zacharias after the of his father. The mother, however, required he should be called John —a decision which ‘Tias, still speechless, confirmed by writing on tet, “his name is John.’”’ The judgment on Sant of faith was then at once withdrawn, and ‘st use which he made of his recovered speech ) praise Jehovah for his faithfulness and mercy 4 i. 64). God's wonderful interposition in the t of John had impressed the minds of many fa certain solenm awe and expectation (Luke »)» God was surely again visiting his people. Krovidence, so long hidden, seemed once more to manifest itself. The child thus super- tilly born must doubtless be commissioned to j _ with the Holy Ghost,’’ broke forth in that 'S strain of praise and prophecy so familiar in the morning service of our church —a Mm which it is to be observed that the father, * Speaking of his own child, blesses God for F his covenant and promise, in the Koti i on and salvation of his people’ through 90 » : ' +. JOHN THE BAPTIST 1425 Him, of whom his own son was the prophet and forerunner. A single verse contains all that we know of John’s history for a space of thirty years — the whole period which elapsed between his birth and the commencement of his public ministry. “The child grew and waxed strong in the spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel’? (Luke i. 80). John, it will be remem- bered, was ordained to be a Nazarite (see Num. vi. 1-21) from his birth, for the words of the angel were, ‘He shall drink neither wine nor strong drink”? (Luke i. 15). What we are to understand by this brief announcement is probably this: The chosen forerunner of the Messiah and herald of his kingdom was required to forego the ordinary pleas- ures and indulgences of the world, and live a life of the strictest self-denial in retirement and soli- tude. It was thus that the holy Nazarite, dwelling by himself in the wild and thinly peopled region west- ward of the Dead Sea, called “ Desert ”’ in the text, prepared himself by self-discipline, and by constant communion with God, for the wonderful office to which he had been divinely called. Here year after year of his stern probation passed by, till at length the time for the fulfillment of his mission arrived. The very appearance of the holy Baptist was of itself a lesson to his countrymen; his dress was that of the old prophets—a garment woven of camel's hair (2 K. i. 8), attached to the body by a leathern girdle. His food was such as the desert afforded — locusts (Lev. xi. 22) and wild honey (Ps. Ixxxi. 16). And now the long secluded hermit came forth to the discharge of his office. His supernatural birth — his hard ascetic life—his reputation for extra- ordinary sanctity —and the generally prevailing expectation that some great one was about to ap- pear — these causes, without the aid of miraculous power, for “John did no miracle” (John x. 41), were sufficient to attract to him a great multitude from “ every quarter’’ (Matt. iii. 5). Brief and startling was his first exhortation to them — “ Re- pent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Some score verses contain all that is recorded of John’s preaching, and the sum of it all is repent- ance; not mere legal ablution or expiation, but a change of heart and life. Herein John, though exhibiting a marked contrast to the Scribes and Pharisees of his own time, was but repeating with the stimulus of a new and powerful motive the lessons which had. been again and again impressed upon them by their ancient prophets (cf. Is. i. 16, 17, lv. 73 Jer. vii. 3-7; Ez. xviii. 19-32, xxxvi. 25-27; Joel ii. 12, 13; Mic. vi. 8; Zech. i. 3, 4). But while such was his solemn admonition to the multitude at large, he adopted towards the leading sects of the Jews a severer tone, denouncing Pharisees and Sadducees alike as “a generation of vipers,” and warning them of the folly of trust-— ing to external privileges as descendants of Abraham (Luke iii. 8). Now at last he warns them that ‘the axe was laid to the root of the tree’? — that formal righteousness would be tolerated no longer, and that none would be acknowledged for children of Abraham but such as did the works of Abraham (ef. John viii. 39). Such alarming declarations pro- duced their effect, and many of every class pressed forward to confess their sins and to be baptized. What then was the baptism which John admin- istered? Not altogether a new rite, for it was the custom of the Jews to baptize proselytes to their 1426 JOHN THE BAPTIST JOHN THE BAPTIST tude. Upon the whole, the true meaning of words Kayo ovK Hdew avtdy would seem to] follows: And I, even I, though standing in go a relation to Him, both personally and minister had no assured knowledge of Him as the Mes I did not know Him, and I had not authori proclaim Him as such, till I saw the predicted in the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him. must be borne in mind that John had no n of knowing by previous announcement, whether wonderful acknowledgment of the Divine Son y be vouchsafed to his forerunner at his baptis at any other time (see Dr. Mill’s Hist. Char of St. Luke’s Gospel, and the authorities q by him). With the baptism of Jesus John’s more es office ceased. The king had come to his king The function of the herald was discharged. I this that John had with singular humility and renunciation announced beforehand: “ He increase, but I must decrease.”’ John, however, still continued to present hit to his countrymen in the capacity of wine Jesus. Especially did he bear testimony to at Bethany beyond Jordan (for Bethany, not | abara, is the reading of the best MSS.). So fidently indeed did he point out the Lamb of on whom he had seen the Spirit alighting | dove, that two of his own disciples, Andrew probably John, being convinced by his testin followed Jesus, as the true Messiah. From incidental notices in Scripture we that John and his disciples continued to b: some time after our Lord entered upon his mur (see John iii. 23, iv. 1; Acts xix. 3). Weg also that John instructed his disciples in ce moral and religious duties, as fasting (Matt. » Luke v. 33) and prayer (Luke xi. 1). But'shortly after he had given his testimo the Messiah, John’s public ministry was br to a close. He had at the beginning of it demned the hypocrisy and worldliness of the I sees and Sadducees, and he now had oceasi denounce the lust of a king. In daring dist of the divine laws, Herod Antipas had tak himself the wife of his brother Philip; and John reproved him for this, as well as for othe (Luke iii. 19), Herod cast him into prison. | place of his confinement was the castle of Mac) a fortress on the eastern shore of the Deac It was here that reports reached him of the mi which our Lord was working in Judwa— mij which, doubtless, were to John’s mind but th firmation of what he expected to hear as | establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom. 1 Christ’s kingdom were indeed established, 1! the duty of John’s own disciples no less than others to acknowledge it. They, however, } naturally cling to their own master, and be s transfer their allegiance to another. With | therefore to overcome their scruples, John sei} of them to Jesus Himself to ask the question, Thou He that should come?” They were an! not by words, but by a series of miracles Wil before their eyes—the very miracles which pr had specified as the distinguishing eredent the Messiah (Is. xxxv. 5, Ixi. 1); and, while bade the two messengers carry back to John only answer the report of what they had se heard, He took occasion to guard the mut who surrounded Him against supposing th Baptist himself was shaken in mind, by ap religion — not an ordinance in itself conveying remission of sins, but rather a token and symbol of that repentance which was an indispensable con- dition of forgiveness through Him, whom John pointed out as “ the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.” Still less did the baptism of John impart the grace of regeneration — of a new spiritual life (Acts xix. 3, 4). ‘This was to be the mysterious effect of baptism “with the Holy Ghost,”’ which was to be ordained by that “‘ Mightier One,” whose coming he proclaimed. The preparatory baptism of John was a visible sign to the people, and a distinct acknowledgment by them, that a hearty renunciation of sin and a real amendment of life were necessary for admission into the king- dom of heaven, which the Baptist proclaimed to be at hand. But the fundamental distinction between John’s baptism unto repentance, and that baptism accompanied with the gift of the Holy Spirit which our Lord afterwards ordained, is clearly marked by John himself (Matt. iii. 11, 12). As a preacher, John was eminently practical and discriminating. Self-love and covetousness were the prevalent sins of the people at large: on them therefore he enjoined charity, and consideration for others. ‘The publicans he cautioned against extor- tion, the soldiers against violenceand plunder. His answers to them are, no doubt, to be regarded as instances of the appropriate warning and advice which he addressed to every class. The mission of the Baptist —an extraordinary one for an extraordinary purpose — was not limited to those who had openly forsaken the covenant of God, and so forfeited its principles. It was to the whole people alike. This we must infer from the baptism of one who had no confession to make, and no sins to wash away. Jesus Himself came from Galilee to Jordan to be baptized of John, on the special ground that it became Him “ to fulfill all righteousness,’ and, as man, to submit to the cus- toms and ordinances which were binding upon the rest of the Jewish people. John, however, naturally at first shrank from offering the symbols of purity to the sinless Son of God. But here a difficult question arises — How is John’s acknowledgment of Jesus at the moment of his presenting Himself for baptism compatible with his subsequent assertion that he knew Him not, save by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him, which took place after his baptism? If it be difficult to imagine that the two cousins were not personally acquainted with each other, it must be borne in mind that their places of residence were at the two extremities of the country, with but little means of communication between them. Perhaps, too, John’s special destination and mode of life may have kept him from the stated festivals of his countrymen at Jerusalem. It is possible therefore that the Saviour and the Baptist had never before met. It was certainly of the utmost importance that there should be no suspicion of concert or collusion between them. John, how- ever, must assuredly have veen in daily expectation of Christ’s manifestation to Israel, and so a word or sign would have sufficed to reveal to him the person and presence of our Lord, though we may well suppose such a fact to be made known by a direct communication from God, as in the case of Simeon (Luke ii. 26; cf. Jackson ‘on the Creed,” Works, Ox. ed. vi. 404). At all events it is wholly inconceivable that John should have been permitted to baptize the Son of God without being enabled to distinguish Him from any of the ordinary multi- bd JOHN THE BAPTIST JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1427 al to their own knowledge of his life and char-| was such that he had again and again te disavow r. Well might they be appealed to as witnesses | the character, and decline the honors which au, , the stern prophet of the wilderness was no admiring multitude almost forced upon him. Toe erer, bending to every breeze, like the reeds on | their questions he answered plainly, he was not the banks of Jordan. Proof abundant had they Christ, nor the Elijah of whom they were thinking, John was no worldling with a heart set upon | nor one of their old prophets. He was no one — clothir.. and dainty fare — the luxuries of ala voice merely —the Voice of God calling his ’s court —and they must have been ready to people to repentance in preparation for the coming jowledge that one so inured to a life of hard-|of Him whose shoe latchet he was not worthy to and privation was not likely to be affected by | unloose. ordinary terrors of a prison. But our Lord not} For his boldness in speaking truth, he went a vindicates his forerunner from any suspicion of willing victim to prison and to death. nstancy, He goes on to proclaim him a prophet,| The student may consult the following works, more than a prophet, nay, inferior to none born | where he will find numerous references to ancient oman, though in respect to spiritual privileges} and modern commentators: T illemont, Hist. /c- nd the least of those who were to be born of the! cles. ; Witsius, Miscell. vol. iv.; Thomas Aquinas, it and admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s| Catena Aurea, Oxford, 1842; Neander, Life of (Matt. xi. 11). It should be noted that the Christ; Le Bas, Scripture Biography ; Taylor, assion 6 5 wixpdrepos, K.7.A, is understood | Life of Christ; Olshausen, Com. on the Gospels. hrysostom, Augustin, Hilary, and some modern Eb. H—s, nentators, to mean Christ Himself, but this JOHN, GOSPEL OF. 1. Authority. — No pretation is less agreeable to the spirit and} goubt has been entertained at any time in the of our Lord’s discourse. Church, either of the canonical authority of this sus further proceeds to declare that John was, Gospel, or of its being written by St. John. The ding to the true meaning of the prophecy, the text 2 Pet. i. 14 is not indeed sufficient to support a of the new covenant, foretold hy Malachi | the inference that St. Peter and his readers were t). The event indeed proved that John was acquainted with the fourth Gospel, and recognized sod what Elijah had been to Ahab, and “| its authority. But still no other book of the N. T. 1 was deemed too light a punishment for his | j, authenticated by testimony of so early a date as ess in asserting God's law before the face of a| that of the disciples which is embodied in the Gospel and a queen. Nothing but the death of the | itself (xxi. 24, 25). Among the Apostolic Fathers, st would satisfy the resentment of Herodias. Ignatius appears to have known and recogr. zed gh foiled ima) she continued to watch her | ¢hig Gospel. His declaration, “I desire the | ead tunity, which at length arrived. A court fes- | of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the Son was kept at Macherus [see Trrentas] in| of God . . . aud I desire the drink of God, his of the king’s birthday. After supper [or blood, which is incorruptible love” (ad Rom. c. 7; git, Mark vi. 21, 22], the daughter of Herodias Cureton, Corpus Ignatiinum, p. 231), could scarcely in and danced before the company, and so have been written by one who had not read St. John ed Was the king by her grace that he prom- vi. 82, &c. And in the Hp. ad Philadelphenos, c. 7 ‘ith an oath to give her whatsoever she should (which, however, is not contained in Mr. Cureton’s Syriac MSS.), the same writer says, “ [The Holy Spirit] knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth, and reproveth the things which are hid- den:”’ this is surely more than an accidental verbal coincidence with St. John iii. 8 and xvi. 8. The fact that this Gospel is not quoted by Clement of Rome (A. D. 68 or 96) serves, as Dean Alford suy- : gests, merely to confirm the statement that it is a 4 to feast the eyes of the adulteress whose very late production of the Apostolic age. Polycarp had denounced. in his short epistle, Hermas, and Barnabas do not swas John added to that glorious army of | refer to it. But its phraseology may be clearly 's who have suffered for righteousness’ sake. traced in the Epistle to Dioynetus («Christians Mth is supposed to have occurred Just before | dwell in the world, but they are not of the world: ” ‘d Passover in the course of the Lord’s min- comp. John xvii. 11, 14, 16: “He sent his only- tis by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5, § 2) attrib- begotten Son . . . as Joving, not condemning ; ”* » the jealousy with which Herod reyarded comp. John iii. 16, 17), and in Justin Martyr, Wing influence with the people. Herod un-| 4, 150 (Christ said, Except ye be born again . lly looked upon him as some extraordinary ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven: and lor ho sooner did he hear of the miracles it is manifest to all that it is impossible for those 3 than, though a Sadducee himself, and as who have been once born to enter into the wombs disbeliever in the Resurrection, he ascribed | of those that bare them;’’ Apol. c. 61; comp. John ) John, whom he supposed to be risen from | jij, 3, 5: and again, “ His blood having been pro- 4. Holy Scripture tells us that the body duced, not of human seed, but of the will of God;”’ aptist was laid in the tomb by his disciples, Trypho, c. 63; comp. John i. 13, &e.). Tatian, ‘lesiastical history records the honors which | 4, b.170, wrote a harmony of the fou Gospels; 7 ‘ generations paid to his memory. and he quotes St. John’s Gospel in his only extant 4 tief history of John’s life is marked through-| work ; so do his contemporaries Apollinaris of {2 the characteristic graces of self-denial, | Hierapolis, Athenagoras, and the writer of the 7, and holy courage. So great indeed was | Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons. The “anence that worldly men considered him] Valentinians made great use of it; and one of their €d. «John came neither eating nor drink-| sect, Heracleon, wrote a commentary on it. Yet . they said he hath a devil.” His humility ‘its authority among orthodox Christians was toe ome, prompted by her abandoned mother, ded the head of John the Baptist. ‘The se had been given in the hearing of his dis- shed guests, and so Herod, though loth to be vhe instrument of so bloody a work, gave in- ons to an officer of his guard, who went and 2d John in the prison, and his, head was 1428 JOHN, GOSPEL OF firmly established to be shaken thereby. Theophilus of Antioch (ad Autolycum, ii.) expressly ascribes this Gospel to St. John; and he wrote, according to Jerome (Kp. 53, ad Algas.), a harmonized com- mentary on the four Gospels. And, to close the list of writers of the second century, the numerous and full testimonies of Irenzeus in Gaul and Ter- tullian at Carthage, with the obscure but weighty testimony of the Roman writer of the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, sufficiently show the au- thority attributed in the Western Church to this Gospel. The third century introduces equally de- cisive testimony from the Fathers of the Alexandrian Church, Clement and Origen, which it is unneces- sary here to quote at length. Cerdon, Marcion, the Montanists, and other an- cient heretics (see Lampe, Commentarius, i. 136), did not deny that St. John was the author of the Gospel, but they held that the Apostle was mis- taken, or that his Gospel had been interpolated in those passages which are opposed to their tenets. The Alogi, a sect in the beginning of the third century, were singular in rejecting the writings of St. John. Guerike (Finlettung in N. T. p. 308) enumerates later opponents of the Gospel, beginning with an Englishman, Edw. Evanson, On the Dis- sonance of the Four Evangelists, Ipswich, 1792, and closing with Bretschneider’s Probabilia de Evangelio Johanms, etc., origine, Lips. 1820. His arguments are characterized by Guerike as strong in comparison with those of his predecessors. They are grounded chiefly on the strangeness .of such language and thoughts as those of St. J ohn coming from a Galilean fisherman, and on the difference between the representations of our Lord's person and of his manner of speech given by St. John and the other Evangelists. Guerike answers Bretsch- neider’s arguments in detail. The skepticism of more recent times has found its fullest, and, accord- ing to Bleek, its most important, expression in a treatise by Liitzelberger on the tradition respecting the Apostle John and his writings (1840). His arguments are recapitulated and answered by Dr. Davidson (Introduction to the N. T., 1848, vol. i. p. 244, &e.). It may suffice to mention one speci- men. St. Paul’s expression (Gal. li. 6), mote Hoay, is translated by Liitzelberger, “ what- soever they [Peter, James, and John] were for- merly:’’ he discovers therein an implied assertion that all three were not living when the Epistle to the Galatians was written, and infers that since Peter and James were undoubtedly alive, John must have been dead, and therefore the tradition which ascribes to him the residence at Ephesus, and the composition, after A. D. 60, of various writings, must confound him with another John. Still more recently the objections of Baur to St. John’s Gospel have been answered by Ebrard, Das Evangelium Johannis, ete., Ziirich, 1845. 2. Place and Time at which it was written. — Ephesus and Patmos are the two places mentioned by early writers; and the weight of evidence seems to preponderate in favor of Ephesus — Ireneus (iil. 1; also apud Euseb. fH. E. v. 8) states that John published his Gospel whilst he dwelt in Ephesus of Asia. Jerome (Prol. in Matth.) states that John was in Asia when he complied with the request of the bishops of Asia and others to write more pro- foundly concerning the Divinity of Christ. The- odore of Mopsuestia (Prol. in Joannent) relates that John was living at Ephesus when he was moved by his disciples to write his Gcspel. drotor | epistle, JOHN, GOSPEL OF The evidence in favor of Patmos comes fror anonymous writers. The author of the Sy of Scripture, printed in the works of Athan states that the Gospel was dictated by St. Jo Patmos, and published afterwards in Ephesus. author of the work De X//,. Apostolis, print the Appendix to Fabricius’s Hippolytus (p. 95 Migne), states that John was banished by Dor to Patmos, where he wrote his Gospel. The date of these unknown writers, and the se inconsistency of their testimony with St. J declaration (Rev. i. 2) in Patmos, that h previously borne record of the Word of God, 1 their testimony of little weight. ; Attempts have been made to elicit from th guage of the Gospel itself some argument should decide the question whether it was w before or after the destruction of Jerusalem. considering that the present tense “is” is u y. 2, and the past tense “ was’? in xi. 18, x xix. 41, it would seem reasonable to conelud these passages throw no light upon the quest Clement of Alexandria (apud Euseb. #. 14) speaks of St. John as the latest of the gelists. The Apostle’s sojourn at Ephesus pr began after St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesia: written, i. e. after A. D. 62. Eusebius (7/., 20) specifies the fourteenth year of Domitiai A. D. 95 as the year of his banishment to P Probably the date of the Gospel may lie abou way between these two, about A. D. 78. T) erences to it in the First Epistle and the Rey: lead to the supposition that it was written dei before those two books; and the tradition | supplementary character would lead us to } some little time after the Apostle had fix abode at Ephesus. | 3. Occasion and Scope. — After the desti: of Jerusalem A. D. 69, Ephesus probably |) the centre of the active life of Eastern am Even Antioch, the original source of missi) the Gentiles, and the future metropolis | Christian Patriarch, appears, for a time, le spicuous in the obscurity of early church | than Ephesus, to which St. Paul : A and in which St. John found a dy! place and a tomb. This half-Greek, half-( city, “ visited by ships from all parts of the } ranean, and united by great roads with the 1) of the interior, was the common meeting-] various characters and classes of men” (Col and Howson’s St. Paul, ch. xiv.). It eonti large church of faithful Christians, a mt zealous Jews, an indigenous population det the worship of a strange idol whose image ( Pref. in Ephes.) was borrowed from the Js i name from the West: in the Xystus of }} free-thinking philosophers of all nations ‘I over their favorite tenets (Justin, Zrypho, ¢- It was the place to which Cerinthus chose the doctrines which he devised or learned andria (Neander, Church History, ii. 42, ed In this city, and among the lawless heathe neighborhood (Clem. Alex. Quis dives sa St. John was engaged in extending the ( Church, when, for the greater edification! Church, his Gospel was written. It was ¢ ‘ addressed primarily to Christians, not to rt and the Apostle himself tells us (xx. 31) ‘4 the end to which he looked forward » teaching. Modern criticism 1 has indulged in ‘muc?t 7 JOHN, GOSPEL OF JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1495 culation as to the exclusive or the principal| And they brought him the books, and sought to tive which induced the Apostle to write. His | know his opinion of them. ‘Then he praised the ign, according to some critics. was to supplement | writers for their veracity, and said that a few things deficiencies of the earlier three Gospels; accord- to others, to confute the Nicolaitans and Cerin- is; according to others, to state the true doctrine the Divinity of Christ. But let it be borne in id first of all that the inspiring, directing im- se given to St. John was that by which all rophecy came in old time,’ when “ holy men xod spake,’ “not by the will of man,’’ “ but ihey were moved by the Holy Ghost.”” We can- feel confident of our own capacity to analyze motives and circumscribe the views of a mind ler the influence of Divine inspiration. The ipel of St. John is a boon to all ages, and to 1 in an infinite variety of circumstances. Some- ig of the feelings of the chronicler, or the polemic, she catechist may have been in the heart of the ystle, but let us not imagine that his motives e limited to any, or to all of these. t has indeed been pronounced by high critical rority that “the supplementary theory is en- ly untenable; ’’ and so it becomes if put forth ts most rigid form, and as showing the whole ‘gn of St. John. But even Dr. Davidson, while iouncing it unsupported by either external tra- m or internal grounds, acknowledges that some ‘h lies at the bottom of it. Those who hold the wry in its extremé and exclusive form will find ard to account for the fact that St. John has 'y things in common with his predecessors; and ‘e who repudiate the theory entirely will find it (to account for his omission, e. g. of such an ‘tas the Transfiguration, which he was admitted 2e, and which would have been within the scope ler any other theory) of his Gospel. Luthardt dudes most judiciously that, though St. John “not have written with direct reference to the er three Evangelists, he did not write without ‘reference to them. nd in like manner, though so able a critic as sxe speaks of the anti-Gnostic reference of St. 1 as prevailing throughout his Gospel, while hardt is for limiting such reference to his first s, and to his doctrine of the Logos; and, ‘gh other writers have shown much ingenuity ‘scovering, and perhaps exaggerating, references ‘ocetism, Ebionitism, and Sabianism; yet, when voversial references are set forth as the principal nof the Apostle, it is well to bear in mind lautious opinion expressed by Dr. Davidson: signed polemical opposition to one of those 8, or to all of them, does not lie in the con- 2 Of the sacred book itself; and yet it is true ‘they were not unnoticed by St. John. He ded to set forth the faith alone, and in so 0;he has written passages that do confute those r eous tendencies.”’ ere is no intrinsic improbability in the early ston as to the oceasion and scope of this Gospel, ‘is most fully related in the commentary of dore of Mopsuestia, to the effect that while ohn lived at Ephesus, and visited all parts of S the writings of Matthew, Mark, and even "came into the hands of the Christians, and © (diligently circulated everywhere. Then it ted to the Christians of Asia that St. John * More credible witness than all others, foras- as from the beginning, even before Matthew, © 8 with the Lord, and enjoyed more abundant ¥ through the love which the Lord bore to him. had been omitted by them, and that all but a littl of the teaching of the most important miracles was recorded. Aud he added that they who discourse of the coming of Christ in the flesh ought not to omit to speak of his Divinity, lest in course of time men who are used to such discourses might suppose that Christ was only what He appeared to be. Thereupon the brethren exhorted him to write at once the things which he judged the most important for instruction, and which he saw omitted by the others. And he did so. And therefore from the beginning he discoursed about the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, judging this to be the necessary beginning of the Gospel, and from it he went on to the incarnation. [See above, p. 1423.] 4. Contents and Integrity. — Luthardt says that there is no book in the N. T. which more strongly than the fourth Gospel impresses the reader with the notion of its unity and integrity. And yet it does not appear to be written with such close ad- herence to a preconceived plan as a western writer would show in developing and illustrating some one leading idea. The preface, the break at the end of the twelfth chapter, and the supplementary chapter, are divisions which will occur to every reader. The ingenious synopsis of Bengel and the thoughtful one of Luthardt are worthy of attention. But none is so elaborate and minute as that of Lampe, of which the following is an abridgment : — A. THE PROLOGUE, i. 1-18. B. Tue Hisrory, i. 19-xx. 29. a. Various events relating to our Lord’s ministry, narrated in connection with seven journeys, i. 19- xii. 50: — 1. First journey into Judea and beginning of his ministry, i. 19-ii. 12. 2. Second journey, at the Passover in the first year of his ministry, ii. 13-iv. (The manifestation of his glory in Jerusalem, ii. 13-iii. 21, and in the journey back, iii. 22-iy.) 3. Third journey, in the second year of his min- istry, about the Passover, v. 4. Fourth journey, about the Passover, in the third year of his ministry, beyond Jordan, vi. (His glory shown by the multiplication of the loaves, and by his walking on the sea, and by the discourses with the Jews, his disciples and his Apostles. ) 5. Fifth journey, six months before his death, begun at the Feast of Tabernacles, vii—x. 21. (Cir- cumstances in which the journey was undertaken, vii. 1-13: five signs of his glory shown at Jerusalem, vii. 14-x. 21.) 6. Sixth journey, about the Feast of Dedication, x. 22-42. (His testimony in Solomon’s porch, and his departure beyond Jordan.) 7. Seventh journey in Judea towards Bethany, xi. 1-54. (The raising of Lazarus and its conse- quences. ) 8. Eighth journey, before his last Passover, xi. 55-xii. (Plots of the Jews, his entry into Jeru- salem, and into the Temple, and the manifestation of his glory there.) 6. History of the Death of Christ, xiii.—xx. 29. 1. Preparation for his Passion, xiii—xvii. (Last Supper, discourse to his disciples, his commendatory prayer.) 2. The circumstances of his Passion and Death, xvili., xix. (His apprehension, trial, and cruci- fixion. ) 14830 JOHN, GOSPEL OF 3. His Resurrection, and the proofs of it, xx. 1-29. C. THE CONCLUSION, xx. 30-xxi.: — 1. Seope of the foregoing history, xx. 30, 31. 2. Confirmation of the authority of the Evan- gelist by additional historical facts, and by the testimony of the elders of the Church, xxi. 1-24. 3. Reason of the termination of the history, xxi. 25. Some portions of the Gospel have been regarded by certain critics as interpolations. Luthardt dis- cusses at considerable length the objections of Paulus, Weisse, Schenkel, and Schweizer to ch. xxi., vili. 1-11, y. 3, ii. 1-12, iv. 44-54, vi. 1-26.¢ The discussion of these passages belongs rather to a commentary than to a brief introduction. But as the question as to ch. xxi. has an important bearing on the history of the Gospel, a brief statement re- specting it may not be out of place here. Guerike (/inleatung, p. 310) gives the following lists of (1) those who have doubted, and (2) those who have advocated its genuineness: (1) Grotius, Le Clerc, Pfaff, Semler, Paulus, Gurlitt, Bertholdt, Seyffarth, Liicke, De Wette, Schott; (2) R. Simon, Lampe, Wetstein, Osiander, Michaelis, Beck, Iich- horn, Hug, Wegscheider, Handschke, Weber, ‘Tho- luck, Scheffer. The objections against the first twenty-three verses of this chapter are founded entirely on internal evidence. The principal objec- tions as to alleged peculiarities of language are « * A distinction should be made between these passages. ‘lhe genuineness of John y. 8 (or rather vy. 4, with the last clause of ver. 8) and viii. 1-11 (or more accurately vii. 53-viili. 11) is a question of textual criticism, these verses being wanting in the oldest and most important manuscripts, and in other authorities. They are accordingly regarded as interpolations or as of very doubtful genuineness, not only by the writers mentioned above, but by Griesbach, Knapp, Schott, Tittmann, Theile, Lachmann (John vii. 538 — viii. 1-11 only ), 'Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, De Wette, Briick- ner, Meyer, Liicke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Neander, Luthardt, Ewald, Baiumlein, Bleek, Godet, Norton, Porter, Davidson, Green, Scrivener, and many other critics, except that some of these receive the last clause of y. 3 as genuine. But there is no external evidence against the genuineness of the other passages referred to. A. b * This account of Ewald’s view is not entirely correct. He regards the 21st chapter as indeed pro- ceeding substantially from the Apostle, but as betray- ing here and there (as in vy. 20, 24, 25), even more than the main body of the Gospel, the hand of friends who aided him in committing his recollections te writing. (Die johan. Schriften, i. 58 ff.) The main object of the addition he supposes to have been to correct the erroneous report referred to in ver. 23 re- specting the exemption of the beloved disciple from death. That the two last verses of the 2ist chapter (or rather yer 25 and the last clause of ver. 24) have the air of an editorial note is obvious. The extravagant hyperbole in ver. 25, and the use of several words (6oa, if this is the true reading, for a, Kaé év, oipac) are also foreign from the style of John. Perhaps there is no supposition respecting these verses more probable than that of Mr. Norton, who observes: ‘ According to ancient accounts, St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus . . It is not improbable that, before his death, its circulation had been confined to the mem- bers, of that church. Thence copies of it would be afterwards obtained ; and the copy provided for tran- scription was, we may suppose, accompanied by the strong attestation which we now find, given by the thurch, or the elders of the church, to their full faith JOHN, GOSPEL OF completely answered in a note in Guerike’s a tung, p. 310 [or Neutest. /sagoyzk, 3¢ Aufl. 1f p. 223 f.], and are given up with one exceptioy De Wette. Other objections, though urged. Liicke, are exceedingly trivial and arbitrary, ¢ that the reference to the author in verse 20 is like the manner of St. John; that xx. 30, 81 We have been placed at the end of xxi. by St. Joh, he had written both chapters; that the narra descends to strangely minute circumstances, etc The 25th verse and the latter half of the % of ch. xxi. are generally received as an undisgn| addition, probably by the elders of the Ephej Church, where the Gospel was first published. | There is an early tradition recorded by the! thor of the Synopsis of Scripture in Athanas; that this Gospel was written many years before Apostle permitted its general circulation. ‘) fact — rather improbable in itself — is rendered | so by the obviously supplementary character of, latter part, or perhaps the whole of ch. xxi. Ey, (Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vii. 217), less skepi\ herein than many of his countrymen, comes to| conclusion that the first 20 chapters of this Gos] having been written by the Apostle, about a) 80, at the request, and with the help of his n) advanced Christian friends, were not made pu: till a short time before his death, and that ch. i was a later addition by his own hand.? 5. Literature. — The principal Commentar in the accounts which it contained, and by the 1 cluding remark made by the writer of this attesta'r in his own person” (Genuineness of the Gospel:' ed., vol. i. Add. Notes, p. xevi.; for a fuller discus) comp. Godet, Comm. sur l’Evang. de St. Jeanii 692 ff.). On the supposition that the Gospel is genuine, i view of the last two verses removes all objection! any real weight to the ascription of the remainde)! the chapter to the Apostle John. ‘The weakness of 1s of these objections is fully recognized even by 11 (Die kanon. Evangelien, p. 235 ff.) ; and Credner, contends against the genuineness of the chapter, adtt that ‘it exhibits almost all the peculiarities of i) style”? (Hinl. in das N. T. i. 282). The points off ference which have been urged are altogether ig nificant in comparison with the striking agreen't not merely in phraseology, but in manner, and ink structure and connection of sentences ; note espec!) the absence of conjunctions, vv. 3 (ter), 5, 10, 1 (bis), 18, 15 (bis), 16 (ter), 17 (ter), 20, 22, andi frequent use of ody. I On the supposition, however, that the Gospel ish genuine, this Appendix presents a problem wh seems to admit of no reasonable solution. What m¢/¢ could there have been for adding such a suppler { to a spurious work after the middle of the sei century? Was it needful, fifty years or more ‘?!l the Apostle’s death, to correct a false report thiil was promised him that he should not die? Or v1 dogmatic purpose could this addition serve? And |W is its minuteness of detail, and its extraordimary as ment in style with the rest of the Gospel to bis plained? It may be said that it was designed to ¥é credit to the forged Gospel by a pretended attestan: But was the whole chapter needed for this? d what credit could a fictitious work of that period a from an anonymous testimony? Had such been}é object, moreover, how strange that the Apostle « should not be named as the author! The only plausible explanation, then, of VV. <4 seems to be, that they are an attestation of the t t- worthiness of the Gospel by those who first put it to general circulation — companions and friends ofne author, and well known to those to whom it was ™ --« JOHN, GOSPEL OF St. John will be found in the following list: Urigen, in Opp. ed. 1759, iv. 1-460; (2) ‘ysostom, in Opp. ed. 1728, viii. 1-530; (3) odore of Mopsuestia and others, in Corderii ‘ena in Joannem, 1630; [for Theodore, see me’s Patrol. Greca, tom. Ixvi.; (34) Cyril of sandria, Opp. ed. Aubert, tom. iv., or Migne’s ‘rol. tom. Ixxiii., Ixxiv.; the poetical paraphrase Yonnus may also be noted, Migne, Patrol. tom. 3] (4) Augustine, in Opp. ed. 1690, iii., part 290-826; (5) Theophylact; (6, Euthymius ibenus; (7) Maldonatus; (8) Luther; (9) Cal- ' (10) Grotius and others, in the Critici Sacri ; ' Cornelius & Lapide; (12) Hammond; (13) Pe Commenturius exegetico-ancalyticus in mem [3 vol. Amst. 1724-26, and Bas. 1725- (14) Bengel; (15) Whitby; (16) Liicke, Com- tar tb. das Evang. des Johann. 1820 [-24, ufl. 2 vols. 1840-43]; (17) Olshausen, Biblis- ; Commentur, 1834; (18) Meyer, Kritisch- et. Commentar; (19) De Wette, Exeget. idbuch z. N. T.; (20) Tholuck, Comm. z. jag. Johan. ; (21) C. E. Luthardt, das johan- ‘he Evangelium nach seiner Kiyenthiimlichkeit, s., 1852-53. til very lately the English reader had no better val helps in the study of St. John’s Gospel than } which were provided for him by Hammond. itfoot, and Whitby. He now has access through jearned Commentaries of Canon Wordsworth 1 Jean Alford to the interpretations and explana- ¢ of the ancient Fathers, and several English 7 eee and to those of all the eminent German 3. ny of the Fathers (Chrysostom, vol. XXViii., Peete, vol. xxix.] (Parker, 1848). Eng- Hranslations have been published also of the rentaries of Bengel and Olshausen. And the ?t’. D. Maurice has published an original and t Commentary under the title of Discourses | Gospel of St. John, 1857: . W. T. B. ENUINENESS. — Since the rise of the Tiibingen ii. school, the question of the genuineness of earth Gospel has been much discussed. The Bents of the Johannean authorship are far 1 being agreed among themselves respecting Site which they assign to the book. Baur “ it at about 160, Hilgenfeld at from 120 to YVichenkel at from 110 to 120, and Renan in ssh ed. (Paris, 1867) before 100. The posi- _ the Tiibingen school on this question is a Mf their general theory concerning the rise of tic Christianity, which they attribute to the "| pacifying of the Supposed antagonism of > vish-Christian or Petrine, and Gentile-Chris- Pauline, branches of the Church. As the SES im ted ; and the only plausible account of the first Vas of the chapter is, that they are a supple- n'y addition, which proceeded directly from the » Substantially from the dictation , of the author st of the Gospel. t ould further be noted that Tischendorf, in the on of his Synopsis Evangelica (1864), brackets 18 Spurious, chiefly on the ground of its omis- a! the Codex Sinaiticus a prima manu. (The ' Tischendorf's 8th critical edition of the N. T. . ‘ng the Gospel of John has not yet appeared.) ; se stands at e Commentaries of Chrysostom and Augustine been translated into English in the Oxford %€ difference in the handwriting show that it did JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1431 book of Acts was an earlier, so the fourth Gospel was a later product of this compromising tendency. The writer of it assumed the name of John in or- der to give an Apostolic sanction to his higher theological platform, on which love takes the place of faith, and the Jewish system is shown to be ful- filled, and so abolished, by the offering of Christ, who is represented as the true Paschal lamb. The history is artificially contrived as the symbolical vestment of ideas, such as the idea of unbelief cul- minating in the crucifixion of the self-manifested Christ, and the idea of faith as not real and gen- uine so far as it rests on miracles. Renan differs from most of the German critics in receiving as authentic much more of the narrative portion of the Gospel. He conceives the work to haye been composed by some disciple of the Kvangelist John, who derived from the latter much of his informa- tion. In particular Renan accepts as historical the belief in the resurrection of Lazarus (which, however, he holds to have been a counterfeit miracle, the result of collusion), and much besides which John records in connection with the closing scenes of the life of Jesus. We shall now review the principal arguments which bear on the main question. That John spent the latter part of his life, and died at an advanced age, in Proconsular Asia, in particular at Kphesus, is a well attested fact. Volyerates, bishop at Eph- esus near the close of the second century, who had become a Christian as early as 131, and seven of whose kinsmen had been bishops or presbyters, says that John died and was buried in that place (Kuseb. Mf, b. vy. 24; of. iii. 381). Irengeus, who was born in Asia, says of those old presbyters, immediate disciples of the Apostles, whom he had known, that they had been personally conversant with John, and that he had remained among them up to the times of Trajan, whose reign was from 98 to 117. (See Iren. adv. Her. ii. 22, al. 89, § 5.) That his informants were mistaken on such a point as the duration of the Saviour’s ministry does not invalidate their testimony in regard to the duration of John’s life, about which they could not well be mistaken. His Gospel, according to Irensus, Clement, and others, and the general belief, was the last written of the four, and the tradition placed its composition near the end of his life. In support of this proposition, we have the tes- timony of Jerome and Eusebius, both diligent inquirers, and knowing how to discriminate between books universally received and those which had been questioned. In an argument which depends for its force partly on an accumulation of particulars, their suftrayes are not without weight. We may begin, however, with the indisputable fact that in the last quarter of the second century, the fourth Gospel was received in every part of Christendom not proceed from the original scribe, but was added by a contemporary reviser of the manuscript. On this palzographical question, however, Tregelles differs from him. (See Tischendorf’s NV. T. Grace ex Sinaiticc Codice, pp. Xxxxviii., Ixxvi.) MS. 63 has been errone- ously cited as omitting the verse (see Scrivener’s Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., p. lix., note). The scholia of many MSS., however, speak of it as regarded by some as an addition by a foreign hand ; and a scholion to this effect, ascribed in one manuscript to Theodore of Mopsuestia, is given in Card. Mai’s edition of the Commentaries of this father (Nova Pair. Bill. vii. 407, or Migne’s Patrol. Ixvi. 788 ff.). A. 1482 JOHN, GOSPEL OF xs the work of the Apostle John. The prominent witnesses are Tertullian in North Africa, Clement in Alexandria, and Ireneus in Gaul. Tertullian in his treatise against Marcion, written in 207 or 208, appeals in behalf of the exclusive authority of the four canonical Gospels, to tradition coming down from the Apostles — to historical evidence. (Adv. Marcion, iv. 2, 5.) Clement, an erudite and travelled scholar, not only ascribed to the Four Gospels exclusively canonical authority (Strom. iii. 13), but also, in his last work, the ‘“ Institutiours,”’ quoted by Eusebius (vi. 14), “gave a tradition con- cerning the order of the Gospels which he had re- ceived from presbyters of more ancient times; ” that is, concerning the chronological order of their composition. He became the head of the Alexan- drian school about the year 190. But the testi- mony of Irenzeus has the highest importance, and is, in truth, when it is properly considered, of de- cisive weight on the main question. He was a Greek, born in Asia Minor about 140. He after wards went to Lyons in Gaul, where he first held the office of presbyter, and then, A. D. 178, that of bishop; and was therefore acquainted with the Church both in the East and the West. He had in his youth known Polycarp, the immediate disciple of John, and retained a vivid recollection of his person and words. Irenzeus not only testifies to the universal acceptance of the fourth Gospel, but he argues fancifully that there must be four, and only four, as there are four winds, ete. ‘This fan- ciful analogy, so far from impairing the force of his testimony, only serves-to show how firmly settled was his faith, and that of others, in the ex- elusive authority of the canonical Gospels. (Adv. Heer. iii. 1, § 1, and iii. 11, § 8.) If the ocea- sional use of fanciful reasoning, or similar viola- tions of logic, were to discredit a witness, nearly all of the Fathers would be at once excluded from court. If Irenzeus had, to any extent, derived his belief in the Gospels from his reasoning, the objec- tion to his testimony might have some solidity; but such was not the fact. The objection of Schol- ten and others that he misdated the Apocalypse, attributing it to the time of Domitian, does not materially affect the value of his statement on the point before us. It is impossible to believe that Irenzeus could express himself in this way, in case John’s Gospel had first made its appearance during his lifetime, or shortly before. His relation to Polycarp — not to speak of other Christians likewise older than himself — forbids the supposition, more- over, that this Gospel was a fictitious product of any part of the second century. Polycarp visited Rome and conferred with Anicetus, about the year 160. Several years probably elapsed after this, before he was put to death. But at the date of that visit Irenseus had reached the age of 20. That John’s Gospel was universally received at that time, might be safely inferred from what Ire- nus says in the passages referred to above, even if there were no other proof in the case. Polycarp must have been among the number of those who accepted it as a genuine and authoritative Gospel. Irenzeus’s testimony, considering his relation to Polycarp and the length of Polycarp’s life, affords well-nigh as strong evidence in favor of the Johan- nean authorship as if we had the distinct and direct assertion of the fact from that very disciple of John. ‘The ample learning and critical spirit of Origen, though his theological career is later than that of the Fathers just named, give to his testi- ‘ ~ pra “ae JOHN, GOSPEL OF mony to the universal reception of this Gog much weight. If he was not free from mista) it should be remembered that an error on a t of engrossing interest and capital importance, lying in the direct line of his researches, was likely to be committed by him; so that his ju ment on the question before us goes beyond mere fact of the reception of the Gospel by generation just before him. In the same categ with Clement, Irenzeus, and Tertullian, is the Ca of Muratori and the Peshito version, in both which the Gospel of John stands in its proper pl Polycrates, too, in his letter to Victor (A. D. 1 characterizes the Apostle John in words borro from the Gospel (Euseb. v. 24). His own life a Christian, began, as we have said, in 131, with that of his kinsmen, also officers of the Chu covered the century. His home was at Hphe the very spot where John died, and where the ( pel, if he was the author of it, first appeared. Looking about among the fragments of Chris literature that have come down‘to us from the; ond half of the second century, we meet ° Tatian, said to have been a pupil of Justin Mai though after Justin’s death he swerved from) teaching, It is conceded by Baur and Zeller » in the Oratio ad Grecos he quotes repeatedly ‘i the fourth Gospel. (See cc. 13, 19, 5, 4) . this, as in similar instances, it is said by Sehc and others, that since ‘Tatian does not men) the name of the author of the Gospel, we ca( be certain that he referred it to John. Bu) quotes as from an authoritative Scripture, } there is not the slightest reason to suppose thi} differed from his contemporaries on the ques who was its author. This work was written far from A. D. 170.: He also composed a 801) exegetical harmony on the basis of our four pels. Eusebius says (H. £. iv. 29), that “he formed a certain body or collection of Gosp know not how, he has given this the title Diais ron, that is, the Gospel by the Four, or the Gp formed of the Four, which is in the possessio( some even now.’? From his manner of speakii would seem that Eusebius had not seen the }) But, at the beginning of the fifth century, Th oret tells us that he had found two hundred of Tatian’s work in circulation, and had_ t them away, substituting for them the four Gol Theodoret adds that the genealogies and the de from David were left out of ‘Tatian’s work. ret. Fab. i. 20.) We have, then, the fact » Eusebius, that Tatian named his book Diatess” and the fact from Theodoret, that .he found |! use among Catholic Christians, in the room oil Gospels. These facts, together with the k use of the fourth Gospel by Tatian, as seen 10 other work, would justify the conclusion tha’! Gospel was one of the four at the basis of the) tesser'on, . But an early Syriac translation 6! work, began, according to Bar Salibi, witll opening words of the Gospel of John: “ In tlh cinning was the Word.” If the Diatessero! occasionally confounded by Syrians with the 4 mony of Ammonius, Salibi, who distinguishes the two works. 41” jections of Scholten (Die dilltesten Zeugmss te p- 95 ff.), which are partly repeated by Das (Introduction to the New Testament (1868), ] ff.), are sufficiently met by the remarks of i and by the observations of Riggenbach (Die i nisse fiir das Ev. Johann, ete. p. 41 fh). ® JOHN, GOSPEL OF hilus, who became bishop of Antioch in 169, in work Ad Autolycum describes John’s Gospel a part of the Holy Scriptures, and John himself a writer guided by the Holy Spirit (ii. 22). In lition to this, Jerome states that Theophilus aposed a commentary upon the Gospels, in which handled their contents synoptically: “ quatuor wgelistorum in unum opus dicta compingens.”’ 2 wiris ill. c. 25, and Lp. 151. Cf. Bleek, Kinl., 230.) A contemporary of Theophilus is Athe- oras. His acquaintance with the Prologue of in’s Gospel may be inferred with a high degree probability from his frequent designation of ‘ist as the Word. “Through him,” he says, I things were made, the Father and Son being ; and the Son being in the Father, and the ber in the Son,” — language obviously founded John i. 3, x. 80, 38, xiv. 11. (Suppl. pro Chris- is,¢. 10.) Another contemporary of Theoph- , Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, fragment found in the Paschal Chronicle, re- to a circumstance which is mentioned only in ‘a xix. 34; and in another passage clearly im- s the existence and authority of the fourth pel (Chron. Pasch., pp. 13, 14, ed. Dindorf, Xouth, Relig. Sacre, i. 160, 161, 2d ed. See, Meyer, Hinl. in d. Evang. Joh.). There ap- 3 to be no sufficient reason for questioning the itineness of these fragments, as is done by {ner, Works, ii. 315, and Neander, Ch. /ist. i. n. 2, Torrey’s transl. (See, on this point, leider, Aechtheit des juhann. Evang., 1854.) ne fourth Gospel was recognized by Justin )yt as an authoritative Scripture: He was born |t the year 89, and the date of his death was not 10m 160. He refers, in different places, to «the (rds or Memoirs — +d. drouvnuovetuara — by Apostles and their followers” or companions, a, as he observes, “are called Gospels” (Apol \ 3 Dial. c. Tryph. c. 103; Apol. i. 66). 2 he uses 7) evayyéA.ov, as the later Fathers | do, to denote the Gospels collectively (Dial. vyph. 10, 100). These Gospels are quoted as ntie and recognized sources of knowledge in et to the Saviour’s life and teaching; it is de- ‘that they are read on Sundays in the Chris- ‘ssemblies where “all who live in cities or in try districts” meet for worship, and like the SEES For example, Jeremy Taylor quotes the passage “Unless a man be born of water and the Holy 1) he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven ” ( Works, » ed. Heber, Lond. 1828). A, "Clement of Alexandria (Cohort. ad Gent. c. 9, 1» 69, ed. Potter) has apparently confused the Ses John iii. 5 and Matt. xviii. 3 in a manner ‘to that of Justin. The two principal devia- Hof Justin from the text of John —the use of ‘vaw for yevvaw, and Baoidea Trav ovpaverv "7.7. co —are both found in Irenzus, who the passage thus: éay ur ts avayevynOy dv ¥ kal mvevparos, ov my eiaeAevoerat cis Tv Bacia- ‘Vv ovpavioy (Fragm. xxxyv. ed. Stieren). So also abius : éav BH TUS avayevynOyn e Satos Kai mvEV- © OU HN ELTEADN eis THY Bac. TOV odpavar (Comm. |). 16,17, Opp. vi. 96c ea. Migne). ! Ephrem Syrus (De Pen. Opp. iii. Jiid Chrysostom (Hom. in 1 Cor. xv. 29). The | Bagitea tov odpavaov is not only found in ‘nid Euseb, as above (see also Euseb. in Is. iii. 2) it also in Hippolytus (quoting from the Docete), sol, Constitutions, Origen (Lat. int.) Ephrem JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1432 writings of the O. T. prophets serve as the founda- tion of exhortations to the people (Apol. i. 67). Nearly all of Justin’s numerous allusions to the sayings of Christ and events of his life correspond to passages in our canonical Gospels. There is no citation from the Memoirs, which is not Sound in - the canonical Gospels; for there is no such refer- ence either in c. 103 or ¢. 88 of the Dial. c. Tryph. (See Westcott, Canon of the N. T. 2d ed., p. 137 f.) Justin may have been acquainted with the Gospel of the Hebrews; but even this cannot be established. That it formed one of the authorita- tive memoirs of which he speaks, is extremely im- probable. Having attained to such an authority, how could it be thrown out and discarded without an audible word of opposition? How could this be done, when [renzeus had already reached his manhood ? — for he had attained to this age before Justin died. In the long list of passages collected by Semisch (Denkwiirdigheiten des Miartyrers Justinus) and by other writers, there are some which are obviously taken from the fourth Gospel. One of these is the passage relative to John the Baptist (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 88), which is from John i. 20, 23. Another is the passage on regen- eration (Apol. i. 61) from John iii. 3-5. The oc- currence of this passage respecting regeneration in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (Hum. xi. 26), with the same deviations from John that are found in Justin’s quotation, has been made an argument to prove that both writers must have taken it from some other Gospel—the Gospel of the Hebrews. But the addition to the passage in the Homilies, and the omission of the part concerning the im- possibility of a second physical birth, — points of difference between Justin and the Homilies, -— are quite as marked as the points of resemblance, which may be an accidental coincidence. ‘The deviations in Justin’s citation from the original in John are chiefly due to the confusion of the phraseology of this passage with that of Matt. xviii. 3 — than which nothing was more natural. Similar inaccuracies, and from a similar cause, in quoting John iii. 3 or 5, are not uncommon now. That Justin uses the compound word dvayevydw, is because he had found occasion to use the same verb just before in the context, and because this had become the cur- rent term to designate regeneration.? eek ee Syrus, Chrysostom (at least 5 times), Basil of Seleucia (Orat. xxviii. 33), Pseudo-Athanasius (Questiones ad Antiochum, c. 101), and Theodoret ( Quest. in Num. 35) 5 in Tertullian, Jerome, Philastrius, Augustine, and other Latin fathers ; and in the Codex Sinaiticus with two other Greek manuscripts, and is even adopted as genuine by Tischendorf in the 2d ed. of his Synopsis Evangelica (1864). Chrysostom in his Homilies on John iii. quotes the verse 3 times with the rea ting Bac. r. Ocod (Opp. viii. 148ac, 148d, ed. Montf.), and 3 times with the reading Bac. r. ovp. (Opp. viii. 148de, 144, see also Opp. iv. 681d, xi. 250e). These facts show how natural such variations were, and how little ground they afford for the supposition that Justin de- rived the passage in question from some other source than the Gospel of John. The change from the in- definite singular to the definite plural is made in John itself in the immediate context (ver. 7): “Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again.”? The length of this note may be partly excused by the fact that most of the passages of the fathers here referred to in illustration of the variations from the common text in Justin’s quotation do not appear to have been noticed in any critical edition of the Greek Testament. A. 1484 JOHN, GOSPEL OF Baur, in one place, adduces John iii. 4 as an instance of the fictitious ascription to the Jews, on the part of the author of this Gospel, of incred- ible misunderstandings of the words of Jesus. If this be so, surely Justin must be indebted to this Gospel for the passage. Anxious to avoid this conclusion, and apparently forgetting what he had said before, Baur in another passage of the same work affirms that this same expression is borrowed alike by the author of John and by Justin from the Gospel of the Hebrews! (See Baur’s Kanon. Evang. pp. 290, 300, compared with pp. 352, 353.) There were two or three other citations, however, in the Homilies, in which it was claimed that the same deviations are found as in corresponding citations in Justin. But if this circumstance lent any plausibility to the pretense that these passages in Justin were drawn from some other document than the canonical John, this plausibility vanished and the question was really set at rest by the pub- lication of Dressel’s edition of the Homilies. This edition gives the concluding portion, not found in Cotelerius, and we are thus furnished (/om. xix. 92: comp. John ix. 2, 3) with an undenied and undeniable quotaticn from John. This makes it evident that Hom. iii. 52 is a citation from John x. 9, 27, and also removes all doubt as to the source whence the quotation of John iii. 3-5 was derived. The similarity of the Homilies to Justin, in the few quotations referred to above, is probably acci- dental. If not, it simply proves that Justin was in the hands of their author. This may easily be supposed. The date of the Homilies is in the neighborhood of 170. (See, on these points, Meyer, Einl. p. 10; Bleek, p. 228; Semisch, p. 193 ff.) The objections of the skeptical critics, drawn from Justin’s habit of quoting ad senswm, and from his not naming the authors of the Memoirs, are with- out force, as all scholars must see. His manner of citation was not unusual, and he was writing to heathen who knew nothing of the Evangelists. The supposition that Justin borrowed the passages, to which we have referred, from the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, which Hilgenfeld and others have advocated, hardly deserves a refutation. It is sup- ported partly by the misinterpreted passage in Tryph. 106 (see Otto’s note, ad loc.), and partly by conjectures respecting this apocryphal book, for which there is no historical warrant. Justin’s doctrine of the Logos and of the Incar- nation must have been derived from some author- itative source, and this could only be the fourth Gospel. In one passage (Dial. c. Tryph. 105), he - directly appeals for the truth of the Incarnation, “that Christ became man by the Virgin,” to the Memoirs. Scholten has labored to prove that a great diversity exists between Justin’s conception of the Logos and that which is found in the Gos- pel; but there is no greater difference than . might easily exist between an author and a somewhat in- exact theological interpreter. That Justin used our four Gospels and desig- nates these as the Memoirs, Norton has cogently argued (Gen. of the Gospels, i. 237-239). Papias, whom Ireneeus calls “an ancient man — dpxatos avnp (Euseb. iii. 39) — had, according to the same Father, heard the Apostle John. Euse- bius supposes that Irenzeus is mistaken in this, and that it was the Presbyter John whom Papias per- zonally knew. This, however, is doubtful; and the very existence of such a personage as the Presbyter John, in distinction from the Apostle of the same JOHN, GOSPEL OF name, is an open question. However this may Eusebius states that Papias “made use of te monies from the First Epistle of John.” Whet he quoted from the Gospel or not, Eusebius d not state. If it were shown that he did not do his silence could not be turned into an argum against its genuineness, as we do not know the } ticular end he had in view in making his citatic But the First Epistle was written by the author the Gospel. (See De Wette, Hinl. in das N, 1 tament, § 177 a.) So that the testimony of | pias to the First Epistle is likewise a testimony the genuineness of the Gospel. ; | Turning to the Apostolic Fathers, we find ne few expressions, especially in the Ignatian Epist which remind us of passages peculiar to John. - one instance, such a reference can _ scarcely avoided. | Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Phi pians, says: Tlas yap ds dv uy duodoyi "Ino Xpiotov év capkl eAndvdévar avtixpiords € (c. 7). It is much more probable that this thou was taken from 1 John iv. 3, than that it was rived from any other source. specially is | seen to be the case, when it is remembered {, Polycarp was .a disciple of John. John xxi, coming from another hand than that of the au of the Gospel, is also a testimony to its genuiner: The Artemonites, the party of Unitarians at h near the end of the second century, did not tl of disputing the canonical authority of the fo; Gospel. Marcion was acquainted with it, a jected it for the reason that he did not ackn edge any Apostles but Paul (Tertullian, Adv. M iv. 38, 2,5. De Carne Christi, 3. Kor other ' sages to the same effect from Irenseus and Te) lian, see De Wette, Linl. in d. N. T. § 7 Anm. d.) The Valentinian Gnostics ada genuineness of this Gospel, and used it 1 (Ireneeus, Adv. Her. iii. 11, § 7). Ptoleme’ follower of Valentine’s doctrine, explicitly ackr/ edves this Gospel (Epist. ad Floram, ¢. 1) Epiph. Her. xxxiii. 8. See Grabe, Spal ii. 70, 2d ed., or Stieren’s Irenzeus, i. 924). Hi leon, another follower, wrote a commentary ol which Origen frequently quotes (Grabe, Spicile, vol. ii., and Stieren’s ed. of Irenzeus, i. 938-, Scholten has attempted to show that Heraeleo’ late in the century. One of his arguments, | Ireneus does not mention him, is met by Tis dorf, who produces from Irenzeus a passage in ' he is named in connection with Ptolemeus. use of the fourth Gospel by leading followe Valentinus, and the need they have to ap. perverse interpretation to the statements 0 Gospel, render it probable that their master! acknowledged the Gospel as genuine. This '2 plied by Tertullian (De Prescript. Heret. ef «If Valentine,” says Tertullian, “ appears (vicu to make use of the entire instrument 7 —t]) the four Gospels, — “ he has done violence t truth,” ete. The videtur may be the reluctan cession of an adversary, but the word is freq: used by Tertullian in the sense, /0 be seen, fully apparent (comp. Tert. adv. Prax. c. 4 adv. Mare., iv. 2; de Orat. e. 21; Apo. Adv. Jud. e. 5, quoted from Isaiah i. 12). | is probably its meaning here. But Hipp" explaining the tenets of Valentine, writes ‘ lows: “All the prophets and the law spok«tt the Demiurg, a foolish god, he says — fools, ing nothing. On this account it is, he say” the Saviour says: ‘All that came before 14 if 0 a JOHN, GOSPEL OF yes and robbers’ (Hippol. Refut. omnium es. vi. 35). The passage is obviously from 1x. 8. It is pretended that the noi —he —refers not to Valentine, but to some un- yn author among his disciples. But this, though ible, is surely much less probable than the sup- sion that he refers to a work of Valentine him- - Hippolytus distinguishes the various branches ve Valentinian sect and the phases of opinion respectively belong to them. In the place red to, he is speaking of the founder of the himself. A similar remark is to be made of ides and of the passages of Hippolytus relating is use of John (Ref. Her. vii. 22, 27). The | date of Basilides is shown by various proofs. Hofstede de Groot, Basilides als erster Zeuge, Leipzig, 1868.) The work of Basilides “ on tospel” (Kuseb. H. £. iv. 7) was not improb-, 1commentary on the four Gospels (see Norton, Of the Gospels, iii, 238). How widely ex- id was the knowledge and use of the fourth al among the heretics of the second century, ‘ther illustrated by the numerous quotations were made from it hy the Ophites or Naasseni, he Peratew, which are preserved by Hippolytus , 8, 9, 12, 16, 17). The opposition of the uficant party of the Alogi is an argument for, + than against, the genuineness of the Gospel. iii. 11, § 9). We assume, what is most ble, that the party referred to by Irenceus is ‘me which Epiphanius designates by this name. | opposition shows the general acceptance of ospel not long after the middle of the second ‘y- Moreover, they attributed the Gospel to chus, a contemporary of John, —a testimony _age. They rejected, also, the Apocalypse, i even the Tiibingen school holds to be the John. (See, on the character of the Alogi, ider, p. 38 f.) Celsus refers to circumstances ‘Evangelical history which are recorded only n’s Gospel. (Kor the passages, see Lardner, (8, vil. 220, 221, 239.) ! great doctrinal battle of the Church in the century was with Gnosticism. The strug- san early. The germs of it are discovered ‘Apostolic age. At the middle of the second ty, the conflict with these elaborate systems was raging. We find that the Valentinians, ‘silidians, the Marcionites (followers either cus or of Marcion) are denounced as warmly ‘tin Martyr as by Ireneus and his contem- 8. (Diil.c. Tryph. c. 32). By both of the ‘in this wide-spread conflict, by the Gnostics | the Church theologians, the fourth Gospel oted as the work of John, without a lisp of ion or of doubt. In that distracted period, H iat incredible skill must an anonymous coun- i wt JOHN, GOSPEL OF [486 In considering the Internal Evidence for the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, we notice the following points: — 1. The Gospel claims to be the work of the Apostle John, and the manner of this claim is a testimony to its truth. The author declares him- self an eye-witness of the transactions recorded (i. 14, ef. 1 John i. 1-8, iv. 14; John xix. 35; com- pare also xxi. 24). He is distinguished from Peter (xiii, 24, xx. 2 ff, xxi. 7, 20 ff). He omits to attach the name 6 Barriorhs to John the Baptist, though he attaches some explanation in the case of Peter and of Judas. This would be natural for John the Evangelist, himself a disciple of the Bap- tist. It is held by Baur that the design of the writer is to lead the reader to the inference that John is the author. But the modest, indirect style in which the authorship is made known is wholly unlike the manner of apocryphal writings. 2. The Johannean authorship is confirmed by the graphic character of the narrative, the many touches characteristic of an eye-witness, and by other’ indications of an immediate knowledge, on the part of the writer, of the things he relates. (See John i. 35, xiii. 21, xviii. 15, xix. .26, 27, 34, 35 and the whole chapter, xx. 3-9, 24-29, xiii. 9, etc.) There are many passages which show that the author wrote from an interest in the story as such. (See Briickner’s ed. of De Wette’s Comm. Einl. p- xv.) Among these are the allusions to Nicodemus (John iii. 2; vii. 50; xix. 39); also the particular dates attached to occurrences, as in ii. 13; iy. 6, 40, 43; v. 1; vi. 4, 22; vii. 2, 14; xii. 1, 12: xviii. 27 ff: xix. 14. See also John xviii. 10, iii. 23; V. 2; xii. 215 iii. 24; i. 45, 46; vi. 42, comp. i. 45; vi. 67 (“the twelve’); xi. 16, xx. Q4, xxi. Q (where Didymus is connected with the name of Thomas). In c. xi. 2, the Evangelist assumes that an occurrence is known, which he does not himself record until later (xii. 3). 3. The general structure and contents of the fourth Gospel, considered as a biography of Christ, are a convincing argument for its historical truth and genuineness. In regard to the plan of Christ’s life, this Gospel, while it is not contradicted by the Synoptists, presents a very different conception from that which they themselves would suggest. This is true of the duration and of the theatre of the Lord’s ministry. But, in the first place, this vary- ing conception is one which a falsarius would not venture upon; and, in the second place, it is one which accords with probability, and is even cor- roborated incidentally by the Synoptists themselves. (1.) It is probable that Christ would make more journeys to Jerusalem and teach more there than the Synoptists relate of him. The Synoptists con- firm this view (Matt. xxvii. 57 f£; Luke xxiii. 50 * have proceeded, to be able to frame a Sys~ 1 ich should not immediately excite hostility ise his false pretensions to be challenged ! [ particular testimonies to the recognition of tth Gospel in the second century simply "\ glimpse of the universal, undisputed tradi- | which that acceptance rested. From this Mf view their significance and weight must ‘Siated. The Church of the second century ‘Apituated that it could not be deceived on a “of this momentous nature. It was a great iity, all of whose members were deeply in- Sin the life of the Lord for whom they were ‘I 80 great sacrifices, and which comprised ii 's pale men of literary cultivation and crit- Jiment. ff; Mark xv. 42 ff; also, Luke xiii. 34 ff., and Matt. xxiii. 37 ff: — the Saviour’s lament over Jeru- salem, which no conjectures of Strauss can make to imply anything less than repeated and continued labors on the part of Christ for the conversion of the inhabitants of that city). The fourth Gospel gives the clearest and most natural account of the growing hostility of the Jews, and of the way in which the catastrophe was at length brought on. So strongly is Renan impressed by this character- istic of the Gospel, that he feels obliged to assume a pretended miracle in the case of Lazarus, which imposed upon the people and awakened a feeling which the Jewish Rulers felt obliged to meet by a suminary and violent measure. (2.) In comparing 1436 JOHN, GOSPEL OF the fourth Gospel, as to its contents, with the other three, we haye to notice the apparent discrepancy upon the date of the crucifixion, and also the Paschal controversies of the second century, in their bearing upon this point of chronology. The Synoptists appear to place the Lord’s Supper on the evening when the Jews ate the Passover-meal, the 14th Nisan (or, according to the Jewish reck- oning, the 15th); John, on the evening before. Dr. E. Robinson, Tholuck, Norton, Baumlein, Riggenbach, and others believe themselves able to harmonize the statements of John with those of the other three. (See the question very fully discussed in Andrews’s Life of our Lord, p. 425 ff.) If they are successful in this, there is no discrepancy to be explained. Assuming here, with most of the later critics, that there is a real difference, Bleek draws a strong argument in favor of the fourth Gospel. No sufficient motive can be assigned why a fulsarius should deviate from the accepted view on this sub- ject. The probability that the fourth Gospel is correct, is heightened by circumstances incidentally brought forward by the Synoptists themselves (Matt. xxvi. 5, xxvii. 59 ff; Mark xv. 42, 46; Luke xxiii. 56). See Ellicott, Life of Christ (Amer. ed.), p. 292, n. 3. The so-called Quartodecimans of Asia Minor observed a festival on the 14th of Nisan, on what- ever day of the week it might occur. Roman and other Christians kept up, on the contrary, the pre- paratory fast until Easter Sunday. Hence the dis- pute on the occasion of Polycarp’s visit to Anicetus, about the year 160; then ten years later, in which Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, and Me- lito of Sardis took part; and especiaily at the end of the second century, when Victor of Rome was rebuked by Irenzeus for his intolerance. The Asia Minor bishops, in these controversies, appealed to the authority of the Apostle John, who had lived in the midst of them. But what did the Quarto- decimans commemorate on the 14th of Nisan? The Tiibingen critics say, the Last Supper; and infer that John could not have written the Gospel that bears his name. But, to say the least, it is equally probable that the Quartodecimans com- memorated the crucifixion of Jesus, the true pass- over-lamb; or that the theory of Bleek is correct, that their festival was originally the Jewish Pass- over, which Jewish Christians continued to observe, which took on naturally an association with the Last Supper, and with which John did not inter- fere. We should add that not improbably Apol- linaris was himself a Quartodeciman, and was opposing a Judaizing faction of the party, who dis- sented from their common view. We do not find that Victor, the Roman opponent of Polycrates, appealed to the fourth Gospel, although he must have been familiar with it; and the course taken by the disputants on both sides at the end of the second century, shows that if it was written with the design which the negative critics affirm, it failed of its end. Had the Quartodecimans been calied upon to receive a new Gospel, purporting to be from John, of which they had not before heard, and which was partly designed to destroy the foun- dation of their favorite observance, would they not have promptly rejected such a document, or, at least, called in question its genuineness ? 4. The discourses of Christ in the fourth Gos- pel have been used as an argument against its JOHN, GOSPEL OF tists may be explained on the supposition that ¢ of the disciples apprehended Jesus from his ; point of view, according to the measute of his, individuality. Jesus did not confine himsel his teaching to gnomes and parables (Matt. xiii ff.). The Synoptists occasionally report say which are strikingly in the Johannean style (M xi. 25, comp. Luke xi. 21). On the contrary,, aphoristic style is met with in the reports of} fourth Gospel (John xii. 24, 26; xiii. 16, 20). sentially the same conception of Christ is foun: the fourth Gospel as in the other three (Matt} 27; also Matt. xxii. 41 ff. compared with Mat 35 ff., and Luke xx. 41 ff.). See particularl this point, Row’s Jesus of the Evangelists, Lot 1868, p. 217 ff. The resemblance between the of the discourses and of the narrative portion : book is accounted for, if we suppose that the te ings of Jesus were fully assimilated and fresh] produced by the Evangelist, after the lapse of al siderable period of time. Here and there, in discourses, are incidental expressions which I the fidelity of the Evangelist, as John xiy. 31. | interpretations affixed to sayings of Christ aia argument in the same direction (John ii. 19; xii? 5. The Hellenic culture and the theological of view of the author of the fourth Gospe made an objection to the Johannean author The author’s mode of speaking of the Jews | 13; iii. 1; v. 1; vi. 4; vii. 2; xi. 55) is acco) for by the fact that the Gospel was written the apostolic age, and by a writer who was hi outside of Palestine, among Gentiles and G Christians.. For the special proofs that the ‘t was of Jewish and Palestinian extraction, see h Kinl. p. 207 f. The probability is that “ Syehar) the name of a town distinct from Sichem, tlk near it. That the writer did not misplace t any where Lazarus dwelt, is demonstrated by)! xi. 18. ‘The book indicates no greater ei with the Greek culture than John, from the cumstances of his early life and his long am in Asia, may well be supposed to have gl¢ The Christology of the fourth Gospel, especia.t use of the term Logos, constitutes no valid je tion to its genuineness. Even if this terIW taken up by John from the current speculatis: the time, he simply adopted a fit vehicle for e¥¢ ing his conception of the Son in his relation Father. After the first few verses, which def term, we hear no more of the Logos. ! to the Logos is introduced into the report it discourses of Christ. The free and liberal)! of the fourth Gospel towards the Gentiles wet natural to the Apostle at the time, and und t circumstances, in which his work was con ‘i The objection of the Tiibingen school, draw : this characteristic of the Gospel, rests alsiP their untenable and false assumption of a (1! antagonism between the original Apostles ant 4 The differences between the Apocalypse 4) Gospel, in regard to style and contents, hay much urged by the opponents of the genu’l of the latter. But a long interval elapsed LW" the composition of the two books. The s& the author’s mind and feeling in the two © y widely different. And Baur himself rega) d Gospel as so far resembling the Apocalyr" the former is a general transmutation OF sift ization of the latter. If the community) ® thorship between the two works were dis?’ apostolic origin But the contrast between them and the teachings of Christ recorded by the Synop- the weight of evidence would be in favor | JOHN, GOSPEL OF neuess of the Gospel. But the difficulty of »sing a common author has been greatly mag- .. ‘See Gieseler, K. G. bk. i. § 127, n. 8. ,e special theory of the Tiibingen school in nee to the character and aim of the fourth ‘| is only sustained by an artificial and inde- ile exegesis of its contents. On this branch 2 subject, we may refer to the acute and can- riticisms of Briickner in his edition of De e's Commentary on the Gospel. , the whole, the external evidence for the gen- ess of this book is strong and unanswerable; he proofs derived from its internal character- notwithstanding minor difficulties, are equally acing. They who consider a miracle to be hing impossible, and therefore utterly incred- will of course deny that the book had an Te for its author. But those who approach #quiry with minds free from this unphilosoph- }ias, may reasonably rest with confidence in yposite conclusion. GoPok ITERATURE. — It will be convenient to ar- the more recent literature relating to the 1 1 of John under several heads. Genuineness and Credibility. — In addition works referred to above, and under the art. SLs, p. 959 ff., the following may be noticcd. wuinst the genuineness: Bruno Bauer, Kvitik eny. Gesch. d. Johannes, Bremen, 1840; Kvitik mgelien, Th. i., Berl. 1850. Schwegler, Der mismus, Tiib. 1841, pp. 183-215; Das nach- » Zeitalter, Titb. 1846, ii. 346-374. F.C. Uber d. Comp. u. d. Charakter d. johan. veliums, three articles in Zeller’s Teol. Jahrb. \44, republished, substantially, in his Kvyit. ysuchungen iib. d. kanon. Evangelien, Tiib. tan “epoch-making work,” as the Germans ve also his articles in the Theol. Jahrb. 1847, !-136 (against Bleek); 1848, pp. 264-286 ual question); 1854, pp. 196-287 (against ‘dt, Delitzsch, Briickner, Hase); 1857, pp: })7 (against Luthardt and Steitz); Das Chris- in us. w. der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1853, 2e Aufl. 1860, pp. 146-172, a compre- Me summary; An Herrn Dr. Karl Hase, “ovortung, u. s. w. Tiib. 1855, pp. 5-70; Die iver Schule, Tiib. 1859, 2° Aufl. 1860, pp. 85- L| ainst Weisse, Weizsiicker, Ewald). Zeller, Die $m Zeugnisse iib. das Dasein u. d. Ursprung viten Ev., in the Theol. Jahrb. 1845, pp. 579- )dinige weitere Bemerkungen, ibid. 1847, pp- 4; and on the Gnostic quotations in Hip- Yi, wid. 1853, pp. 144-161. Késtlin, Die wayme Litteratur d. dltesten Kirche, in the © Jahrb. 1851, pp. 149-221, esp. p. 183 ff. lg feld, Dis Evang. u. die Briefe Johannis, | 1849 (ascribes to it a Gnostic character); € anygelien, Leipz. 1854; Dus Urehristenthum, 1856; Der Kanon u. die Krit. d. N. T., 1863, p. 218 ff.; also articles in the Theol. hi 1857, pp- 498-532, Die johan. Evangelien- “; and in his Zeitschr. J. wiss. Theol. 1859, 348, 383-448, Das Johannes-/vang. wu. Megemodrtigen Auffassungen ; ibid. 1865, pp- ; pp. 196-212 (review p. 329 ff. (review of ‘l'ischendorf) ; o, 0%) P: 118 ff. (against Paul); ibid. 1867, p. ‘Gainst Tischendorf again); p. 179 ff. (against Bach); thid. 1868, p. 213 ff. (notice of | ‘ede Groot, Keim, and Scholten). Volkmar, ly Jesu, Leipz. 1857, pp. 433-476; Ursprung iM Hoangelien, Ziirich, 1866, p. 91 ff. (against JOHN, GOSPEL OF 1437 Tischendorf); also arts. in Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p 446 ff, and Zettschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860, p. 29¢ ff. (J. T. Tobler) Die Evangelienfrage in Allge- meinen u. d. Johannisfrage insbesondere, Ziirich, 1858, ascribes the Gospel to Apollos! comp. Hil- genfeld, in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1859, p. 407 ff, and Tobler, zbid. 1860, pp. 169-203. M. Schwalb, Notes sur l’évang. de Jean, in the Stras- bourg Rev. de Théol. 1863, p. 113 ff., 249 ff. R. W. Mackay, The Tiibingen School and its Ante- cedents, Lond. 1863, pp. 258-311. Martineau, art. on Renan’s Life of Jesus, in National Rev. for Oct. 1863. Schenkel, Das Charakterbild Jesu, 3¢ Aufl. Wiesbaden, 1864, pp. 17-26, 248-258. Strauss, Leben Jesu f. d. deutsche Volk, Leipz. 1864, §§ 12, 13, 15-18, 22. Michel Nicolas, Etudes crit. sur la Bible— N. T., Paris, 1864, pp. 127-221, ascribes the Gospel to a disciple of John, perhaps John the presbyter, towards the end of the first century, who derived the substance of it from his master. Weizsiicker, Untersuchungen iid. d. evang. Geschichte, Gotha, 1864, pp. 220-302, takes nearly the same view. Comp. Weiss’s review in the 7heol. Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 137 ff} J. H. Scholten, flet Evangelie naar Johannes, krit. hist. onderzoek, Leiden, 1865 (1864), and Suppl. 1866; French trans. by A. Réville in the Strasbourg Revue de Theol. 1864-66, German trans. (Das Lv. nach Johannes, krit.-hist. Untersuchung), Berl. 1867; comp. his Die diltesten Zeugnisse betreffend die Schriften des N. T. (from the Dutch), Bremen, 1867. A. Réville, La question des Evangiles, L., in the Revue des Deux Mondes ler mai, 1866. Renan, Vie de Jesus, 13e éd. revue et augmentée, Paris, 1867, p. x. ff, lviii. ff, and appendix, “ De l'usage qu’il convient de faire du quatriéme Ivan- gile en écrivant la vie de Jésus,” pp. 477-541. Theodor Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, Ziirich, 1867, i. 103-172 (assigns the date A. D. 110-115). J.C. Matthes, De ouderdom van het Johannesevangelie volgens de uitwendige getuige- nissen, Leiden, 1867 (against Hofstede de Groot). J.J. Tayler, Attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, Lond. 1867. §. Davidson, Introd. to the N. T., Lond. 1868, ii. 323-468. Was John the Author of the Fourth Gospel? By a Layman. Lond. 1868. H. Spaeth, Nathanael, ein Beitrag zum Verstdndniss d. Comp. d. Logos- Evang., in Hilgenfeld’s Zettschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1858, pp. 168-213, 309-343 (identifies Nathanael with John!). For the genuineness: Frommann, Ueber die Echthett u. Integritét des Ev. Johannis (against Weisse), in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1840, pp. 853-930. Grimm, in Ersch u. Gruber’s Tad ‘th Kupla, an welche der zweite Brief JOKNEAM 1443 Carmel, and Ziph, and therefore apparently to be looked for south of Hebron, where they are situated. It has not, however, been yet met with, nor was it known to Eusebius and Jerome. G. JO’KIM (D171 [Jehovah establishes]: wa xia; [Vat.] Alex. Iwareu: qui stare fecit solem), one of the sons of Shelah (the third according to Burrington) the son of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 22), of whom nothing further is known. It would be difficult to say what gave rise to the rendering of the Vulgate or the Targum on the verse. The latter translates, “and the prophets and _ scribes who came forth from the seed of Joshua.’ The reading which they had was evidently D‘/)%, which some rabbinical tradition applied to Joshua, and at the same time identified Joash and Saraph, mentioned in the same verse, with Mahlon and Chilion. Jerome quotes a Hebrew legend that Jokim was Elimelech the husband of Naomi, in whose days the sun stood still on account of the transgressors of the law ( Quest. Heb. in Paral.). JOK’MEAM (Oy [assembled by the people]: [in 1 K., Rom.’ Vat. Aovrdu; Alex. Iexuaav, but united with preceding word; in 1 Chr.,] "Iexyady; [Vat. Ixaau: Jecmaan,| Jec- maam), a city of Ephraim, given with its suburbs to the Kohathite Levites (1 Chr. vi. 68). The catalogue of the towns of Ephraim in the book of Joshua is unfortunately very imperfect (see xvi.), but in the parallel list of Levitical cities in Josh. xxi., Kipzarm occupies the place of Jokmeam (ver. 22). ‘The situation of Jokmeam is to a certain ela catalogue of the heads of the various li of priests and Levites during the high- stlod of Joiakim. h ame is a contracted form of JEHOIAKIM. CARIB ay [whom Jehovah defends] : | "IwapiB ; Alex. Iwapeyu: Joarib). 1. a 5 Vat. ApetB; Alex. Iwapetu: Jotarib.| yn who returned from Babylon with Ezra ~\i. 16). . eh. a1. 10, TwapiB ; Vat. TwpeB ; Alex. 837A. Iwpenu; in Neh. xii. 6, 19, Vat. Alex. it, and so Rom. in ver. 6: Joarib, Juiarib.] “der of one of the courses of priests, else- elled in full Jenorarrs. His descendants '! Captivity are given, Neh. xii. 6, 19, and 41.10; though it is possible that in this a2 nother person is intended. : vaptB 5 Vat. IwpeiB : FA. Iwpetu, corr. th Alex. Torapi8: Joiarib.] A Shilonite — Phably a descendant of SHELAH the son of “) hamed in the genealogy of Maaseiah, the ‘Hl of the family (Neh. xi. 5). 0 DEAM (ayT [possessed by the Apucdus [Vat. Tapucap;) Alex. lexdacu: “n), @ city of Judah, in the mountains _ 96), named in the same group with Maon, — extent indicated in 1 K. iv. 12, where it is named with places which we know to have been in the Jordan Valley at the extreme east boundary of the tribe. (Here the A. V. has, probably by a printer’s error, JOKNEAM.) This position is further sup- ported by that of the other Levitical cities of this tribe — Shechem in the north, Beth-horon in the south, and Gezer in the extreme west, leaving Jok- meam to take the opposite place in the east (see, however, the contrary opinion of Robinson, iii. 115 note). With regard to the substitution of Kibzaim —which is not found again —for Jokmeam, we would only draw attention to the fact of the sim- ilarity in appearance of the two names, OY?379 and D*op. G. JOK/NEAM (O93 [possessed by the peo- ple): Plexdu,] lexudv, ) Madv; Alex. lexovap, lexvau, n Exvay: Jachanan, Jeconam, Jecnam), a city of the tribe of Zebulun, allotted with its suburbs to the Merarite Levites (Josh. xxi. 34), but entirely omitted in the catalogue of 1 Chr. vi. (comp. ver. 77). It is doubtless the same place as that which is incidentally named in connection with the boundaries of the tribe — “the torrent which faces Jokneam’’ (xix. 11), and as the Canaanite town, whose king was killed by Joshua — “ Jok- neam of Carmel’’ (xii. 22). The requirements of these passages are sufficiently met by the modern site Tell Kaimon, an eminence which stands just below the eastern termination of Carmel, with the Kishon at its feet about a mile off. Dr. Robinson has shown (B. £. iii. 115, note) that the modern name is legitimately descended from the ancient: the CryAmon of Jud. vii. 3 being a step in the pedigree. (See also Van de Velde, i. 331, and Memoir, 326.) Jokneam is found in the A. V. 1444 JOKSHAN of 1 K. iv. 12, but this is unwarranted by either Hebrew text, Alex. LXX. or Vulgate (both of which haye the reading Jokmeam, the Vat. LXX. is quite corrupt), and also by the requirements of the passage, as stated under JOKMEAM.?@ G. JOK’/SHAN (JU) [prob. fowler]: "Ie(dv, *Tetdy; [Alex. ** Ietay, Iexoav:] Jecsan), a son of Abraham and Keturah (Gen. xxv. 2, 38; 1 Chr. i. 82), whose sons were Sheba and Dedan. While the settlements of his two sons are presumptively placed on the borders of Palestine, those of Jokshan are not known. The Keturahites certainly stretched across the desert from the head of the Arabian, to that of the Persian, gulf; and the reasons for supposing this, especially in the case of Jokshan, are mentioned in art. DEDAN. If those reasons be accepted, we must suppose that Jokshan re- turned westwards to the trans-Jordanic country, where are placed the settlements of his sons, or at least the chief of their settlements; for a wide spread of these tribes seems to be indicated in the passages in the Bible which make mention of them. Places or tribes bearing their names, and conse- quently that of Jokshan, may be looked for over the whole of the country intervening between the heads of the two gulfs. The writings of the Arabs are rarely of use in the case of Keturahite tribes, whom they seem to confound with Ishmaelites in one common appella- tion. They mention a dialect of Jokshan (‘ Ya- kish, who is Yokshan,”’ as having been formerly spoken near ’Aden and El-Jened, in Southern Arabia, Yakoot’s Moajam, cited in the Zeitschrift d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, viii. 600-1, x. 30-1): but that Midianites penetrated so far into the peninsula we hold to be highly improbable [see ARABIA]. E.. SP. JOK’TAN (JO, small, Ges. [or, made small]: "lexrav: Jectan), son of Eber (Gen. x. 25; 1 Chr. i. 19); and the father of the Joktanite Arabs. His sons were Almodad, Sheleph, Hazar- maveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abi- mael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab; progen- itors of tribes peopling southern Arabia, many of whom are clearly identified with historical tribes, and the rest probably identified in the same man- ner. The first-named identifications are too well proved to admit of doubt; and accordingly scholars are agreed in placing the settlements of Joktan in the south of the Peninsula. The original limits are stated in the Bible, “their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of the Fast ’’ (Gen. x. 30). The position of Mesha, which is reasonably supposed to be the western boundary, is still uncertain [MrsHA]; but Sephar is well established as being the same as Zafari, the sea port town on the east of the modern Yemen, and for- merly one of the chief centres of the great Indian and African trade [SrPHAR; ARABIA]. Besides the genealogies in Gen. x., we have no record of Joktan himself in the Bible; but there are men- tions of the peoples sprung from him, which must guide all researches into the history of the race. The subject is naturally divided into the history of Joktan himself, and that of his sons and their descendants. a *See addition to Cyamon (Amer. ed.) Nothing but the name (Tell Kaimin) and the mound “too regular to be natural,’? remain to attest the ancient site. (Tristram. Land of Israel, p. 119, 2d ed.). IL. JOKTAN a The native traditions respecting Joktan mence with a difficulty. The ancestor of the southern peoples were called Kahtan, who, sq Arabs, was the same as Joktan. To this European critics have objected that there good reason to account for the change of | and that the identification of Kahtan with J is evidently a Jewish tradition adopted by Mc med or his followers, and consequently at or the promulgation of El-Islim. M. Caussin de ceval commences his essay on the history of Y (Essai, i. 39) with this assertion, and adds, nom de Cahtan, disent-ils [les Arabes], est k de Yectan, légérement altéré en passant d’un gue ¢trangére dans la langue arabe.” In re these objectors, we may state: — a _1. The Rabbins hold a tradition that J settled in India (see Joseph. Ant. i. 6, §4 the supposition of a Jewish influence in the traditions respecting him is therefore unter In the present case, even were this not so, t] an absence of motive for Mohammad’s ad traditions which alienate from the race of Is many tribes of Arabia: the influence here sus: may rather be found in the contradictory ass¢ put forward by a few of the Arabs, and reject the great majority, and the most judicious, 0 historians, that Kahtan was descended fron| mael. j 2. That the traditions in question are Mohammedan cannot be proved; the samc be said of everything which Arab writers ‘| dates before the Prophet’s time; for then | dition alone existed, if we except the rock-c| scriptions of the Himyerites, which are too fe; our knowledge of them is too slight, to ad: much weight attaching to them. i 3. A passage in the Mir-dt ez-Zeman, hit unpublished, throws new light on the point. as follows: ‘Tbn-El-Kelbee says, Yuktan }) name is also written Yuktan] is the same as tin son of ’A/bir,’”’ 7. e. Eber, and so say the 1 ality of the Arabs. ‘ E]-Beladhiree says, ( differ respecting Kahtan; some say he is tha as Yuktdén, who is mentioned in the Penta but the Arabs arabicized his name, and said. tan the son of Hood [because they identifie! prophet Hood with Eber, whom they call "s} and some say, son of Es-Semeyfa’,” or as in one place by the author here quoted, “ meysa’, the son of Nebt [or Nabit, @. e. Nebit the son of Ismé’eel,” 7. e. Ishmael. Hi proceeds, in continuation of the former p! ‘¢ Aboo-Haneefeh Ed-Deenawaree says, He 1s tan the son of ’A’bir; and was named Kahtso Because of his suffering from drought” [wil termed in Arabic Kaht]. (Mir-dt eek account of the sons of Shem.) Of similar ¢ of names by the Arabs there are numer stances. Thus it is evident that the 02 “ Saul” (Gas) was changed by the Ais 29 ae “’Talootu ”? (c»9JLb), because of his # J) ’ ane from Jab (tallness) or SLb (he was ta b It is remarkable. that in historical questi’ Rabbins are singularly wide of the truth, di a deficiency of the critical faculty that is cb " istic of Shemitic races. : si JOKTAN JOKTHEEL 1445 h the latter name, being imperfectly declina- | merely a late phasis of the old Sheba, dating, both ‘not to be considered as Arabic (which sev- Arabian writers assert it to be), but as a tion of a foreign name. (See the remarks is name, as occurring in the Kur-an, ch. ii. in the Kaxpositions of Ez-Zamakhsheree and ydawee.) We thus obtain a reason for the e of name which appears to be satisfactory, as the theory of its being arabicized is not y to be explained unless we suppose the term jicized’ to be loosely employed in this in- % If the traditions of Kahtsn be rejected (and 8 rejection we cannot agree), they are, it must membered, immaterial to the fact that the ss called by the Arabs descendants of Kahtan, rtainly Joktanites. His sons’ colonization of ern Arabia is proved by indisputable, and outed, identifications, and the great kingdom, there existed for many ages before our era, 1 its later days was renowned in the world of ‘al antiquity, was as surely Joktanite. ‘e settlements of the sons of Joktan are exam- ‘nthe separate articles bearing their names, yenerally in ARABIA. They colonized the of the south of the peninsula, the old “ Ara- alix,” or the Yemen (for this appellation had 'r wide significance in early times), stretching, ling to the Arabs (and there is in this case ound for doubting their general correctness), akkeh, on the northwest, and along nearly hole of the southern coast eastwards, and far \. At Mekkeh, tradition connects the two ‘races of Joktan and Ishmael, by the marriage daughter of Jurhum the Joktanite with Ish- It is necessary in mentioning this Jurhum, \3 called a ‘son’ of Joktan (Kahtan), to ob- that “son *’ in these cases must be regarded nifying “ descendant *’ (cf. C1tRONOLOGY) in ww generations, and that many generations zh how many, or in what order, is not known) ‘issing from the existing list between Kaht‘n facing the most important time of the Jok- 3), and the establishment of the compara- ( modern Himyerite kingdom; from this latter stated by Caussin, /ssai, i. 63, at B.C. cir. the succession of the Tubbaas is apparently ved to us.* At Mekkeh, the tribe of Jurhum eld the office of guardians of the Kaabeh, or ‘2, and the sacred enclosure, until they were {2d by the Ishmaelites (Kutb-ed-Deen, Hist. of eh, ed. Wiistenfeld, pp. 35 and 39 ff.; and vin, Mssai, i. 194). But it was at Seba, the val Sheba, that the kingdom of Joktan at- iit its greatness. In the southwestern angle + peninsula, San’ (Uzal), Seba (Sheba), and unawt (Hazarmaveth), all closely neighboring, d together the principal known settlements + Joktanites. Here arose the kingdom of ni, followed in later times by that of Himyer. ‘ominant tribe from remote ages seems to have ‘that of Seba (or Sheba, the Sabai of the Ms): while the family of Himyer (/omerite) ‘ithe first place in the tribe. The kingdom ul that of Himyer we believe to have been i —. in its rise and its name, only shortly before our era. In ARABIA we have alluded to certain curious indications in the names of Himyer, Orne, the Phoenicians, and the Erythraan Sea, and the traces of their westward spread, which would well repay a careful investigation; as well as the obscure rela- tions of a connection with Chaldzea and Assyria, found in Berosus and other ancient writers, and strengthened by presumptive evidence of a connec- tion closer than that of commerce, in religion, ete. between those countries and Arabia. An equally interesting and more tangible subject, is the appa- rently proved settlement of Cushite races along the coast, on the ground also occupied by Joktanites, involving intermarriages between these peoples, and explaining the Cyclopean masonry of the so-called Himyerite ruins which bear no mark of a Shemite’s hand, the vigorous character of the Joktanites and their sea-faring propensities (both qualities not usually found in Shemites), and the Cushitic ele- ments in the rock-cut inscriptions in the “ Him- yeritic’’ language. Next in importance to the tribe of Seba was that of Hadramiiwt, which, till the fall of the Himyerite power, maintained a position of independence and a direct line of rulers from Kahtan (Caussin, i. 135-6). Joktanite tribes also passed northwards, to Heereh, in El-lrak, and: to Ghassan, near Da- mascus. The emigration of these and other tribes took place on the occasion of the rupture of a great dyke (the Dyke of El-’Arim), above the metropolis of Seba; a catastrophe that appears, from the con- current testimony of Arab writers, to have devas- tated a great extent of country, and destroyed the city Ma-rib or Seba. This event forms the com- mencement of an era. the dates of which exist in the inscriptions on the Dyke and elsewhere; but when we should place that commencement is still quite an open question. (See the extracts from E:l-Mes’oodee and other authorities, edited by Schultens; Caussin, i. 84 ff.; and ARABIA.) The position which the Joktanites hold (in na- tive traditions) among the successive races who are said to have inhabited the peninsula has been fully stated in art. ARABIA; to which the reader is re- ferred for a sketch of the inhabitants generally, their descent, history, religion, and language. There are some existing places named after Jok- tan and Kahtan (El-Idreesee, ed. Jaubert; Niebuhr, Descr. 238 >); but there seems to be no safe ground for attaching to them any special importance, or for supposing that the name is ancient, when we remember that the whole country is full of the tra- ditions of Joktan. Ele tes JOK/THEEL Osan [subdued or made tributary by God}). 1. (Iayapenar [Vat. -kap-]; Alex. lex@ana: Jecthel.) A city in the low country of Judah (Josh. xv. 38), named next to Lachish — probably Um-Lakis, on the road between Beit- gibrin and Gaza. The name does not appear to have been yet discovered. 2. (IeGonA; [Vat. Kadona;] Alex. TexOonA: Jectehel.) God-subdued,” the title given by tis curious that the Greeks first mention the Merites in the expedition of Hlius Gallus, towards ose of the Ist century B. c., although Himyer ‘f lived long before ; agreeing with our belief iis family was important before the establish- 4 the so-called kingdom. See Caussin, J. c. y i i b Niebuhr also (Deser. 249) mentions the reputed tomb of Kahtan, but probably refers to the tomb of the prophet Hood, who, as we have mentioned, is by some thought to be the father of Kahtan. 1446 Amaziah to the cliff (yen, A. V. Selah) — the stronghold of the Edomites — after he had captured it from them (2 K. xiv 7). The parallel narrative of 2 Chr. xxv. 11-13 supplies fuller details. From it we learn that, having beaten the Edomite army with a great slaughter in the “ Valley of Salt” — the valley south of the Dead Sea — Amaziah took those who were not slain to the cliff, and threw them headlong over it. This cliff is asserted by Eusebius ( Onomust. TET pa) to be “a city of Edom, also called by the Assyrians Rekem,” by which there is no doubt that he intends Petra’(see Onomasticon, ‘Pexéu, and the quotations in Stanley’s S. ¢: P. 94, note). The title thus bestowed is said to have continued ‘unto this day.” This, Keil remarks, is a proof that the history was nearly contemporary with the event, because Amaziah’s conquest was lost. again by Ahaz less than a century afterwards (2 Chr. xxviii. 17). G JO'NA (‘Iwva: Jona [see below]), the father of the Apostle Peter (John i. 42 [Gr. 43]), who is hence addressed as Simon Barjona in Matt. xvi. 17. In the A. V. of John xxi. 15-17 he is called JONAS, though the Greek is "Iwdvyns, and the Vule. /ohannes throughout. The name in either form would be the equivalent of the Hebrew Johanan. * In all the passages in John the received text reads *"Iwyva, for which Lachm. and Treg. adopt the reading "Iwdvov, Tisch. "Iwdyyvov. The Clenientine Vulg. has Jona in. John i. 42, but the Cod. Amiatinus reads Johanna, and the Sixtine edition Jounna. The reading of the received text would have been properly represented in our translation by Jonas throughout. A. JON’ADAB. 1. (7277, and once 27377), i. €. Jehonadab [whom Jehovah impels]: "IwvaddB: Jonadab), son of Shimeah and nephew of David. He is described as “ very subtil” (copds opddpa; the word is that usually translated « wise,’’ as in the case of Solomon, 2 Sam. xiii. 3). He seems to have been one of those characters who, in the midst of great or royal families, pride themselves, and are renowned, for being acquainted with the secrets of the whole circle in which they move. His age naturally made him the friend of his cousin Amnon, heir to the throne (2 Sam. xiii. 3). He perceived JONA from the prince’s altered appearance that there was some unknown grief —“ Why art thou, the king’s son, so lean ?’? — and, when he had wormed it out, he gave him the fatal advice, for ensnaring his sister Tamar (5, 6). Again, when, in a later stage of the same tragedy, Amnon was murdered by Absalom, and the exag- gerated report reached David that all the princes weré slaughtered, Jonadab was already aware of the real state of the case. He was with the king, and was able at once to reassure him (2 Sam. xiii. 32, 33). 2. Jer. xxxy. 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 19, in which it represents sometimes the long, sometimes the short Heb. form of the name. [JEHONADAB. ] A. Bil B JONAH (F721 [dove] : ‘twvas, LXX. and Matt. xii. 39), a prophet, son of Amittai (whose her son, and that Amittai was a prophet himself). We further learn from 2 K. xiy. 25, he was of 4 JONAH |Gath-hepher, a town of Lower Galilee, in This verse enables us to approximate to tl at which Jonah lived. It was plainly after th of Jehu, when the losses of Israel (2 K. x, 3 gan; and it may not have been till the latter of the reign of Jeroboam II. The general opin that Jonah was the first of the prophets (Ros Bp. Lloyd, Davison, Browne, Drake) ; Hengstey would place him after Amos and Hosea, and jj adheres to the order of the books in the canc the chronology. The king of Nineveh at this\ is supposed (Ussher and others) to have been; who is placed by Layard (Nin. and Bab, 62) B. ©. 750; but an earlier king, Adrammelec|| B. C. 840, is regarded more probable by Di Our English Bible gives B. ©. 862. : The personal history of Jonah is brief, and; known; but is of such an exceptional and e; ordinary character, as to have been set dow. many German critics to fiction, either in whe in part. The book, say they, was compose compounded, some time after the death of prophet, perhaps (Rosenm.) at the latter part o} Jewish kingdom, during the reign of rosa Sharpe), or even later. The supposed improbi ities are accounted for by them in a variety of ys e. g. as merely fabulous, or fanciful ornaments | true history, or allegorical, or parabolical and m\ both in their origin and design. A_ list oft critics who have advanced these several opit } | | may be seen in Davidson’s /ntroduction, p. Rosenmiiller (Proleg. in Jonam) refutes theri detail ; and then propounds his own, whic equally baseless. Like them, he begins with posing to escape the difficulties of the history,1 ends in a mere theory, open to still greater diff ties. “ The fable of Hercules,”’ he says, “devo and then restored by a sea-monster, was the f dation on which the Hebrew prophet built up story. Nothing was really true in it.” Wee ourselves precluded from any doubt of the rej of the transactions recorded in this book, bi simplicity of the language itself; by the histo allusions in Tob. xiv. 4-6, 15, and Joseph. An 10, § 2; by the accordance with other autho of the historical and geographical notices; bye thought that we might as well doubt all ot miracles in Scripture as doubt these (‘ Quod omnia divina miracula credenda non sint, aut cur non credetur causa nulla sit,’ Aug. Lp. in Quest. 6 de Jona, ii. 284; ef. Cyril. Alex. ( ment. in Jonam, iii. 367-389); above all, by explicit words and teaching of our blessed I Himself (Matt. xii. 39, 41, xvi. 4; Luke xi. }, and by the correspondence of the miracles in histories of Jonah and of the Messiah. 4 We shall derive additional arguments for same conclusion from the history and meaning? the prophet’s mission. Having already, as it se ib (from } in i. 1), prophesied to Israel, he was st to Nineveh. The time was one of political rev in Israel; but ere long the Assyrians were top employed by God as a scourge upon them. Pe Isrgelites consequently viewed them with repuls ness; and the prophet, in accordance with his né (FIO: a dove), out of timidity and love for country, shrunk from a commission which he i sure would result (iv. 2) in the sparing of a hos city. He attempted therefore to escape to ay either Tartessus in Spain (Bochart, Titcot, ad JONAH t.), or more probably (Drake) Tarsus in , a port of commercial intercourse. The ‘ence of God, however, watched over him, first form, and then in his being swallowed by a ish (O73 J) for the space of three days ree nights. We need not multiply miracles »yposing a great fish to have been created for ‘easion, for Bochart (Mieroz. ii. pp. 752-754) ‘own that there is a sort of shark which de- ‘a man entire, as this did Jonah while cast jae water (August. /p. 49, ii. 284). ‘ar his deliverance, Jonah executed his com- ‘n; and the king, “believing him to be a ‘er from the supreme deity of the nation” d’s Nineveh and Babylon), and having heard miraculous deliverance (Dean Jackson On reed, bk. ix. c. 42), ordered a general fast, |verted the threatened judgment. But the jt, not from personal but national feelings, od the mercy shown to a heathen nation. He erefore taught, by the significant lesson of ‘gourd,’ whose growth and decay (a known » naturalists, Layard’s Nineveh, i. 123, 124) it the truth at once home to him, that he at to testify by deed, as other prophets would jurds testify by word, the capacity of Gentiles vation, and the design of God to make them fers of it. This was “ the sign of the prophet which was given to a proud and _ perverse «tion of Jews after the ascension of Christ by jeaching of His Apostles. (Luke xi. 29, 30, \ckson’s Comm. on the Creed, ix. c. 42.) p| the resurrection of Christ itself was also (ed forth in the history of the prophets, as ne certain to us by the words of our Saviour. gackson, as above, bk. ix. c. 40.) Titcomb it Studies, p. 237, n.) sees a correspondence wo Jon. i. 17 and Hosea vi. 2. Besides i the fact and the faith of Jonah’s prayer in \ily of the fish betokened to the nation of ¥ he intimation of a resurrection and of im- rity. ‘thus see distinct purposes which the mission Juh was designed to serve in the Divine econ- ywmd in these we have the reason of the his- yoeing placed in the prophetic canon. It was Hsymbolical. The facts contained a concealed yf 2y. Hence, too, only so much of the prophet’s sil history is told us as suffices for setting tlhe symbols divinely intended, which accounts fragmentary aspect. Exclude the symbolical vg, and you have no adequate reason to give ‘history: admit it, and you have images here highest facts and doctrines of Christianity. an, On Prophecy, p. 275.) I the extent of the site of Nineveh, see ‘old tradition made the burial-place of Jonah bath-hepher; the modern tradition places it 1-Yunus, opposite Mosul. See the account i xeavations in Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, #597. And consult Drake’s Notes on Jonah Willan and Co., 1853). Si Leusden’s Jonas Illustratus, Trajecti ad 11692; Rosenmiiller’s Scholia in Vet. Test. ; P ‘ion upon the Prophet Jonah, by Abp. Abbot Pi ed), London, 1845; Notes on the Prophecies 4th and Hosea, by Rev. W. Drake, Cam- id; 1853; Ewald; Umbreit; Henderson, AZinor ts. : Heat. | © passages in which our Lord asserts the JONAH 1447 truth of the story of Jonah, and the Divine author- ity of his book, and its intimate connection with himself, are full and explicit. See especially Matt. xii. 39-41, xvi. 1-4, Luke xi. 29-32. It was one great object of our Lord’s mission to interpret and con- firm the Old Testament (Matt. vy. 17-19). Much of his time was spent in explaining the O. T. to his disciples. We read, for example, that “ Begin- ning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concern: ing himself.” (See Luke xxiv. 27-32, 45.) His authority on this subject is just as good as it is on any other; and if we reject his sanctions and interpretations of the O. 'I., we reject his whole mission. No one can say, without absurdity and self-contradiction, “I admit that Christ brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel; but I do not admit that he understood the O. T., or was an accurate and safe interpreter of it.” A miracle is always a direct exertion of creative power; and so far as the physical fact is concerned, one miracle is just as easy, and just as probable, and just as natural, as another. There is no question of hard or easy, natural or unnatural, probable or improbable, in regard to a real miracle. ‘The ex- ertion of creative power is to the Creator always natural, whatever the product of the creative act may be; there can, in such a problem, be no ques- tion in regard to the actual facts. The only ques- tion must be a moral one, whether the alleged fact has a purpose worthy of God, and is appropriate to the object intended; and this question we are authorized and required by God himself to ask. (See Deut. xiii. 1-5.) The country which was the scene of Jonah’s activity has many traditions analogous to his story, which seem to rest on some basis of actual facts which once occurred among the people of that region. Neptune sent a monstrous serpent to ravage the coast in the neighborhood of Joppa (whence Jonah sailed), and there was no reinedy but to expose Andromeda, the daughter of king Cepheus, to be devoured. As she stood chained to the rocks await- ing her fate, Perseus, who was returning through the air from his expedition against the Gorgons, captivated by her beauty, turned the monster into a rock by showing him Medusa’s head, and then liberated and married the maiden. Jerome informs us that the very rock, outside the port of Joppa, was in his day pointed out to travellers. At Troy, more northerly, on the same Mediter- ranean coast, Neptune in anger sent out a devour- ing sea-monster, which with every returning tide committed fearful ravages on the people. There was no help till king Laomedon gave up his beau- tiful daughter Hesione to be devoured. While the monster with extended jaws was approaching her chained to the rocks, Hercules, sword in hand, leaped into his throat, and for three days and three nights maintained a tremendous conflict in the monster’s bowels, from which he at length emerged victorious and unharmed, except with the loss of his hair, which the heat of the animal had loosened from the scalp. or this exploit Hercules was sur- named Tpiéomepos (Threenight). Aia, the daughter of the king of Beirtit, a city north of Joppa, on the same coast, for the salvation of her country was about to be devoured by a frightful dragon. St. George, in full armor, as- saulted the dragon, and after an obstinate conflict of several days’ continuance, slew him and delivered 1448 JONAH the princess. He is the patron saint of Armenia and England, of the Franconian and Swabian knights, and of the crusades generally. According to Babylonian tradition, a fish-god or fish-man, named Oannes, was divinely sent to that country, the region of the Euphrates and Tigris, to teach the inhabitants the fear of God and good morals, to instruct them in astronomy and agricul- ture, the sciences and useful arts, legislation and civil polity. He came from the sea and spake with a man’s voice, teaching only in the daytime, and returning again every night to the sea. Sculptures of this fish-god are frequently found among the ruins of Nineveh. The head and face of a dig- nified and noble-looking man are seen just below the mouth of the fish, the hands and arms project from the pectoral fins, and the feet and ankles from the ventral; and-there are other forms, but it is always @ man in a fish. The Assyrian Ninevites were of the same race as the Hebrews, and spoke a language very like the Hebrew. The Greek name Oannes may be derived from the oriental Jonah, just as Euphrates is de- rived from the oriental Phrath. For a fuller dis- cussion of these oriental traditions illustrative of the book of Jonah, the reader may see an essay by the writer in the Bibl. Sacra for October, 1853. Consult especially Creuzer, Symbolik und Mythol- ogie der Alten Voelker, ii. 22, 74-81, &e. Jonah was probably born about 850 3B. c., and prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam IL., from 825 to 789 B. c. He was a child when Homer was an old blind bard singing his rhapsodies on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean ; a contemporary of the Spartan lawgiver, Lycurgus; by a century the senior of Romulus, and four centuries more ancient than Herodotus. He is the oldest of the prophets, any of whose writings have reached our times. This hoary antiquity, the rough manners of the time, and the simplicity of the people who were his con- temporaries, must be taken into consideration in an estimate of the book. It is throughout in keeping, eminently appropriate to the times and circum- stances in which it claims to have originated. God always adapts his revelations to the character and circumstances of those to whom he makes them, and never stands on dignity as men do. Human notions of dignity are a small matter with him; his field of observation is so large that he is not much affected by trifles of this sort. Jonah was evidently a man of hypochondriac temperament, easily discouraged and easily elated; timid and courageous at rapid intervals: in his ideas of God a good deal under the influence of the heathenism of his time; yet a God-fearing man, a patriotic lover of his own people, and an earnest hater of their idolatrous oppressors, the Ninevite Assyrians. A consideration of these traits explains the oddities of his history, and illustrates the condescension and patience of his God. The Carcharias of the Mediterranean is of suf- ficient size to swallow a man, and God was under no necessity of creating a fish for this special pur- pose. The king in Nineveh was at this time either Adrammelech II. or Pul; the city was at least 60 miles (three days’ journey) in circumference, and there is nothing in the least strange or inconsistent with the ideas of the time, that the Ninevites and JONAH >) their king should be alarmed by a threat fro God of the Hebrews; and their mode of f and repenting, and manifesting sorrow, is just we find described by other ancient authors, §1 Herodotus, Plutarch, Virgil, ete. (Herod. ix, The plant which shaded Jonah is treated. story as miraculous. Such rapidly growing suddenly withering plants, however, are still in the east, and have been well described | American missionaries, and by such trayelk Niebuhr [Gourp]. The castor-oil bean, cu ted in some of our gardens, will give us a £006 of the kind of plant referred to. The Orientals have always had a high r for Jonah, and his tomb is still shown with eration near the ruins of Nineveh, as well. Gath-hepher. The Rabbins, who make two Mes one the son of David, and the other the so Joseph, attirm that Jonah was the Messiah th of Joseph.¢ The respect shown to him by Mohammedans is also remarkable. In the k one entire chapter is inscribed with his name. In one passage he is called Dhw'lnun, th the dweller in the fish ; and in the thirty-se chapter the following narrative is given of ‘‘ Jonah was one of our ambassadors. Whe fled in the fully laden ship, the sailors cast and by that he was condemned: and then th swallowed him, because he merited punishment, We cast him upon the naked shore, and hi himself sick; and therefore we caused a vit grow over him, and sent him to a hundred thou men, or more; and when they believed, we gr them their lives for a definite time.’”’ In the tw first chapter it is said: “* Remember DhwInun dweller in the jish, that is, Jonah), how he dep: from us in wrath and believed that we could. cise no power over him. And in the darkne prayed to us in these words: ‘ There is no Goc thee. Honor and glory be to thee. Truly 1. been a sinner, but thou art merciful beyond il power of language to express.’ And we heard | and delivered him from his distress; as we always accustomed to deliver the believers.” brief prayer, which the Koran represents Joné: uttering in the belly of the fish, the Mohamme regard as one of the holiest and most effica’ of all prayers, and they often. use it in their) devotions. Certainly it is simple, expressive,! beautiful, and reminds us of the prayer of the. lican in the Gospel. The tenth chapter of the K says: “It is only the people of Jonah, whon/ after they had believed, did deliver from the pul ment of shame in this world, and granted } the enjoyment of their goods for a certain time The Mohammedan writers say that the shil which Jonah had embarked stood still in thet and would not be moved. The seamen, there’ cast lots, and the lot falling upon Jonah, he i? out, Jam the fugitive, and threw himself int« water. The fish swallowed him. The tim! remained in the fish is differently stated by 1 as three, seven, twenty, or forty days; but \ he was thrown upon the land he was in a stat great suffering and distress, his body hayingé come like that of a new-born infant. Wher! went to Nineveh, the inhabitants at first tre? him harshly, so that he was obliged to flee, & i a * For proofs of this statement, see Bibl. Sacra, x, 950; Bochart, Hieroz. iii. 688; and Kichhorn’s Fini, md. A. T. iv, 340, 841, C. E. §, a 5 Rosenmiiller’s Alterthumskunde, iv. 123-25. | ¢ Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, ii, 120. | = JONAH ad declared that the city should be destroyed in three days, or, as some say, forty. As the approached, a black cloud, shooting forth fire smoke, rolled itself directly over the city; and the inhabitants into dreadful consternation, so they proclaimed a fast and repented, and God 1d them. ‘om all the oriental traditions on the subject, it ry plain that the men of the old East, the men ie country where Jonah lived, and who were ainted with the manners and modes of thought » prevalent, never felt any of those objections ae prophet’s narrative, which have so much bled the men of other nations and other times. deals with men just as their peculiar cireum- es and habits of thought require; and the 3 and fishermen of Palestine, three thousand ago, are not to be judged of by the standard ture at the present day; and a mode of treat- might have been very suitable for them, which | be quite inappropriate to modern fashionable y; and they, we doubt not, in the sight of were of quite as much importance in their as we are in ours. Christ himself so far honors 1 as to make his history a type of His own ection. ie place of the book in the Hebrew Canon in me of Christ, and in all previous and all sub- at time, is unquestionable and unquestioned. 1e apocryphal book of Tobit, xiv. 7, 8. consideration of the real state of both the and the Jewish mind, at that time and in and, will show the utter groundlessness of the ion sometimes made to the credibility of the of Jonah, because it represents a Hebrew +t as being sent to a heathen city, and preach- ere with great acceptance and power. Com- i K. xx. 23-26; 2 K. viii. 7-10, xvi. 10-15; xxi. 31; Am. ix. 7, 8. ‘understand the feelings of the prophet in to Nineveh, and the failure of his prophecy, ist call to mind the circumstances in which d. He was @ native of Gath-hepher, in the ‘tm part of Israel, where the people had been 7 corrupted by constant intercourse with idol- and they were continually exposed to the rand oppression of their northern and eastern ; Ors, especially from the powerful empire of h, by which they had been greatly injured. ong the prophetic utterances of Moses, God ;clared in respect to his people (Deut. xxxii. 11 will move them to jealousy with those (are not a people; I will provoke them to | with a foolish nation.’ This they under- 0 imply that the time would come when the €s would be rejected for their sins, and some nation received to favor instead of them; ‘is is the use which the Apostle Paul makes ext in Rom. x.19. Jonah had seen enough i! sins of the Israelites to know that they de- (rejection; and the favor which God showed | Ninevites, on their repentance, might have 1 to fear that the event so long before pre- oy Moses was now about. to occur, and that his instrumentality. Israel would be re- and the proud, oppressive, hateful Nineveh, to the Israelites for a thousand cruelties Y. 19, 20), might then be received, on their "Ince and reformation, as the people of God. “0 him a thought insupportably painful, and ld made him unwillingly the means of bring- 3 about. He thought he did well to be JONAN 1449 angry — to be displeased, grieved, distressed — for such is the import of the original phrase in Jon. iy: <1, 9. Alone, unprotected, at the hazard of his life, and most reluctantly, he had, on his credit as a prophet, made a solemn declaration of the Divine purpose in regard to that city, and God was now about to falsify it. Why should he not be distressed, the poor hypochondriac, and pray to die rather than live? Everybody is against him; everything goes against him; God himself exposes him to disgrace and disregards his feelings. So he feels; so every hypochondriac would feel in like circumstances. He cannot bear to remain an hour in the hated city; he retires to the neighboring field, exposed to the dreadful burning of the sun, which is so in- tolerable that the inhabitants of the cities on the Tigris find it necessary, at the present day, to con- struct apartments under ground to protect them- selves from the noon-day heat. God causes a spa- cious, umbrageous plant to spread its broad leaves over the booth and afford him the needed Shelter. He rejoices in its shade; but before the second day has dawned, the shade is gone; the sirocco of the desert beats upon him with the next noon-day sun, he is distracted with pains in his head, he faints with the insupportable heat, and alone, disconsolate, unfriended, thinking that everybody despises him and scorns him as a lying prophet, hypochondriac- like, he again wishes himself dead. Prophetic in- spiration changed no man’s natural temperament or character. The prophets, just like other men, had to struggle with their natural infirmities and disabilities, with only such Divine aid as is within the reach of all religious men. The whole repre- sentation in regard to Jonah is in perfect keeping; it is as true to nature as any scene in Shakespeare, and represents hypochondria as graphically as Othello represents jealousy or Lear madness. Jonah is not peculiarly wicked, but peculiarly uncomfortable, and to none so much so as to him- self; and his kind and forgiving God does not hastily condemn him, but pities and expostulates, and by the most significant of illustrations justifies his forbearance towards the repentant Nineveh. The prophets, in the execution of their arduous mission, often came to places in. which they felt as if it would be better for them to die rather than live. For example, of Elijah, who was of a very different temperament from Jonah, far more cheer- ful and self-relying, we have a similar narrative in 1 K. xix. 4-10. Dr. Pusey has given us an excellent commentary on Jonah. There is a more ancient one of ereat value by John King, D. D., and some excellent suggestions in regard to the book may be found in Davison on Prophecy, disc. vi. pt. 2. P. Fried- richsen’s Kvitische Uebersicht der verschiedenen Ansichten von dem Buche Jonas, ete. (Leipz. 1841) is a useful work. The commentaries on the book are well-nigh innumerable. A formidable catalogue of them is given in Rosenmiiller’s Scholia in Vet. Test. For the later writers on Jonah as one of the minor prophets, see HABAKKUK (Amer, ed.). C. E. S. JONAN (‘Iwvdy; [Tisch. Treg. "Iwvdu :] Jon), son of Eliakim, in the genealogy of Christ, in the 7th generation after David, 7. e. about the time of king Jehoram (Luke iii. 30). The name is probably only another form of Johanan, which oceurs so frequently in this genealogy. ‘The se- quence of names, Jonan, Joseph, Juda, Simeon, 1450 JONAS Levi, Matthat, is singularly like that in vv. 26, 27, Joanna, Judah, Joseph, Semei — Mattathias. A, OF EH. JO'NAS. 1. (Iwvds; [Vat. Iwavas;] Alex. Novdas: Lhonas.) This name occupies the same position in 1 Esdr. ix. 23 as Eliezer in the corre- sponding list in Ezr. x. 23. Perhaps the corruption originated in reading SIIDOS for WYN, as appears to have been the case in 1 Esdr. ix. 82 (comp. Ezr. x. 31). The former would have caught the compiler’s eye from Ezr. x. 22, and the original form Elionas, as it appears in the Vulg., could easily have become Jonas. 2. (Iwvas: Jonas.) The prophet Jonah (2 Esdr. i. 89; Tob. xiv. 4, 8; Matt. xii. 39, 30, 41, xvi. 4). 3. ([Ree. text, "Iwvas; Lachm. Treg. "Iwdyns; Tisch.] *Iwavyns: Johannes), John xxi. 15-17. [Jona.] JONATHAN (J257), 2. e. Jehonathan, and 7/121°; the two forms are used almost alter- nately: "Iwvd@av, Jos. "Iwvd@ns: Jonathan), the eldest son of king Saul. The name (the gift of Jehovah, corresponding to Theodorus in Greek) seems to have been common at that period; possi- bly from the example of Saul’s son (see JONATHAN, the nephew of Dayid, JONATHAN, the son of Abiathar, JoNATHAN, the son of Shage, and NATHAN the prophet). He first appears some time after his father’s ac- cession (1 Sam. xiii. 2). If his younger brother Ishbosheth was 40 at the time of Saul’s death (2 Sam. ii. 8), Jonathan must have been at least 30, when he is first mentioned. Of his own family we know nothing; except the birth of one son, 5 years before his death (2 Sam. iv. 4). He was regarded in his father’s lifetime as heir to the throne. Like Saul, he was a man of great strength and activity (2 Sam. i. 23), of which the exploit at. Michmash was a proof. He was also famous for the peculiar martial exercises in which his tribe excelled — archery and slinging (1 Chr. xii. 2). His bow was to him what the spear was to his father: ‘the bow of Jonathan turned not back”? (2 Sam. i. 22). It was always about him (1 Sam. xviii. 4, xx. 35). It is through his relation with David that he is chiefly known to us, probably as related by his descendants at David’s court. But there is a back- ground, not so clearly given, of his relation with his father. From the time that he first appears he is Saul’s constant companion. He was always present at his father’s meals. As Abner and David seem to have occupied the places afterwards called the captaincies of ‘the host’ and “ of the guard; ”’ so he seems to have been (as Hushai afterwards) “ the friend’ (comp. 1 Sam. xx. 25: 2 Sam. xv. 37). The whole story implies, without expressing, the deep attachment of the father and son. Jon- athan can only go on his dangerous expedition (1 Sam. xiv. 1) by concealing it from Saul. Saul’s vow is confirmed, and its tragic effect deepened, by his feeling for his son, *¢ though it be Jonathan my son”’ (ib. xiv. 39). “Tell me what thou hast done” (2b. xiv. 43). Jonathan cannot bear to be- lieve his father’s enmity to David, “ my father will do nothing great or small, but that he will show it to me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so’’ (1 Sam. xx. 2). To him, if to any one, the wild frenzy of the king was amenable — “Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan ”’ (1 Sam. xix. 6). Their mutual affection i xiii. 3, 4, JONATHAN | a was indeed interrupted by the growth of § insanity. Twice the father would have saerij the son: once in consequence of his vow (1 $§ xiv.); the second time, more deliberately, on discovery of David's flight: and on this last o sion, a momentary glimpse is given of some da history. Were the phrases “son of a per rebellious woman,’ — “shame on thy motl nakedness’? (1 Sam. xx. 30, 31), mere frantic vectives? or was there something in the stor Ahinoam or Rizpah which we do not know? fierce anger”’ Jonathan left the royal presence 34). But he east his lot with his father’s dec} not with his friend’s rise, and “ in death they »} not divided’ (2 Sam. i. 23; 1 Sam. xxiii. 16)/ His life may be divided into two main parts, 1. The war with the Philistines; comm; called, from its locality, “the war of Michma’ as the last years of the Peloponnesian War} called for a similar reason “the war of Decel! (1 Sam. xiii. 22, LXX.). In the previous war: the Ammonites (1 Sam. xi. 4-15) there is no 1) tion of him; and his abrupt appearance, wit! explanation, in xiii. 2, may seem to imply some part of the narrative has been lost. | He is already of great importance in the se Of the 3,000 men of whom Saul’s standing aj was formed (xiii. 2, xxiv. 2, xxvi. 1, 2), 1,000 5 under the command of Jonathan at Gibeah. Philistines were still in the general commanv either the same as Jonathan’s position or clo. t it. In a sudden act of youthful daring, as 5; Moses rose against the Egyptian, Jonathan ‘ this officer,¢ and thus gave the signal for a geia Saul took advantage of it, and the yl population rose. But it was a premature atte ‘ tyranny became more deeply rooted than " ¢ the country; an officer was stationed at Ca Tell rose against Gessler, or as in sacred hit revolt. The Philistines poured in from the plain, an¢) [Sauu.] Saul and Jonathan (with their ing diate attendants) alone had arms, amidst the ‘i eral weakness and disarming of the people (1 in xiii. 22). They were encamped at Gibeah, wi small body of 600 men, and as they looked iW from that height on the misfortunes of their (I try, and of their native tribe especially, they P aloud (€cAaov, LXX.; 1 Sam. xiii. 16). From this oppression, as Jonathan by his fe act had been the first to provoke it, so now hi’ the first to deliver his people. On the former @ sion Saul had heen equally with himself mv& in the responsibility of the deed. Saul “blev ik trumpet; ’’ Saul had “smitten the officer o/s Philistines” (xiii. 3, 4). But now it would : 5 that Jonathan was resolved to undertake the 1} risk himself. «+The day,” the day fixed byt (yiverar 4 tyépa, LXX.; 1 Sam. xive UP proached; and without communicating his Pig to any one, except the young man, whom, i b the chiefs of that age, he retained as his a1? ies Fe bearer, he sallied forth from Gibeah to attac - garrison of the Philistines stationed on the te side of the steep defile of Michmash (xiv. 1). words are short, but they breathe exactly th® cient and peculiar spirit of the Israelite Ww?” “¢ Come, and let us go over unto the garris | these uncircumcised; it may be that Jehova?” work for us: for there is no restraint to Jel a (A. V. “ Garrison”) rov NaoiB, LXX; 1 See Ewald, ii. 476. ae! % JONATHAN ve by many or by few.’’ The answer is no haracteristic of the close friendship of the two ¢men: already like to that which afterwards z up between Jonathan and David. “ Do all gin thine heart; . ... behold, / am with 'as thy heart is my heart (LXX.; 1 Sam. ').” After the manner of the time (and the ‘probably, from having taken no counsel of gh-priest or any prophet before his depart- Jonathan proposed to draw an omen for their » from the conduct of the enemy. If the ‘on, on seeing them, gave intimations of de- ing upon them, they would remain in the '; if, on the other hand, they raised a chal- to advance, they were to aceept it. ‘The lat- ned out to be the case. ‘The first appear- ff the two warriors from behind the rocks was ) by the Philistines as a furtive apparition of Hebrews coming forth out of the holes where jad hid themselves; ’’ and they were welcomed fa scoffing invitation (such as the Jebusites ards offered to David), “ Come up, and we now you a thing” (xiv. 4-12). Jonathan ‘liately took them at their word. Strong and | as he was, “strong as a lion, and swift as an |? (2 Sam. i. 23), he was fully equal to the ure of climbing on his hands and feet up the ‘the cliff’ When he came directly in view ‘tm, with his armor-bearer behind him, they fafter the manner of their tribe (1 Chr. xii. tharged a flight of arrows, stones, and peb- ‘from their bows, crossbows, and slings, with Ioffect that 20 men fell at the first onset 3, vol. i. p. 160 6.]. A panic seized the gar- ‘thence spread to the camp, and thence to /rrounding hordes of marauders; an earth- 1} combined with the terror of the moment; ‘‘nfusion increased; the Israelites who had ijuken slaves by the Philistines during the last i’ (LXX.) rose in mutiny: the Israelites who |. in the numerous caverns and deep holes in the rocks of the neighborhood abound, sprang | their subterranean dwellings. Saul and his lvand had watched in astonishment the wild ‘from the heights of Gibeah — he now joined jpursuit, which led him headlong after the js, over the rugged plateau of Bethel, and v the pass of Beth-horon to Ajalon (xiv. 15- (GIBEAH, p. 915.] The father and son had et on that day: Saul only conjectured his 'bsence from not finding him when he num- e@he people. Jonathan had not heard of the Hse (xiv. 24) which Saul invoked on any one 0!2 before the evening. In the dizziness and 3s (Hebrew, 1 Sam. xiv. 27) that came on el .§ desperate exertions, he put forth the staff 1¢ parently had (with his sling and bow) been '(>f weapon, and tasted the honey which lay ‘ground as they passed through the forest. /rsuers in general were restrained even from S/ght indulgence by fear of the royal curse; b/e moment that the day, with its enforced t, as over, they flew, like Muslims at sunset —. have taken the LXX. version of xiv. 13, 14: lav Kara mpdcwrov "Iwydbav, kai énatagev av- + + &v Bodtor Kal év rerpoBdAots Kal év KOXAGEL ‘tov, for “they fell before Jonathan.... th as it were a half acre of ground, which a yoke % might plough.” The alteration of the He- Wcessary to produce this re.ding of the LXX., si by Kennicott (Diss-rt. on 1 Caron. xi. p. 458). al ii. 420) makes this last to be, ‘ Jonathan and JONATHAN 145i during the fast of Ramadan, on the captured cattle; aud devoured them, even to the brutal neglect of the law which forbade the dismemberment of the fresh carcases with the blood. This violation of the law Saul endeavored to prevent and to expi- ate by erecting a large stone, which served both as a rude table and as an altar; the first altar that was raised under the monarchy. It was in the dead of night after this wild revel was over that he proposed that the pursuit should be continued till dawn; and then, when the silence of the oracle of the high-priest indicated that something had oc- curred to intercept the Divine favor, the lot was tried, and Jonathan appeared as the culprit. Jeph- thah’s dreadful sacrifice would have been repeated ; but the people interposed in behalf of the hero of that great day; and Jonathan was saved © (xiv. 24-. 46). 2. This is the only great exploit of Jonathan’s life. But the chief interest of his career is derived from the friendship with David, which began on the day of Dayid’s return from the victory over the champion of Gath, and continued till his death It is the first Biblical instance of a romantic friend- ship, such as was common afterwards in Greece, and has been since in Christendom; and is remark- able both as giving its sanction to these, and as filled with a pathos of its own, which has been imitated, but never surpassed, in modern works of fiction. ‘The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul’? — “ Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”’ (1 Sam. xviii. 1; 2 Sam. i. 26). Each found in each the affection that he found not in his own family: no jealousy of rivalry between the two, as claimants for the same throne, ever interposed: ‘Thou shalt be king in Israel, and I shall be next unto thee’ 1 Sam. xxiii. 17). The friendship was confirmed, after the manner of the time, by a solemn compact often repeated. The first was immediately on their first acquaint- ance. Jonathan gave David as a pledge his royal mantle, his sword, his girdle, and his famous bow (xviii. 4). His fidelity was soon called into action by the insane rage of his father against David. He interceded for his life, at first with success (1 Sam. xix. 1-7). Then the madness returned and David fled. It was in a secret interview during this flight, by the stone of Izel, that the second covenant was made between the two friends, of a still more binding kind, extending to their mutual posterity — Jonathan laying such emphasis on this portion of the compact, as almost to suggest the belief of a slight misgiving on his part of David's future conduct in this respect. It is this interview which brings out the character of Jonathan in the liveliest. colors — his little artifices — his love for both his father and his friend — his bitter disap- pointment at his father’s unmanageable fury — his familiar sport of archery. With passionate em- braces and tears the two friends parted, to meet only once more (1 Sam. xx.). That one more meeting was far away in the forest of Ziph, during his friend were as a yoke of oxen ploughing, and re- sisting the sharp ploughshares.”’ b In xiv. 238, 81, the LXX. reads * Bamoth”’ for Beth-aven,”’ and omits ‘ Ajalon.” ¢ Josephus Ant. (vi. 6, § 5) puts into Jonathan’s mouth a speech of patriotic self-devotion, after the manner of a Greek or Roman. Ewald (ii. 483) sup- poses that a substitute was killed in his place. There is no trace of either of these in the sacred narrative. 1452 JONATHAN Saul’s pursuit of David. Jonathan’s alarm for his friend’s life is now changed into a confidence that he will escape: ‘ He strengthened his hand in God.”’? Finally, and for the third time, they re- newed the covenant, and then parted forever (1 Sam. xxiii. 16-18). From this time forth we hear no more till the battle of Gilboa. In that battle he fell, with his two brothers and his father, and his corpse shared their fate (1 Sam. xxxi. 2,8). [SAuL.] His ashes were buried first at Jabesh-Gilead (cbid. 13), but afterwards removed with those of his father to Zelah in Benjamin (2 Sam. xxi. 12). The news of his death occasioned the celebrated elegy of David, in which he, as the friend, naturally occu- pies the chief place (2 Sam. i. 22, 23, 25, 26), and which seems to have been sung in the education of the archers of Judah, in commemoration of the one great archer, Jonathan: “ He bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow”’ (2 Sam. i. dhe piaa Re He left one son, five years old at the time of his death (2 Sam. iv. 4), to whom he had prob- ably given his original name of Merib-baal, after- wards changed for Mephibosheth (comp. 1 Chr. viii. 34, ix. 40). ‘[MepHisosHEetTu.] Through him the line of descendants was continued down to the time of Ezra (1 Chr. ix. 40), and even then their great ancestor’s archery was practiced amongst them. [SAvL.] 2. (27. ) Son of Shimea, brother of Jon- nee and nephew of David (28 am. xxl. 21; 1 Chr. xx. 7). He inherited the union of civil and military gifts, so conspicuous in his uncle. Like David, he engaged in a single combat and slew a gigantic Philistine of Gath, who was remarkable for an additional finger and toe on each hand and foot (2 Sam. xxi. 21). If we may identify the Jonathan of 1 Chr. xxvii. 82 with the Jonathan of this pas- sage, where the word translated ‘uncle’? may be “6 nephew,”’ he was (like his brother Jonadab) ‘¢ wise’? —and as such, was David's counsellor and secretary. Jerome ( Quest. Heb. on 1 Sam. xvii. 12) conjectures that this was Nathan the prophet, thus making up the 8th son, not named in 1 Chr. ii. 13-15. But this is not probable 3. [Jonathas.] The son of Abiathar, the high- priest. He is the last descendant of Eli, of whom we hear anything. He appears on two occasions. 1. On the day of David’s flight from Absalom, having first accompanied his father Abiathar as far as Olivet (2 Sam. xv. 36), he returned with him to Jerusalem, and was there, with Ahimaaz the son of Zadok, employed as a messenger to carry back the news of Hushai’s plans to David (xvii. * 15-21). 2. On the day of Solomon’s inauguration, he suddenly broke in upon the banquet of Adonijah, to announce the success of the rival prince (1 K. i. 42,43). It may be inferred from Adonijah’s ex- pression (“Thou art a valiant man, and bringest good tidings ’’), that he had followed the policy of his father Abiathar in Adonijah’s support. On both occasions, it may be remarked that he appears as the swift and trusty messenger. 4. The son of Shage the Hararite (1 Chr. xi. 34; 2 Sam. xxiii. 82). He was one of David’s heroes (gibborim). The ILXX. makes his father’s name Sola (SwAd), and applies the epithet « Ara- rite”? (6 ’Apapi) to Jonathan himself. “ Harar”’ is not mentioned elsewhere as a place; but it is a poetical word for “ Har’’ (mountain), and, as such, ” ig JONATHAN may possibly signify in this passage (the ie taineer.’’ Another officer (Ahiam) is ment with Jonathan, as bearing the same _ (1 Chr, xi. 35): A. aes 5. (DT. ) The son, or - descendan Gershom the son of Moses, whose name iy Masoretic copies is changed to Manasseh, in | to screen the memory of the great lawgiiver the disgrace which attached to the apostasy o} so closely connected with him (Judg. xyiii, While wandering through the country in s of a home, the young Levite of Bethlehem-J came to the house of Micah, the rich Ephrai and was by him appointed to be a kind of pr chaplain, and to minister in the house of a sanctuary, which Micah had made in imitatic that at Shiloh. He was recognized by the Danite spies appointed by their tribe to seare land for an inheritance, who lodged in the ] of Micah on their way northwards. The fayo answer which he gave when consulted with 1 to the issue of their expedition probably inc them, on their march to Laish with the wai of their tribe, to turn aside again to the hou; Micah, and carry off the ephod and teraphim, s stitiously hoping thus to make success cel Jonathan, to whose ambition they appealed, ac panied them, in spite of the remonstrances ¢ patron; he was present at the massacre of tl fenseless inhabitants of Laish, and in the newt which rose from its ashes, he was constituted of the graven image, an office which became I? itary in his family till the Captivity. The Ta) of R. Joseph, on 1 Chr. xxiii. 16, identifeii with Shebuel the son of Gershom, who is said to have repented (RAIA Tay in ho age, and to have been appointed by David as i over his treasures. All this arises from ak upon the name Shebuel, from which this me} is extracted in accordance with a favorite pri of the Targumist. 6. (712°.) One of the sons of Adin ! viii. 6), whose representative Ebed returned itt Ezra at the head of fifty males, a number wh} increased to two hundred and fifty in 1 Esdrit 32, where Jonathan is written Iwvddas. _ 7. [In 1 Esdr., "Iwvd@as: Jonathas.| A ys the son of Asahel, one of the four who assisted in investigating the marriages with foreign wie which had been eoneraciad by the people 1 returned from Babylon (Ezra x. 15; 1 Es : 8. [Vat. Alex. FA.1 omit. ] A. priest, an of the chiefs of the fathers in the days of Joiit son of Jeshua. t family of Melicu (Neh. xii. 14). 9. One of the sons of Kareah, and brot Johanan (Jer. xl. 8). The LXX. in this pa omit his name altogether, and in this they aru ported by two of Kennicott’s MSS., and the pl! passage of 2 K. xxv. 23. In three others of nicott’s it was erased, and was originally oe in three of De Rossi’s. He was one of the cat of the army who had escaped from Jerusa? the final assault by the Chaldseans, and, aft) capture of Zedekiah at Jericho, had cross" Jordan, and remained in the open country |” Ammonites till the victorious army had retire!™ their spoils and captives. He accompanit } brother Johanan and the other captains, W - JONATHAN to Gedaliah at Mizpah, and from that time ar nothing more of him. Hitzig decides t the LXX. and the MSS. which omit the (Der Proph. Jeremias), on the ground that ry similarity between Jonathan and Johanan the belief that they were brothers. Wea. Ww. qn: > "Iwvddav; [FA. once Iwavabay-]}) " Joiada, and his suecessor in the high-priest- ' The only fact connected with his pontificate ad in Scripture, is that the genealogical rec- f the priests and Levites were kept in his Teh. xii. 11, 22), and that the chronicles of te were i inued to his time (id. 23). Jon- (or, as he is called in Neh. xii. 22, 23, John ian]) lived, of course, long after the death of liah, and in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon. ‘us, who also calls him J ohn, as do Eusebius 4 icephorus likewise, relates that he murdered n brother Jesus in the Temple, because Jesus -deavoring to get the high-priesthood from (rough the influence of Bagoses the Persian |. He adds that John by this misdeed i two great judgments upon the Jews: the fat Bagoses entered into the Temple and fd it; the other, that he imposed a heavy tax ‘shekels upon every lamb offered in sacrifice, ‘ish them for this horrible crime (A. ./. xi. Jonathan, or John, was high-priest for rs, according to Eusebius and the Alexandr. ‘| (Seld. de Success. in P. E. cap. vi., vii.). in speaks of the murder of Jesus as “ the only able transaction in the annals of Judea from ‘th of Nehemiah to the time of Alexander eat” (Hist. of Jews, ii. 29). | [Vat. FA.1 Twavay.] Father of Zechariah, t who blew the trumpet at the dedication of Il (Neh. xii. 35). He seems to have been course of Shemaiah. The words ‘son of”’ 0 be improperly inserted before the following Mattaniah, as appears by comparing xi. 17. 1 ak OEM 5 l CIwvddas.) 1 Esdr. viii. 32. [See No. 6.] l, (Sin.1 1 Mace. ii. 5, IwvaOys; Sin.c# Alex. Ais; SO Sin. in v. 17: Jonathas.] >= SENOS of the high-roads to Damascus. Another road to Damascus was from Ndbulus through Beisdn, and was brought over by the bridge at the mouth of the Yarmik. The sites of these cities, with their history, are discussed under their respective names; and for the same reason we abstain from going deeply into the physical features of the Jordan or of the Ghor, for these will be treated of more at large under the general head of Palestine. We shall confine ourselves therefore to the most cursory notice. As there were slime-pits, or pits of bitu- men, and salt-pits (Gen. xi. 8; Zeph. ii. 9) in the vale of Siddim, on the extreme south, so Mr. Thomson speaks of bitumen wells 20 minutes from the bridge over the Hashbezya on the extreme north; while Ain el-Mellihah above L. Ihileh is emphatically “the fountain of the salt works” 1462 JORDAN JOSEPH . (Lynch’s Narrat., p. 470). Thermal springs are frequent about the Lake of Tiberias; the most cele- brated, below the town bearing that name (Robin- Son, li. 884, 385); some near Emmaus (Lynch, p. 467), some near Magdala, and some not far from Gadara (Irby, pp. 90,91). The hill of Dan is said to be an extinct crater, and masses of volcanic rock and tufa are noticed by Lynch not far from the mouth of the Yarmik (Narrat., April 12). Dark basalt is the characteristic of the rocks in the upper stage; trap, limestone, sandstone, and conglomerate in the lower. On the 2d day of the passage a bank of fuller’s-earth was observed. How far the Jordan in olden time was ever a zone of cultivation like the Nile is uncertain. Now, with the exception of the eastern shores of the L. Hileh, the hand of man may be said to have disappeared from its banks. ‘The genuine Arab is a nomad by nature, and contemns agricul- ture. There, however, Dr. Robinson, in the month of May, found the land tilled almost down to the lake; and large crops of wheat, barley, maize, sesame, and rice rewarded the husbandman. Horses, cattle, and sheep — all belonging to the Chawérineh tribe — fattened on the rich pasture ; and large herds of black buffaloes luxuriated in the streams and in the deep mire of the marshes (vol. iii. p. 896). These are doubtless lineal descendants of the “fat bulls of Bashan,” as the “oaks of Ba- shan ”’ are still the magnificent staple tree of those regions. Cultivation degenerates as we advance southwards. Corn-fields wave round Gennesaret on the W., and the palm and vine, fig and pome- granate, are still to be seen here and there. Melons ~grown on its shores are of great size and much esteemed. Pink oleanders, and a rose-colored spe- cies of hollyhock, in great profusion, wait upon every approach toa rill or spring. These gems of nature reappear in the lower course of the Jordan. There the purple thistle, the bright yellow marigold and scarlet anemone saluted the adventurers of the New World: the laurestinus and oleander, cedar and arbutus, willow and tamarisk, accompanied them on their route. As the climate became more tropical and the lower Ghor was entered, large ghurrah trees, like the aspen, with silvery foliage, overhung them; and the cane, frequently impene- trable and now in blossom, “ was ever at the water’s edge.” Only once during the whole voyage, on the 4th day, were patches of wheat and barley visible, but the hand that had sowed them lived far away. As Jeremiah in the O. T., and St. Jerome and Phocas (see Reland as above) among Christian pil- grims, had spoken of the Jordan as the resort of lions, so tracks of tigers, wild boars, and the like, presented themselves from time to time to these explorers. Flocks of wild ducks, of cranes, of pigeons, and of swallows, were scared by their ap- proach; and a specimen of the bulbul, or Syrian nightingale, fell into their hands. The scenery throughout was not inspiring —it was of a sub- dued character when they started; profoundly gloomy and dreary near ford Siikwa; and then utterly sterile just before they reached Jericho. With the exception of a few Arab tribes —so sav- age as scarce to be considered exceptions — hu- manity had become extinct on its banks. We cannot take leave of our subject without pa rt gel et ob a * For general sketches of the Jordan Valley the reader may see, also, Robinson, Phys. Geogr. of Pal- estine, p. 82 f., pp. 144-164; Rawlinson, Ancient Mon- expressing our warmest thanks to our Transat] brethren. It was not enough that Dr. Robj should have eclipsed all other writers who had ceded him in his noble work upon Palestine, that a nation from the extreme W.— from a tinent utterly unknown to the Old or New T ment — should have been the first to accom the navigation of that sacred river, which has before the world so prominently for nearly « years; this is a fact which surely ought not passed over by any writer on the Jordan in sik or uncommemorated.@ K. 8. i JORIBAS CIépiBos: Joribus) = JARN Esdr. viii. 44; comp. Ezr. viii. 16). | JOR IBUS (IdpiBos: Joribus) = Tarn Esdr. ix. 19; comp. Ezr. x. 18). | JO’RIM (Iwpeiu: [Jorim]), son of Matt in the genealogy of Christ (Luke iii. 29), in 13th generation from David inclusive; about. temporary, therefore, with Ahaz. The form of name is anomalous, and should probably be ei: Joram or Joiarim. A. Gee JOR’KOAM (BYP [diffusion of the | ple, First]: "lexadv; [Vat. laxAav;]} Alex. | kaav: Jercaam), either a descendant of Caleb son of Hezron, through Hebron, or, as Jarchi cy the name of a place in the tribe of Judah, of wl Raham was prince (1 Chr. ii. 44). It was pr bly in the neighborhood of Hebron. Jerome | it in the form Jerchaam ( Quest. Hebr. in Pari) JOS’ABAD. 1. Clay [Jehovah is giv "Iwa(aBad [Vat. -BaB]; Alex. Tw(aBad; Iw(aBaB: Jezabad.) — Properly JOZABAD, Gederathite, one of the hardy warriors of Benja'2 who left Saul to follow the fortunes of David dup his residence among the Philistines at Ziklac) Chr. xii. 4). = 2. (‘IwoaBdes; [Vat. lwoaBees; Ald. Iwo ados:| Josadus)= Jozabad, son of Jeshua Levite (1 Esdr. viii. 63; comp. Ezr. viii. 33). | 3. ([Rom. "Iw(dB5os; Vat. ZaBsdos; Ald. ’- odBados;] Alex. A¢aBados: Zabdias), one of ) sons of Bebai (1 Esdr. ix. 29). [ZABBAI.] JOS’APHAT ( "Iwoapar: Josaphat) =. HOSHAPHAT, king of Judah (Matt. i. 8). 1 JOSAPHIAS (Iwcaptas: Josaphias)=\- SIPHIAH (1 Esdr. viii. 836; comp. Ezr. viii. 10) * JO’SH, A. V., Luke iii. 29 mi A JOSES, which see. Ay JOSNEDEC (Iwoeddée: Josedec, Josede, 1 Esdr. vy. 5, 48, 56, vi. 2, ix. 19; Ecelus. xix. : == JEHOZADAK or JozADAK, the father of Jesh, whose name also appears as JosEDECH (Hag. i. | JO’/SEPH Gleb) [see infra]: "Iwaohd: a seph). 1. The elder of the two sons of Jes) Rachel. Like his brethren, he received hig na} on account of the circumstances of his birth. 1 E read that Rachel was long barren, but that at * she “bare a son; and said, God hath taken aw (F)DN) my reproach : and she called his name Tose (FID); saying, the Lord will add (#)D*) to | another son” (Gen. xxx. 23, 24); a hope fulfil) in the birth of Benjamin (comp. xxxy. 17). qT archies, iv. 256, 277 ; Tristram, Natural History of fi Bible, pp.5, 10, 22 ; and, especially, Gage’s translation — Ritter’s Geogr. of Palestine, ii. 14, 50-53, 161, &¢ a JOSEPH JOSEPH 1463 e seems to indicate a double etymology (from | long tunic with sleeves, worn by youths and maid- ens of the richer class.o The hatred of Joseph’s brethren was increased by his telling of a dream foreshowing that they would bow down to him, which was followed by another of the same import.¢ It is remarkable that thus early prophetic dreams appear in Joseph’s life. This part of the history (xxxvii. 3-11) may perhaps be regarded as a retro- spective introduction to the narrative of the great crime of the envious brethren. They had gone to Shechem to feed the flock, and Joseph was sent thither from the vale of Hebron by his father to bring him word of their welfare and that of the flock. They were not at Shechem, but were gone to Dothan, which appears to have been not very far distant, pasturing their flock like the Arabs of the present day, wherever the wild country (ver. 22) was unowned. On Joseph’s approach, his brethren, except Reuben, resolved to kill him; but Reuben saved him, persuading them to cast him into a dry pit with the intent that he might restore him to his father. Accordingly when Joseph was come, they stripped him of his tunic and cast him into the pit, “and they sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and behold, a company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery [?] and balm and gum ladanum [?], going to carry [it] down to Egypt” (ver. 25).— In passing we must call attention to the interest of this early notice of the trade be- tween Palestine and Egypt. — The Ishmaelites are also called Midianites in the narrative: that the two names are used interchangeably is evident from ver. 28; it must therefore be supposed that one of them is generic; the caravan ‘came from Gilead ”? and brought balm;@ so that it is reasonable to infer the merchants to have been Midianites, and that they are also called Ishmaelites by a kind of generic use of that name. Judah suggested to his brethren to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, appeal- ing at once to their covetousness and, in proposing a less cruel course than that on which they were eae and ¥)D%). There is nothing improbable in planation, because of the relation of the tak- ay the reproach to the expectation of another Such double etymologies are probably more nin Hebrew names than is. generally sup- ‘date of Joseph’s birth relatively to that of ming of Jacob into Egypt is fixed by the n that he was thirty years old when he be- xovernor of Egypt (xli. 46), which agrees ie statement that he was “seventeen years ‘xxvii. 2) about the time that his brethren m. He was therefore born about 39 years ‘Jacob came into Egypt, and, according to the ogy which we hold to be the most probable, r. 1906. : Joseph's birth he is first mentioned when h, seventeen years old. As the child of and “son of his old age”’ (xxxvii. 3), and ss also for his excellence of character, he loved by his father above all his brethren. ly at this time Rachel was already dead and fin but an infant, Benjamin, that other of his old age” (xliv. 20), whom Jacob tds loved as all that remained of Rachel jie supposed Joseph dead — “his brother is fid he alone is left of his mother, and his ‘oveth him’* (/.c.).¢ Jacob at this time » small pieces of land in Canaan, Abraham’s j-place at Hebron in the south, and the of a field, where he [Jacob] had spread i,” (Gen. xxxiii. 19), at Shechem in the he latter being probably, from its price, the _ the two. He seems then to have stayed (on with the aged Isaac while his sons kept s. Joseph, we read, brought the evil re- ‘his brethren to his father, and they hated ause his father loved him more than them, shown his preference by making him a dress 4379), which appears to have been a ording to the order of the narrative, Rachel’s leceded the selling of Joseph; it is unlikely ‘years should have elapsed between the birth 4 and that of Benjamin; and as Benjamin sons at the coming into Egypt (xlvi. 21), it is probable that he was born no more than 22 }ore. There is moreover no mention of Rachel €1¢ allusion in the speech of Judah to Joseph, dove (xliv. 20), in the whole subsequent nar- @.ntil dying Jacob, when he blesses Ephraim mwsseh, returns to the thought of his beloved _ Says, ‘And as for me, when I came from nachel died by me in the land of Canaan in ’é when yet [there was] but a little way to come ‘vath: and I buried her there in the way of a) the same [is] Beth-lehem ” (xlviii. 7). Jo- 8 tiety in Egypt to see Benjamin seems to favor hat he had known him as a child. When His sold, Benjamin can, however, have only Vv. young, Maame of this dress secins to signify “a tunic M0 the extremities.» It was worn by David’s h Tamar, being the dress of * the king’s daugh- [tj were] virgins” (2 Sam. xiii. 18, see 19). *4m8 no reason for the LXX. rendering xiTwy Acor the Vulg. polymita, except that it is very '¢ such a tunic would be ornamented with Tipes, or embroidered. The richer classes 8/@ ancient Egyptians wore long dresses of n. The people of Palestine and Syria, rep- n the Egyptian monuments as enemies or tributaries, wore similar dresses, partly colored, gen- erally with a stripe round the skirts and the borders of the sleeves, ¢ From Joseph’s second dream, and his father’s rebuke, it might be inferred that Rachel was living at the time that he dreamt it. It is indeed possible that it may have occurred some time before the sell- ing of Joseph, and been interpreted by Jacob of Ra- chel, who certainly was not alive at its fulfillment, so that it could not apply to her. Yet, if Leah only survived, Jacob might have spoken of her as Joseph's mother, The dream, moreover, indicates eleven breth- ren besides the father and mother of Joseph ; if there- fore Benjamin were already born, Rachel must have been dead: the reference is therefore more probably to Leah, who may have been living when Jacob went into Egypt. d The three articles of commerce carried by the caravan we have rendered spicery, balm, and gum ladanum. The meaning of FSD) is extremely doubtful: there is nothing to guide us but the ren- derings of the LXX @vyiaya and the Vulg. aromata, and the congruity of their meaning with that of the name of the second article. As to the ‘N, there can be no doubt that it was a kind of balm, although its exact kind is difficult to determine. The meaning of w> is not certain: perhaps gum ladanum is a not improbable conjecture. 1464 JOSEPH probably stiil resolved, to what remnant of broth- erly feeling they may still have had. Accordingly they took Joseph out of the pit and sold him “ for twenty [shekels] of silver’? (ver. 28), which we find to have been, under the Law, the value of a male from five to twenty years old (Lev. xxvii. 5).¢ Probably there was a constant traffic in white slaves, and the price, according to the unchangeableness of eastern customs, long remained the same. It is worthy of remark that we here already find the descendants of Abraham’s concubines oppressing the lawful heirs. Reuben was absent, and on his return to the pit was greatly distressed at not find- ing Joseph. His brethren pretended to Jacob that Joseph had been killed by some wild beast, taking to him the tunic stained with a kid’s blood, while even Reuben forbore to tell him the truth, all speak- ing constantly of the lost brother as though they knew not: what had befallen him, and even as dead. “And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down unto my son mourning into the grave. Thus his father wept for him” (Gen. xxxvii. 34, 35). Jacob's lamentation shows that he knew of a future state, for what comfort would he have in going into his own grave when he thought that his lost son had been torn by wild beasts? This is one of the cases in which we should certainly understand “ Hades’’ by ‘the grave,’’ and may translate, ‘For I will go down unto my son mourning to Hades.’ ¢ The Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, ‘‘an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the execution- ers, an Egyptian’’ (xxxix. 1; comp. xxxvii. 36).¢ We have probably no right to infer, as Gesenius has done (Thes. s. v. (12"%), that by the execu- tioners we are to understand the same as the king’s guard or body-guard.¢ This may be the case when the Chaldzeans are spoken of, for the immediate in- fliction of punishment under the very eye of the sovereign was always usual both with Shemites and Tartars, as a part of their system of investing the regal power with terror; but the more refined Egyptians and their responsible kings do not seem to have practiced a custom which nothing but ne- cessity could render tolerable. That in this case the title is to be taken literally, is evident from the control exercised by Potiphar over the king’s prison (xxxix. 20), and from the fact that this prison is afterwards shown to have been in the house of the captain of the executioners, that officer then being doubtless a successor of Potiphar (xl. 3, 4). The name Potiphar is written in hieroglyphies PEr- PA-RA or PET-p-RA, and signifies “ belonging to @ Kalisch remarks (ad loc.) that twenty shekels was ‘ta price less than that ordinarily paid for a Hebrew slave (Ex. xxi. 82; Ley. xxvii. 5)? The former reference is to the fine to be paid, thirty shek- els of silver, to the owner of a slave, male or female, gored to death by an ox: the latter disproves his assertion. The payment must have been by weight, since there is no reason to believe that coined money was known at this remote period. [Monry.] b The daughters here mentioned were probably the wives of Jacob’s sons: he seems to have had but one daughter; and if he had many grand-daughters, few would have been born thus early. ¢ For this interesting inference we are indebted to Dr. Marks. On the knowledge of the future state JOSEPH Ra” (the sun). It occurs again, with a g} different orthography, Poti-pherah, as the na Joseph’s father-in-law, priest or prince of Q; may be remarked that as Ra was the chief dj of On, or Heliopolis, it is an interesting a coincidence that the latter should bear a nar dicating devotion to Ra. [PoripHAR.] | It is important to observe that a careful parison of evidence has led us to the cone that, at the time that Joseph was sold into ] the country was not united under the rule, single native line, but governed by several ¢, ties, of which the Fifteenth Dynasty, of She Kings, was the predominant line, the rest tributary to it. The absolute dominions o dynasty lay in Lower Egypt, and it would | fore always be most connected with a : i ! \ The manners described are Egyptian, alt) there is apparently an occasional slight tin Shemitism. The date of Joseph’s arrival we i consider B. C. cir. 1890. [EGypr; CHRONoL) In Egypt, the second period of Joseph] begins. ‘As a child he had been a true soy withstood the evil example of his brethren)! is now to serve a strange master in the har of slavery, and his virtue will be put to a s% proof than it had yet sustained. Joseph a in the house of the Egyptian, who, seeing tha blessed him, and pleased with his good i ‘set him over his house, and all [that] he 1) gave into his hand”’ (xxxix. 4, comp. 5). En placed over all his master’s property with jf trust, and “ the Lord blessed the ep for Joseph’s sake”’ (ver. 5). The seulptura paintings of the ancient Egyptian tombs 1 vividly before us the daily life and duties of i The property of great men is shown to hayie managed by scribes, who exercised a most mic ical and minute supervision over all the oper of agriculture, gardening, the keeping of live) and fishing. Every product was carefully tered to check the dishonesty of the laboreri in Egypt have always been famous in this re Probably in no country was farming ever mois) tematic. Joseph’s previous knowledge of tei flocks, and perhaps of husbandry, and his tri character, exactly fitted him for the post of’ seer. How long he filled it we are noto “ Joseph was fair of form and fair in appear’ (xxxix. 6). His master’s wife, with the well- profligacy of the Egyptian women, temptec’! and failing, charged him with the crime she have made him commit. Potiphar, incensed alt Joseph, cast him into prison. It must not [yt posed, from the lowness of the morals of the {y tians in practice, that the sin of unfaithfulny among the Israelites during and after the Egypt, see art. Eaypr. i d The word DMD, which we haye re” “officer,” with the A. V., properly means “eu h as explained in the margin, although it is als in the Bible in the former sense (Gesen. Thes. Potiphar’s office would scarcely have been givele eunuch, and there is, we believe, no evidenc™ there were such in the Egyptian courts in ele times. ‘This very word first occurs in hierogly!!¢ written sars, as a title of Persian functionar d inscriptions of the time of the Persian dominio — e ONT TW must mean “ captain ‘ “T- - - } {] executioners,” from Potiphar’s connection eet Ht prison, although the LXX. renders it apxymaye4 sojo2 JOSEPH fe was not ranked among the heaviest vices. punishment of adulterers was severe, and a ‘al tale recently interpreted, “ The Two Broth- » jg founded upon a ease nearly tesembling _ of Joseph. It has, indeed, been imagined this story was based upon the trial of Joseph, as it was written for the heir to the throne of pt at a later period, there is some reason in the | that the virtue of one who had held so high sition as Joseph might have been in the mind jhe writer, were this part of his history well ,wn to the priests, which, however, is not likely. |; incident, moreover, is not so remarkable as to }ify great stress being laid upon the similarity (; of the main event of a moral tale.* The iy of Bellerophon might as reasonably be traced t, were it Egyptian and not Greek. The Mus- | have founded upon the history of Joseph and »phar’s wife, whom they call Yoosuf and Ze- gaa, a famous religious allegory. This is much 2 wondered at, as the Kur-an relates the tempt- ,of Joseph with no material variation in the #1 particulars from the authentic narrative. The ¢mentators say, that after the death of Potiphar feer) Joseph married Zeleekha (Sale, ch. xii.). . mistake was probably caused by the circum- te that Joseph’s father-in-law bore the same 42 as his master. otiphar, although convinced of Joseph’s guilt, not appear to have brought him before a tri- il, where the enormity of his alleged crime, stially after the trust placed in him, and the af his being a foreigner, which was made much f his master’s wife (xxxix. 14, 17), would prob- ( have insured a punishment of the severest i. He seems to have only cast him into the n, which appears to have been in his house, at least, under his control, since afterwards ners are related to have been put “in ward i the house of the captain of the executioners, n the prison ’’ (xl. 3), and simply, “ in ward [in] beaptain of the executioners’ house’? (xli. 10, 0). xl. 7). The prison is described as “a place ve the king’s prisoners [were] bound”? (xxxix. (| Here the hardest time of Joseph’s period of Mationgbegan. He was cast into prison on a a) accusation, to remain there for at least two é;, and perhaps for a much longer time. At ii he was treated with severity; this we learn Ps. ey., “ He sent a man before them, Joseph Wi]: was sold for a slave: whose feet they af- ee el ooo AR VSM Joseph’s complaint to the chief of the cupbearers, *,1 here also have I done nothing that they should ‘° Worst part of a prison, here it must be merely *q alent, as in xli. 14, to “DIT (xxxix, Yc), which seems properly a milder term. -t has been imagined, from the account of the it, of the chief of the cupbearers, that the wine ‘drunk by the king of Egypt may have been the JOSEPH 1465 flicted with the fetter: the iron entered into his soul’? (ver. 17, 18). There is probably here a connection between ‘fetter’? and “iron”? (comp exlix. 8), in which case the signification of the last clause would be “the iron entered into him,” meaning that the fetters cut his feet or legs. This is not inconsistent with the statement in Genesis that the keeper of the prison treated Joseph well (xxxix. 21), for we are not justified in thence in- ferring that he was kind from the first.° In the prison, as in Potiphar’s house, Joseph was found worthy of complete trust, aud the keeper of the prison placed everything under his control, God's especial blessing attending his honest service. After a while, Pharaoh was incensed against two of his officers, “the chief of the cup-bearers ” (OWT “w), and “the chief of the bakers”’ (DSDNA “Ww), and cast them into the prison where Joseph was. Here the chief of the execu- tioners, doubtless a successor of Potiphar (for, had the latter been convinced of Joseph’s innocence, he would not have left him in the prison, and if not so convinced, he would not have trusted him), charged Joseph to serve these prisoners. Like Potiphar, they were * officers’? of Pharaoh (xl. 2), and though it may be a mistake to call them gran- dees, their easy access to the king would give them an importance that explains the care taken of them by the chief of the executioners. [ach dreamed a prophetic dream, which Joseph interpreted, dis- claiming human skill and acknowledging that in- terpretations were of God. It is not necessary here to discuss in detail the particulars of this part of Joseph’s history, since they do not materially affect the leading events of his life; they are however very interesting from their perfect agreement with the manners of the ancient Egyptians as represented on their monuments.¢ Joseph, when he told the chief of the cup-bearers of his coming restoration to favor, prayed him to speak to Pharaoh for him; but he did not remember him. ‘¢ After two years,’’@ Joseph’s deliverance came. Pharaoh dreamed two prophetic dreams. “ He stood by the river ”’ [T8, the Nile].¢ And, be- hold, coming up out of the river seven kine [or ‘heifers ’], beautiful in appearance and fat-fleshed ; and they fed in the marsh-grass [WS]./ And, behold, seven other kine coming up after them out fresh unfermented juice of the grape; but the nature of the dream, which embraces a long period, and merely indicates the various stages of the growth of the tree and fruit as though immediately following one another, would allow the omission of the process of preparing the wine. The evidence of the monu- ments makes it very improbable that unfermented wine was drunk by the ancient inhabitants, so that it seems impossible that it should ever have taken the place of fermented or true wine, which was the national beverage of the higher classes at least. d Lit. “at the end of two years of days; but we may read “after”? for “at the end;” and the word “ days? appears merely to indicate that the year was a period of time, or possibly is used to distinguish the ordinary year from a greater period, the year of days from the year of years. é This word is probably of Egyptian origin. [Ecypt; Nuae.]} J There can be no doubt that this is an Egyptian word. The LXX. does not translate it (Gen. xli. 2, 18; Is. xix. 7); and Jesus the son of Sirach, an 1466 JOSEPH of the river, evil in appearance, and lean-fleshed ”’ (xli. 1-3). These, afterwards described still more strongly, ate up the first seven, and yet, as is said in the second account, when they had eaten them remained as lean as before (xli. 1-4, 17-21). Then Pharaoh had a second dream — ‘“ Behold, seven ears of corn coming up on one stalk, fat [or ‘full,’ ver. 22] and good. And, behold, seven ears, thin and blasted with the east wind,2 sprouting forth after them ”’ (ver. 5, 6). These, also described more strongly in the second account, devoured the first seven ears (ver. 5-7, 22-24). In the morning Pharaoh sent for the “ scribes,” (AYA), and the “wise men,” and they were unable to give him an interpretation. Then the chief of the cupbearers remembered Joseph, and told Pharaoh how a young Hebrew, “ servant to the captain of the execution- ers,” had interpreted his and his fellow-prisoner’s dreams. ‘ I'hen Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they made him hasten out of the prison: and he shaved [himself }, and changed his raiment, and came unto Pharaoh” (ver. 14). The king then related his dreams, and Joseph, when he had dis- claimed human wisdom, declared to him that they were sent of God to forewarn Pharaoh. There was essentially but one dream. Both kine and ears symbolized years. There were to be seven years of great plenty in Egypt, and after them seven years of consuming and “very heavy famine.’ The doubling of the dream denoted that the events it foreshadowed were certain and imminent. On the interpretation it may be remarked, that it seems evident that the kine represented the animal prod- ucts, and the ears of corn the vegetable products, the most important object in each class representing the whole class. Any reference to Egyptian super- stitions, such as some commentators have imagined, is both derogatory to revelation and, on purely crit- ical grounds, unreasonable. ‘The perfectly Egyptian color of the whole narrative is very noticeable, and nowhere more so than in the particulars of the first dream. ‘The cattle coming up from the river and feeding on the bank may be seen even now, though among them the lean kine predominate; and the use of one Egyptian word, if not of two, in the narrative, probably shows that the writer knew the Egyptian language. The corn with many ears on one stalk must be wheat, one kind of which now Egyptian Jew, uses it untranslated (Ecclus. xl. 16): it is written in these places ay, dxer. Jerome remarks that when he asked the learned Egyptians what this word meant, they said that in their language this name was given to every kind of marsh-plant (‘ omne quod in palude virens nascitur,” Com. in Is. 1. ¢.). The change of the ancient Egyptian vowel Ex to } is quite consistent with the laws of permutation which we discover by a comparison of Egyptian and Hebrew (Enc. Brit. 8th ed. “ Hieroglyphics”). This word oc- curs with Sap in Job viii. 11. The latter we have supposed to be there used generically, as ‘* the reed ” [Eeypt] ; but from the occurrence of an Egyptian word with it, it may be inferred to have its special significa- tion, “the papyrus.” The former word, however, seems to be always generic. [FLac, Amer. ed.] @ Bunsen remarks upon this word: “ Der Ostwind, der wegen seiner fiinfzigtigigen Dauer jetzt in Hgypten Chamsin heisst, ist sehr trocken und hat Verwandschaft mit dem Samum (d. h. der Giftige), dem erstickenden Sturmwind des wiisten Arabien, der im April und Mai herrscht ”’ (Bibelwerk, ad loc.). But it should be ob- served: 1. The east wind does not blow during the JOSEPH grown in Egypt has this peculiarity. Ano point to be remarked is, that Joseph shaved }y he went into Pharaoh’s presence, and we find { the monuments that the Egyptians, except ¥ engaged in war, shaved both the head and face, small beard that was worn on the chin being p ably artificial. Having interpreted the dream, seph counselled Pharaoh to choose a wise man set him over the country, in order that he sh take the fifth part of the produce of the seven y of plenty against the years of famine. To this | post the king appointed Joseph. Thus, when was thirty years of age, was he at last released f his state of suffering, and placed in a positior the greatest honor. About thirteen years’ pr tion had prepared him for this trust; some | passed as Potiphar’s slave, some part, probably greater, in the prison. If our views of Heh and Egyptian chronology be correct, the Phar here mentioned was Assa, Manetho’s Assis or As Whose reign we suppose to have about occupied first half of the nineteenth century RB. ©. Pharaoh, seeing the wisdom of giving Jos whom he perceived to be under God's guida greater powers than he had advised should be gi to the officer set over the country, made him only governor of Egypt, but second only to. sovereign. We read: “And Pharaoh took off | signet ¢ from his hand, and put it upon Jose} hand, and arrayed him in yestures of fine li (WW, byssus), and put a collar of gold about neck; and he made him to ride in the sec chariot which he had; and they cried before | Abrech (JN), even to set him over all the |) of Egypt’’ (xli. 42, 43). The monuments s; that on the investiture of a high official in Eg. one of the chief ceremonies was the putting on a collar of gold (see Ancient Egyptians, pl. | the other particulars, the vestures of fine linen the riding in the second chariot, are equally in cordance with the manners of the country. | meaning of what was cried before him has not | satisfactorily determined.¢ We are told that Phal named Joseph Zaphnath-paaneah (xli. 49) (712: M298, Vov0oupavyx), the signification of w! Khamdaseen. 2. The spring hot winds are eat 3. They do not last fifty days. 4. They are not ci( Chamsin (Khamseen) or Khamdaseen. 5. They pre! usually for three days at a time, during the ait weeks (49 days) following Easter, vulgarly calle Egypt Khamdseen, which is a plural of Khamse¢? term applied in the singular to neither winds ) period, though they are not strictly confined toi fluctuating period. 6. They have no relation tox Samoom, which occurs in any hot weather, and cl lasts more than a quarter of an hour. 7. The Samf is not peculiar to Arabia. b We only know that Joseph was two years in pi after the liberation of the chief of the cupbearers. preponderance of evidence, however, seems in faye M supposing that he was longer in prison than in. phar’s house. 3 ¢ The signet was of so much importance with é ancient Egyptian kings that their names (@ perhaps in the earliest period) were always inc. in an oval which represented an elongated signet.) d We do not here except Bunsen’s etymology (J werk, ad loc.), for we doubt that the root bears) signification he gives it, and think the construy® inadmissible. | | i 4 JOSEPH ibtful. [See ZAPHNATH-PAANFAH.] He gave him to wife Asenath daughter of Poti- 1, priest [or ‘prince,’ ID] of On” (ver. Whether Joseph’s father-in-law were priest or cannot, we think, be determined,“ although ‘mer seems more likely, since On was a very y city, and there is no good reason to think priest would have been more exclusive than her Egyptian functionary. His name, im- devotion to Ra, the principal object of pat On, though, as already noticed, appro- to any citizen of that place, would be espe- 30 toa priest. [PorrrHar.] It is worthy ark that On appears to have been the capital, xems to have been certainly the religious , as containing the great temple, of Apepee, sherd-king, probably of the same line as (i Pharaoh. (Select Papyri; Brugsch, uift d. Deutsch. Morgenland. Gesellschaft.) ime of Joseph's wife we are disposed to con- >be Hebrew.o [AsenaTH.] ph’s history, as governor of Egypt, shows two relations, which may be here separately ‘ved. We shall first speak of his adminis- of the country, and then of his conduct to athren. In one respect, as bearing upon "3 moral character, the two subjects are ‘connected, but their details may be best ‘apart, if we keep this important aspect con- ‘in view. ‘h’s first act was to go “ throughout all the f Egypt” (ver. 46). During “the seven us years” there was a very abundant produce, ‘gathered the fifth part, as he had advised h, and laid it up. The narrative, according itie usage, speaks as though he had taken ole produce of the country, or the whole |, produce (ver. 48); but a comparison with el passage shows that our explanation must ect (ver. 34, 35). The abundance of this evident from the statement that “Joseph id corn as the sand of the sea, very much, + left numbering; for [it was] without num- ver. 49). The representations of the monu- {which show that the contents of the gran- sere accurately noted by the scribes when re filled, well illustrate this passage. ce the years of famine Asenath bare Joseph 8, of whom we read that he named «the 1 Manasseh [a forgetter]: For God [said 'a made me forget all my toil, and all my house. And the name of the second called raim [fruitful?];* For God hath caused 2 fruitful in the land of niy affliction” (50- hough, as was natural, the birth of a son €yseph feel that he had at last found a home, | father’s house was no longer his home, yet ot in utter forgetfulness of his country that this and the other, both born of his Egyptian rn es al! » very old opinion that JD means prince eas priest has been contradicted by Gesenius, disproved. Aay be remarked, as indicating that Joseph’s l\d not maintain an Egyptian mode of life, that 1 took an Aramitess as a concubine (1 Chr. 4 This happened in his father’s lifetime; for Pi ved to see the children of Machir the son of ubine (Gen. 1. 28). | derivation of Ephraim can scarcely be D ‘although there is difficulty in determining | JOSEPH 1467 wife, Hebrew names, still less, names signifying his devotion to the God of his fathers. When the seven good years had passed, the fam- ine began. We read that “the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread. And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread: and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph, what he saith to you, do. And the famine was over all the face of the earth. And Joseph opened all the storehouses [lit. ‘all wherein’ was], and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy [corn]; because that the fam- ine was [so] sore in all lands” (ver. 54-57). The expressions here used do not require us to suppose that the famine extended beyond the countries around Egypt, such as Palestine, Syria, and Arabia, as well as some part of Africa, although of course it may have been more widely experienced. It may be observed, that although famines in Egypt depend immediately upon the failure of the inundation, and in other countries upon the failure of rain, yet that, as the rise of the Nile is caused by heavy rains in Ethiopia, an extremely dry season there and in Palestine would produce the result described in the sacred narrative. It must also be recollected that Egypt was anciently the granary of neighbor- ing countries, and that a famine there would cause first scarcity, and then famine, around. Famines are not very unfrequent in the history of Egypt; but the famous seven years’ famine in the reign of the Fatimee Khaleefeh El-Mustansir-b-illah is thé only known parallel to that of Joseph: of this an account is given under FAMINE. FEarly in the time of famine, Joseph’s brethren came to buy corn, a part of the history which we mention here only as indicating the liberal policy of the governor of Egypt, by which the storehouses were opened to all buyers of whatever nation they were. After the famine had lasted for a time, apparently two years, there was “no bread in all the land; for the famine [was] very sore, so that the land of Egypt and [all] the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pha- raoh’s. house’? @ (xlvii. 13, 14). When all the money of Egypt and Canaan was exhausted, barter became necessary. Joseph then obtained all the cattle of Egypt,¢ and in the next year, all the land, except that of the priests, and apparently, as a con- sequence, the Egyptians themselves. He demanded, however, only a fifth part of the produce as Pha- raoh’s right. It has been attempted to trace this enactment of Joseph in the fragments of Egyptian history preserved by profane writers, but the result has not been satisfactory. Even were the latter sources trustworthy as to the early period of Egyp- it. This difficulty we may perhaps partly attribute to the pointing. d It appears from this narrative that purchase by money was, in Joseph’s time, the general practice in Egypt. The representations of the monuments show that in early times money was abundant, not coined, but, in the form of rings of gold and silver, weighed out when purchases were made. e It does not appear whether, after the money of Canaan was exhausted, Joseph made conditions with the Canaanites like those he had made with the Egyp- tians, 1468 JOSEPH tian history, it would be difficult to determine the' age referred to, as the actions of at least two kings are ascribed by the Greeks to Sesostris, the king particularized. Herodotus says that, according to the Egyptians, Sesostris “ made a division of “the soil of Egypt among the inhabitants, assigning square plots of gr ound of equal size to all, and ob- taining his chief revenue from the rent which the holders were required to pay him every year’? (ii. 109). Elsewhere he speaks of the priests as hay- ing no expenses, being supported by the property of the temples (37), but he does not assign to Se- sostris, as has been rashly supposed, the exemption from taxation that we may reasonably infer. Dio- dorus Siculus ascribes the division of Egypt into nomes to Sesostris, whom he calls Sesodsis. Tak- ing into consideration the general character of the information given by Herodotus, respecting the history of Egypt at periods remote from his own time, we are not justified in supposing anything more than that some tradition of an ancient allot- ment of the soil by the crown among the popula- tion was current when he visited the country. The testimony of Diodorus is of far less weight. The evidence of the narrative in Genesis seems favorable to the theory we support that Joseph ruled Egypt under a shepherd-king. It appears to have been his policy to give Pharaoh absolute power over the Egyptians, and the expression of their gratitude — “ Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my Lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants ” (xlvii. 25) — seems as though they had been heretofore unwilling subjects. The removing the people to cities probably means that in that time of suffering the scattered population was collected into the cities for the more convenient distribution of the corn. There is a notice, in an ancient Egyptian inscrip- tion, of a famine which has been supposed to be that of Joseph. The inscription is in a tomb at Benee-Hasan, and records of Amenee, a governor of a district of Upper Egypt, that when there were years of famine, his district was supplied with food. This was in the time of Sesertesen I., of the XIIth Dynasty. It has been supposed by Baron Bunsen (Egypt's Place, iii. 834) that this must be Joseph’s famine, but not only are the particulars of the record inapplicable to that instance,@ but the ca- lamity it relates was never unusual in Egypt, as its ancient inscriptions and modern history equally testify.> Joseph’s policy towards the subjects of Pharaoh is important in reference to the forming an. esti- mate of his character. It displays the resolution and breadth of view that mark his whole career. He perceived a great advantage to be gained, and he lost no part of it. He put all Egypt under Pharaoh. First the money, then the cattle, last a Baron Bunsen’s quotation, ‘When, in the time of Sesortosis I., the great fumine prevailed in all the other districts of Egypt, there was corn in mine” (Egypt's Place, 1. c.), is nowhere in the original. See Birch in Cansaorens R. Soc. Lit. 2d Ser. v. Pt. ii. 282, 288; Brugsch, Histoire d’Egypte, i. 56. b Dr. ‘Bragieh remarks on this inscription: ‘ La derniére partie de cette curieuse inscription o1 Amenj, se reportant 4 une famine qui avait lieu pendant les années de son gouvernement, se fait un panégyrique d’avoir prévenu les malheurs de la disette sans se par- tialiser, a attiré la plus grande attention de ceux qui y voient, et nous ajoutons trés & propos, un pendant de Vhistoire de Joseph en Egypte, et des sept années > A _ 3 i ues he ay JOSEPH of all the land, and the Egyptians themsely exme the property of the sovereign, and th by the voluntary act of the people, withor pressure. ‘This being effected, he exercised ; act of generosity, and required only a fifth produce as a recognition of the rights of the Of the wisdom of this policy there can be no Its justice can hardly be questioned when borne in mind that the Egyptians were not f deprived of their liberties, and that when th been given up, they were at once restored, do not know all the circumstances, but if may reasonably suppose, the people were y of the famine and yet made no preparation | the years of overflowing abundance, the g ment had a clear claim upon its subjects for. taken precautions they had neglected. In al it may have been desirable to make a new alk of land, and to reduce an unequal system oj tion to a simple claim to a fifth of the p We have no evidence whether Joseph were matter divinely aided, but we cannot doubtt not, he acted in accord with a judgment o! clearness in distinguishing good and evil. We have now to consider the conduct of. at this time towards his brethren and his | Early in the time of famine, which prevailed | in Canaan and Egypt, Jacob reproved his | sons and sent them to Egypt, where he Kner! was corn to be bought. Benjamin alone b! with him. Joseph was now governor, an Hc in habits and speech, for like all men of larg he had suffered no scruples of prejudice ti: him a stranger to the people he ruled. exalted station he labored with the zeal t showed in all his various charges, presiding | at the sale of corn. We read: “And th of Israel came to buy [corn] among thot came; for the famine was in the land of (: And Joseph, the governor over the land, he [ that sold to all the people of the land; and J) brethren came, and bowed down themselves: him [with] their faces to the earth” (xiii, His brethren did not know Joseph, grown ft boy they had sold into a man, and to their \ Egyptian, while they must have been ¢ changed, except from the effect of time,| would haye been at their ages far less nj Joseph remembered his dreams, and behi( them as a stranger, using, as we afterwards an interpreter, and spoke hard words to the|: accused them of being spies. In defendins2 selves they thus spoke of their household. |’ servants [are] twelve brethren, the sons of 0 in the land of Canaan, and, behold, the y% [is] this day with our father, and one [is (13). Thus to Joseph himself they mail the old deceit of his disappearance. He : de famine de ce pays. Cependant il ne faut pat que le roi Ousertésen I., sous le regne duq famine eut lieu en Egypte, soit le Pharaon de® ce qui n’est guére admissible, par suite de chronologiques. Du reste ce n’est pas la seule *° tion qui fasse mention de la famine; il en exis tres, qui datant de rois tout-a-fait aifférents, E du méme fiéau et des mémes _précautions pris p le prévenir.”” — Histoire d’ Egypte, i. 56. ? glad to learn from this new work that Dr. Is though differing from us as to the Exedus, is Pf to hold Joseph to have governed Egypt under >! herd-king (pp 19, 80). 2 JOSEPH JOSEPH 1469 himself’ (29-31). The description of Joseph's dinner is in accordance with the representations of the monuments. The governor and each of his guests were served separately, and the brethren were placed according to their age. But though the youngest thus had the lowest place, yet when Joseph sent messes from before him to his brethren, he showed his favor to Benjamin by a mess five times as large as.that of any of them. ‘ And they drank, and were merry with him” (32-34). It is mentioned that the Egyptians and Hebrews sat apart from each other, as to eat bread with the swered them, saying, Spake I not unto you,| Hebrews was “ an abomination unto the Egyp- . Do not sin against the child, and ye would | tians” (32). The scenes of the Egyptian tombs ar? therefore, behold, also his blood is re-| show us that it was the custom for each person to And they knew not that Joseph under-| eat singly, particularly among the great, that guests [them]; for an interpreter [was] between | were placed according to their right of precedence, * And he turned himself about from them, | and that it was usual to drink freely, men and even pt; and returned to them again, and com-| women being represented as dverpowered with wine, ‘with them, and took from them Simeon, probably as an evidence of the liberality of the en- ‘und him before their eyes” (21-24). Thus] tertainer. These points of agreement in matters arated one of them from the rest, as they | of detail are well worthy of attention. There is no sarated him from his father. Yet he restored | evidence as to the entertaining foreigners, but the joney in their sacks, and gave them provision general exclusiveness of the Egyptians is in har- way, besides the corn they had purchased. | mony with the statement that they did not eat iscovery of the money terrified them and| with the Hebrews. | ather, who refused to let them take Benja-| The next morning, when it was light, they left Yet when the famine continued, and they | the city (for here we learn that Joseph’s house was ‘ten the supply, Jacob desired his sons to go| in a city), having had their money replaced in their to Egypt. But they could not go without sacks, and Joseph’s silver cup put in Benjamin’s nin. At the persuasion of Judah, who here| sack. His steward was ordered to follow them, and (3 as the spokesman of his brethren, Jacob | say (claiming the cup), “ Wherefore have ye re- ; last prevailed on to let them take him, warded evil for good? [Is] not this [it] in which | offering to be surety. It may be remarked | my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth ? {euben had made the same offer, apparently, | Ye have done evil in so doing”’ (xliv. 4, 5). When e after the return, when Jacob had withheld | they were thus accused, they declared that the isent, telling his father that he might slay | guilty person should die, and that the rest should 9 sons if he did not bring back Benjamin| be bondmen. So the steward searched the sacks, 3). Judah seems to have been put forward | and the cup was found in Benjamin's sack; where- ‘brethren as the most able, and certainly his| upon they rent their clothes, and returned to the londuct in Egypt would have justified their | city, and went to Joseph’s house, and “ fell before ), and his father’s trusting him rather than} him on the ground. And Joseph said unto them, st. Jacob, anxious for Benjamin, and not What deed [is] this that ye have done? wot ye dful of Simeon, touchingly sent to the gov-| not that such a man as I can certainly divine?” ‘out of his scanty stock a little present of the | Judah then, instead of protesting innocence, ad- siroducts of Palestine, as well as double money | mitted the alleged crime, and declared that he and a is sons might repay what had been returned | his brethren were the governor's servants. But n. Joseph replied that he would alone keep him in en they had come into Egypt, Joseph’s| whose hand the cup was found. Judah, not un- een, as before, found him presiding at the mindful of the trust he held, then laid the whole fecorn. Now that Benjamin was with them | matter before Joseph, showing him that he could ‘d his steward to slay and make ready, for | not leave Benjamin without causing the old man’s éhould dine with him at noon. So the man| death, and as surety nobly offered himself as a ht them into Joseph’s house. They feared,| bondman in his brother's stead. Then, at the it iowing, as it seems, why they were taken to touching relation of his father’s love and anxiety, @ ouse (xliii. 25), and perhaps thinking they | and, perhaps, moved by Judah's generosity, the be imprisoned there. Joseph no doubt gave| strong will of Joseph gave way to the tenderness munand in Egyptian, and apparently did not| he had so long felt, but restrained, and he made himself known to his brethren. If hitherto he had dealt severely, now he showed his generosity. He sent forth every one but his brethren. “ And he wept aloud. . . . And Joseph said unto his prethren, I [am] Joseph; doth my father yet live ? f Benjamin he was greatly affected. “ And| And his brethren could not answer him; for they ¢/ ed up his eyes and saw his brother Benjamin, | were troubled at his presence. And Joseph said 8 other's son, and said, [Is] this your younger | unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. (ar, of whom ye spake unto me? And he said,} And they came near. And he said, I [am] Joseph 2e gracious unto thee, my son. And Joseph| your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. Now there- , for his bowels did yearn upon his| fore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that rer, and he sought [where] to weep; and he| ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you nid into [his] chamber, and wept there. And | to preserve life. For these two years [hath] the shed his face, and went out, and refrained! famine [been] in the land: and yet [there are] five to see his brother, first refusing that they ‘return without sending for and bringing tin, then putting them in prison three days, ast releasing them that they might take wn, on the condition that one should be left ostage. They were then stricken with re- ‘and saw that the punishment of their great yas come upon them. “ And they said one ther, We [are] verily guilty concerning our , in that we saw the anguish of his soul, he besought us, and we would not hear; reis this distress come upon us. And Reu- \ i a a al i s it to be interpreted to them. ‘They were, Ver, encouraged by the steward, and Simeon wrought out to them. When Joseph came lésrought him the present, again fulfilling his \s, as twice they bowed before him. At the 1170 JOSEPH years in the which [there shall] neither [be] earing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to pre- serve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now [it was] not you [that] sent me hither, but God” (xly. 2-8). He then desired them to bring his father, that he and all his offspring and flocks and herds might be preserved in the famine, and charged them to tell his father of his greatness and glory.‘ And he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck. Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them’? (14, 15). Pharaoh and his servants were well pleased that Joseph’s brethren were come, and the king commanded him to send for his father according to his desire, and to take wagons for the women and children. He said, “Also let not your eye Spare your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt [is] yours’ (20). From all this we see how highly Joseph was regarded by Pharaoh and his court. Joseph then gaye presents to his brethren, distinguishing Benjamin as before, and sent by them a present and provisions to his father, dis- missing them with this charge, “ See that ye fall not out by the way” @ (24). He feared that even now their trials had taught them nothing. Joseph’s conduct towards his brethren and his father, at this period, must be well examined before we can form a judgment of his character. We have no evidence that he was then acting under the Divine directions: we know indeed that he held that his being brought to Egypt was providentially ordered for the saving of his father’s house: from some points in the narrative, especially the matter of the cup, which he said that he used for divina- tion, he seems to have acted on his own judgment. Supposing that this inference is true, we have to ask whether his policy towards his brethren were founded on a resolution to punish them from resent- ment or a sense of justice, as well as his desire to secure his union with his father, or again, whether the latter were his sole object. Joseph had suffered the most: grievous wrong. According to all but the highest principles of self-denial he would have been justified in punishing his brethren as an injured person: according to these principles he would have been bound to punish them for the sake of justice, if only he could put aside a sense of personal injury in executing judgment. This would require the strongest self-command, united with the deepest feeling, self-command that could keep feeling under, and feeling that could subdue resentment, so that justice would be done impartially. ‘These are the two qualities that shine out most strongly in the noble character of Joseph. We believe therefore that he punished his brethren, but did so simply as the instrument of justice, feeling all the while a brother’s tenderness.. It must be remembered what they were. Reuben and Judah, both at his selling and in the journeys into Egypt, seem better than the rest of the elder brethren. But Reuben was guilty of a crime that was lightly punished by the loss of his birthright, and Judah was profligate and cruel. Even at the time of reconciliation Joseph saw, or thought, as his parting charge shows, that they were either not less wicked or not wiser than of old. After his father’s death, with the sus- picion of ungenerous and deceitful men, they feared Joseph’s vengeance, and he again tenderly assured them of his love for them. Joseph’s conduct to Se NaN ee Hie alot le) OA Ld @ This is the most prohable rendering, JOSEPH Jacob at this time can, we think, be only ex by the supposition that he felt it was his, treat his brethren severely: otherwise his del his causing distress to his father are incor with his deep affection. The sending for Be seems hard to understand, except we sup, Joseph felt he was the surest link with his and perhaps that Jacob would more readily his testimony as to the lost son. | There is no need here to speak largely rest of Joseph’s history: full as it is of inte throws no new light upon his character. |) spirit revived when he saw the wagons Jose] sent. Incouraged on the way by a wae he journeyed into Egypt with his whole ‘And Joseph made ready his chariot, and w to meet Israel his father, to Goshen, and pre himself unto him; and he fell on his nec’ wept on his neck a good while. And Isra unto Joseph, Now let me die, since I have ge! face, because thou [art] yet alive” (xlvi. 2! Then Jacob and his house abode in the la Goshen, Joseph still ruling the country. Jacob, when near his end, gave Joseph a } above his brethren, doubtless including the « of ground”? at Shechem, his future burying! (comp. John iv. 5). Then he blessed his; Joseph most earnestly of all, and died in ] “And Joseph fell upon his father’s face, an(} upon him, and kissed him’ (1. 1). When ; caused him to be embalmed by “his seryar | physicians’ he carried him to Canaan, an| him in the cave of Machpelah, the burying of his fathers. Then it was that his brethren that, their father being dead, Joseph would ji them, and that he strove to remove their) From his being able to make the journe Canaan with “a very great company” (9), «i as from his living apart from his brethren anci fear of him, Joseph seems to have been stil ernor of Egypt. We know no more than t) lived “a hundred and ten years’ (22, 26), hi been more than ninety in Egypt; that he x Ephraim’s children of the third ’’ [generation that “the children also of Machir the son of Nia seh were borne upon Joseph’s knees” (23) that dying he took an oath of his brethrerh they should carry up his bones to the lai promise: thus showing in his latest action theill (Heb. xi. 22) which had guided his whollif Like his father he was embalmed, “ and hv put in a coffin in Egypt’ (1. 26). His trust )s kept, and laid the bones of Joseph in his inf ance in Shechem, in the territory of Ephraith offspring. © ( The character of Joseph is wholly compos ¢ great materials, and therefore needs not to b2 nutely portrayed. We trace in it very little 0% balance of good and evil, of strength and weal!s that marks most things human, and do not Dy where distinctly discover the results of the cc{i¢ of motives that generally occasions such grealll ficulty in judging men’s actions. We have ¢ , an account of Joseph as of Abraham and Ja‘) ' fuller one than of Isaac; and if we compare! histories, Joseph’s character is the least mark b) wrong or indecision. His first quality see have been the greatest resolution. He notll believed faithfully, but could endure patiently! could command equally his good and evil pas? Hence his strong sense of duty, his zealous @ his strict justice, his clear discrimination of ™ Ma all JOSEPH JOSEPH 1471 reluctance to cause his honored father an adJitional pang, even though his sorrow would soon be turned into joy. The assumed part which he acted, and the harsh tone which he adopted, were foreign to every sentiment of his heart, and it cost a violent struggle with his noble nature, to bear this alien attitude to a point essential to the end which he had in view. And what was this end? Was it, as suggested above, to punish his brethren ? — not indeed to gratify an unfraternal vindictiveness, but him. His love for his father and Benjamin) as a calm instrument of God's justice, and for their ‘not enfeebled by years of separation, nor by his good. ‘This effect was, doubtless, secured, but it ; station. ‘The wise man was still the same as| seems to us that he had an object, apart from this, rue youth. These great qualities explain his which dictated his policy, while he neither sought, of governing and administering, and his ex-| nor desired, their punishment — willingly leaving sdinary flexibility, which enabled him to suit| that to the Being who had been his Protector. elf to each new position in life. ‘The last| Before revealing himself to them, it was neces- ‘acteristic to make up this great character was | sary for him to know whether they still cherished esty, the natural result of the others. the feelings which had prompted their wicked treat- . the history of the chosen race Joseph occupies ment of him. Had he sought their punishment, \ty high place as an instrument of Providence. | or a mere personal triumph, he could have had it yas “sent before” his people, as he himself | at an earlier period. This he did not seek, but iy, to preserve them in the terrible famine, and | waited for the day, which he must have anticipated ‘ttle them where they could multiply and prosper | from the time of his elevation, when he could put te interval before the iniquity of the Canaanites | them to the test, and ascertain if the way were full. In the latter days of J oseph’s life, he is | open for the resumption of the lost relation — which leading character among the Hebrews. He|he did desire with the longings of a filial and 2s his father come into Egypt, and directs the | fraternal soul, intensified by the experience of an ament. He protects his kinsmen. Dying, he exile from: home. The hour has come, and he ends them of the promise, charging them to|must now know whether they have repented of his bones with them. Blessed with many | their wickedness towards him — whether the old ations, he is throughout a God-taught leader | rancor has been changed to contrition and tender- is people. In the N. T. Joseph is only men-| ness. Their relation to his own brother Benjamin, id: yet the striking particulars of the persecu- will furnish a decisive test. The partiality which i and sale by his brethren, his resisting tempta- the doting father had felt for himself, and which i, his great degradation and yet greater exalta-|had cost him so dearly, would have inevitably i, the saving of his people by his hand, and the | passed over to the surviving son of the lamented ounding of his enemies, seem to indicate that Rachel, the son of his old age. Joseph cannot be jas a type of our Lord. He also connects the | certain that Benjamin is alive, or if living, that he jarchal with the Gospel dispensation, as an | is not persecuted — that, having the same pretext wee of the exercise of some of the highest | for it, their treatment of him has not been as stian virtues under the less distinct manifesta- | treacherous and cruel as it was of himself. He of the Divine will granted to the fathers. must see them together and judge for himself, and he history of Joseph’s posterity is given in the learn whether their dispositions are changed. Their Jes devoted to the tribes of EpHrarm and | brief imprisonment and the detention of Simeon MxASSEH. Sometimes these tribes are spoken | (the eldest next to Reuben, who was comparatively ader the name of Joseph, which is even given guiltless) were severe, but necessary, expedients to he whole Israelite nation. Ephraim is, how-| induce them to bring Benjamin, or rather, to deter e}, the common name of his descendants, for the| them from coming without him, on their second djsion of Manasseh gave almost the whole political | visit, which would be equally a necessity with the wht to the brother-tribe. That great people first. sis to have inherited all Joseph’s ability with) The plan succeeds, and Benjamin arrives with his iis of his goodness, and the very knowledge of | brothers. Joseph bestows special attentions upon hower in Egypt, instead of stimulating his off | him, and has the opportunity of observing whether §}1g to follow in his steps, appears only to have | their former envy survives. He finally causes him tantly drawn them into a hankering after that | to be arrested as a thief, and proposing to retain idden land which began when Jeroboam intro- him as a prisoner, bids the others return in peace d the calves, and ended only when a treasonable | to their father. Will they do it! They not merely ‘nee laid Samaria in ruins and sent the ten| abandoned Joseph — they sold him as a slave, and +s into captivity. R. S. P. | only not murdered him. Will they now simply _, “Joseph’s conduct towards his brethren and desert Benjamin, and leave him to his fate? They Hifather,” prior to the disclosure in Egypt, is | did not scruple to shock their father with the ‘eptible of a somewhat different interpretation tidings of Joseph’s death. Are they still so callous fii that which is offered in a preceding paragraph. | as to consent to return and tell him that Benjamin mental distress which the brothers endured, | is gone also? They committed an enormous crime W both a deserved punishment and a needful dis- | to rid themselves of the other favorite. Are they Cine, and it was a fitting retribution of Divine | willing to be freed from this, without any culpable Evidence that the injured brother should be the | agency of their own? The result shows that their it in inflicting it. Its evident justice, if not| hearts are softened. The recollection of their in- {motive for its infliction, may have well recon-| justice to Joseph, has made them even tender of him to it, and his conviction of its necessity Benjamin. The sight of the suffering which they tt have been such as to overcome his great! have brought upon their father, has made them evil. Like all men of vigorous character, he | power, but when he had gained it he used it “the greatest generosity. He seems to have an to get men unconditionally in his power he might confer benefits upon them. Gen- ty in conferring benefits, as well as in forgiving “jes, is one of his distinguishing characteristics. 4 this strength was united the deepest tender- He was easily moved to tears, even weeping ae first sight of his brethren after they had 1472 JOSEPH careful of his feelings and sympathetically devoted to his happiness. The arrest of the youngest brings them all, with rent garments, into Joseph’s presence, when Judah, the orator of the company, draws near and addresses his unknown brother in a strain which stands unequaled, perhaps, among recorded speeches, as an exhibition of pathetic eloquence. With entire artlessness he tells the whole story, and with the generous devotion of a true son and brother, asks leave to abide as a bondman “ instead of the lad,” “lest, peradventure, I see the evil that shall come on my father.” Joseph, under Divine guidance, has refrained from @ premature disclosure, and the fit time has fully come. He has no disposition to injure or reproach his brothers, or punish them in any way. He has put them to the test, as it was his duty to do, and satisfied that their feelings are now right, the strug- gling emotions of his nature, long pent up, find an irrepressible vent. Troubled by the disclosure and unable to speak, he calms their agitation and seeks to soothe their self-upbraiding, thrice reminding them of the wisdom of God’s plan, which had been broader than theirs. This is followed by affectionate embraces, and the charge to hasten homeward with a reviving message to their aged father — sitting in his loneliness, day after day, in the door of his tent at Hebron, and anxiously waiting for tidings from Egypt. And years after, when on the decease of their father they humbly asked the forgiveness of their brother, he still comforted them with the reflection that God had overruled their conduct for good. From first to last, the narrative appears to us to countenance the view, which also seems to us most consonant with the eminent magnanimity of this noble Hebrew, that the leading design of his harsh policy was to subject them to a needful test, which the Lord used as a means of deepening their penitence, and that he gladly desisted, and with a brother’s sympathy sought to assuage their bitter regrets, as soon as he was convinced that they were no longer false brothers, but true. We would further suggest that the charge to them to “ fall not out by the way” on their return, does not necessarily indicate that he thought them “not less wicked or not wiser than of old... Now that their associated guilt had been brought home to them, nothing was more natural than that they should seek to throw off individual responsi- bility. Reuben had already put in his exculpating plea, and the design of the charge was to turn them from unprofitable mutual criminations, and lead them to a devout recognition of the divine sovereignty and goodness. It is intimated above, that Joseph was not wholly acting under Divine direction. The divining cup may not be fully explicable; it plainly reveals an Egyptian superstition, but does not necessarily im- ply Joseph’s participation in it, and the allusion must be construed by what is known of his life. If consummate wisdom in plan and skill in execution, if a spirit beautiful in every relation, if the fruits of a manly and lovely piety, if a character as nearly faultless as has been delineated in human biography, be marks of Divine guidance, we must accord it to him, whose bow abode in strength and whose arms were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob. It, is obvious to add, that the wisdom of the providential dealings, as related to the family in Hebron, was not less marked as related to Joseph in Egypt.’ The course of discipline through which JOSEPH , he passed was an indispensable qualification fo, high service in reserve for him — enabling hi learn the most difficult lesson, and be pre bear without injury one extreme of fortune having properly endured the other. Ss. ¥ * Ewald, in his Geschichte des Volkes Js comments upon the statesmanship of Josep] taking advantage of the pressure of famine to re the entire population to a tenantry of the ex thus accomplishing without violence a great, s revolution; —a statesmanship “careful at one the weal of populous nations, and for the consol tion and increase of the royal authority, and : ning its best victories through the combinatioy these seemingly opposite aims. By provide storing up in his garners supplies of corn suffic for many years of possible scarcity, Joseph enabled not only to secure to the people the pre means of existence and the possibility of be times in future, but to establish a more solid ors ization of government, such as a nation is 1 loath to accede to except in a time of overmaster necessity.” (Martineau’s translation, p. 413.) The present state of Egyptian chronology hardly warrant the positive conclusions of | Poole concerning the epoch of Joseph; and, th fore, while his views are retained in the text, data are here appended for a more comprehen view of the subject. The problem concerning Israelites in Egypt is mixed with the question the Hyksos whose date is still unsettled. Bun makes Joseph the Grand-vizir of Sesortosis, sec king of the 12th Dynasty, about 2180 zB. ¢.,: 200 years before the usurpation of the Hyksos; the Hyksos were Semitic tribes, the Hebrews 5 undisturbed during their supremacy ; but after tl expulsion, the Israelites were reduced to for labor as a means of consolidating the Pharac power. But this theory, which makes the sojo in Egypt outlast the coming and going of Hyksos, prolongs the stay of the Israelites bey the utmost stretch of our Biblical chronolo (Lgypt's Place, vol. v. p. 68.) Brugseh rega the Hyksos as Ishmaelitish Arabs, who inva( Egypt about 2115 B. c. and ruled over the Di for 511 years. Taking the second Meneptah of 19th Dynasty, 1341-1321 3B. c. for the Phar of the Exodus, and computing backward 430 ye he places Joseph in office under one of the Sh herd kings. (J/istotre d’ Egypte, i. 79.) Mr. Pc also makes the Pharaoh of Joseph one of ’ Shepherd kings in the first half of the ninetee! century, B. C. But if the Hebrews were in Eg} under the Hyksos — though this may account ' the favorable reception of Jacob, and the unc turbed growth of his posterity in Goshen —it not easy to imagine how so large a foreign popt” tion, of a kindred race with the Hyksos, was fered to.remain in the Delta when the Shephe/ were expelled by the reviving native empire; ‘ the notion that the Exodus of the Israelites ¢ the expulsion of the Hyksos were the same eve has no foundation either in Egyptian or in Hebi history. To meet this difficulty, Lepsius pl 4 the migration of Jacob into Egypt after the exp sion of the Hyksos, with an interval sufficient! the fear of another Arab invasion to have died ¢) though the prejudice of the Egyptians against ? nomadic ‘shepherds’? remained. His dates % for the expulsion of the Hyksos about 1691 B. the arrival of Jacob 1414, the Exodus 1314. (J; nigsbuch.) But this brings the Exodus down t} ad JOSEPH te period, and reduces the sojourn in Egypt hundred years. Ewald, with his usual bold- 1 inventing an hypothesis to solve a difficulty, tures that at the first, only a small portion Israelitish family followed Joseph into Egypt, n under the rule of the Hyksos: that, at the jon of the latter, the Israelites took sides he Egyptians, and that Joseph then “sum- | Israel in a body out of Canaan, and estab- them in Goshen as a frontier-guard of the m against any new attacks of the Hyksos.”’ date of the Hyksos invasion and the dura- f the Shepherd dynasties in Egypt, all these 3 are substantially agreed. They agree also main facts concerning Joseph as an historical , and the residence of the Israelites in Egypt the exodus under Moses. Even Ewald con- that the “ Blessing of Jacob’’ (Gen. xlix. ), from the complexion of the language and , must be referred to pre-Mosaic times. The of the historical events is not strictly depend- yon chronology. “al ag Father of Igal who represented the tribe of ar among the spies (Num. xiii. 7). A lay Israelite of the family of Bani, who was lled by Ezra to put away his foreign wife x. 42). In 1 Esdr. it is given as JOSEPHUS. [Vat. Alex. FA.! omit.] Representative of jestly family of Shebaniah, in the next gen- 1 after the return from Captivity (Neh. xii. Cidongos; [in ver. 56, "Iwo; in ver. 18, ‘wonmos; I ver. 60, Sin. Iwongws Or lwonp n°. Iwonmos: Josephus]). A Jewish officer od by Gorgias c. 164 B. c. (1 Mace. v. 18, a [Alex. Iwonmos: Josephus.| In 2 Mace. 2,x. 19, Joseph is named among the breth- ‘Judas Maccabeeus apparently in place of ‘Ewald, Gesch. iv. 384, note; Grimm ad 2 ‘viii. 22). The confusion of "Iwdyyns, 'Iw- Twos is well seen in the various readings in xiii. 55. VIwonp: Joseph.] An ancestor of Judith viii. 1), De Fa Vie One of the ancestors of Christ (Luke iii. 30), | Jonan, and the eighth generation from David ye, about contemporary therefore with king vh. PIwofpd; but Tisch. Treg. and Lachm. i "Iwonx: Joseph.| Another ancestor of , son of Judah or Abiud, and grandson of ior Hananiah the son of Zerubbabel, Luke Alford adopts the reading Josek, a mis- (hich seems to originate with the common on in Heb. MSS. between *) and “J. ' Another, [Luke iii. 24,] son of Mattathias, seventh generation before Joseph the hus- f the Virgin. ‘Son of Heli [Luke iii. 23], and reputed of Jesus Christ. The recurrence of this tn the three above instances, once before, and iter Zerubbabel, whereas it does not occur o St. Matthew’s genealogy, is a strong evi- Mof the paternal descent of Joseph the son of I's traced by St. Luke to Nathan the son of that is told us of Joseph in the N. T. may amed up in a few words. He was a just nd of the house and lineage of David, and 8iown as such by his contemporaries, who 93 JOSEPH 1473 called Jesus the son of David, «and were disposed to own Him as Messiah, as being Joseph's son. The public registers also contained his name under the reckoning of the house of David (John i. 45; Luke iii. 23; Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 4). He lived at Nazareth in Galilee, and it is probable that his family had been settled there for at least two pre- ceding generations, possibly from the time of Matthat, the common grandfather of Joseph and Mary, since Mary lived there too (Luke i. 26, 27). He espoused Mary, the daughter and heir of his uncle Jacob, and before he took her home as his wife received the angelic communication recorded in Matt. i. 20. It must have been within a very short time of his taking her to his home, that the decree went forth from Augustus Cesar which obliged him to leave Nazareth with his wife and go to Bethlehem. He was there with Mary and his first-born, when the shepherds came to see the babe in the manger, and he went with them to the Temple to present the infant according to the law, and there heard the prophetic words of Sim- eon, as he held him in his arms. When the wise men from the East came to Bethlehem to worship Christ, Joseph was there; and he went down to Egypt with them by night, when warned by an angel of the danger which threatened them; and on a second message he returned with them to the land of Israel, intending to reside at Bethlehem the city of David; but being afraid of Archelaus he took up his abode, as before his marriage, at Naz- areth, where he carried on his trade as a carpenter. When Jesus was 12 years old, Joseph and Mary took him with them to keep the Passover at Jeru- salem, and when they returned to Nazareth he continued to act as a father to the child Jesus, and was reputed to be so indeed. But here our knowl- edge of Joseph ends. ‘That he died before our Lord’s crucifixion is indeed tolerably certain by what is related John xix. 27, and perhaps Mark vi. 3 may imply that he was then dead. But where, when, or how he died, we know not. What was his age when he married, what children he had, and who was their mother, are questions on which tradition has been very busy, and very contradic- tory, and on which it affords no available informa- tion whatever. In fact the different accounts given are not traditions, but the attempts of different ages of the early Church to reconcile the narrative of the Gospels with their own opinions, and to give support, as they thought, to the miraculous concep- tion. It is not necessary to detail or examine these accounts here, as they throw light rather upon the history of those opinions during four or five centu- ries, than upon the history of Joseph. But it may be well to add that the origin of all the earliest stories and assertions of the fathers concerning Joseph, as e. g., his extreme old age, his having sons by a former wife, his having the custody of Mary given to him by lot, and so on, is to be found in the apocryphal Gospels, of which the earliest is the Protevangelium of St. James, apparently the work of a Christian Jew of the second century, quoted by Origen, and referred to by Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr (Tischendorf, Proleg. xiii.). The same stories are repeated in the other apocryphal Gospels. The monophysite Coptic Christians are said to have first assigned a festival to St. Joseph in the Calendar, namely, on the 20th July, which is thus inscribed in a Coptic almanac: « Requies sancti senis justi Josephi fabri lignarii, Deipare Virginis Marie sponsi, qui pater Christi 1474 JOSEPH OF ARIMATHAA vocari promeruit.’? The apocryphal Historia Jo- sepht fabri lignarii, which now exists in Arabic, is thought by Tischendorf to have been originally written in Coptic, and the festival of Joseph is supposed to have been transferred to the Western Churches from the East as late as the year 1399.4 The above-named history is acknowledged to be quite fabulous, though it belongs probably to the 4th century. It professes to be an account given by our Lord himself to the Apostles on the Mount of Olives, and placed by them in the library of Jerusalem. It ascribes 111 years to Joseph’s life, and makes him old and the father of 4 sons and 2 daughters before he espoused Mary. It is headed with this sentence: ‘ Benedictiones ejus et preces servent nos omnes, O fratres. Amen.’’ The reader who wishes to know the opinion of the ancients on the obscure subject of Joseph’s marriage, may con- sult Jerome’s acrimonious tract Contra Helvidium. He will see that Jerome highly disapproves the common opinion (derived from the apocryphal Gospels) of Joseph being twice married, and that he-claims the authority of Ignatius, Polycarp, Ire- neus, Justin Martyr, and ‘ many other apostolical men,’’ in favor of his own view, that our Lord’s brethren were his cousins only, or at all events against the opinion of Helvidius, which had been held by Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Val- entine, that they were the children of Joseph and Mary. Those who held this opinion were called Antidicomarianite, as enemies of the Virgin. (Epiphanius, Adv. /Teres. 1. iii. t. ii. Heer. Ixxviii., also Heer. li. See also Pearson on the Creed, Art. Virgin Mary; Mill, on the Brethren of the Lord; Calmet, de S. Joseph. S. Mar. Virg. conjuge ; and for an able statement of the opposite view, Alford’s note on Mutt. xiii. 55; Winer, Realwb. s. vv. Jesus and Joseph.) AC. TE * 12. Joseph is the reading of the oldest MSS. (adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, instead of Joses of the received text) in Matt. xiii. 55, as the name of one of the brethren of our Lord. [Josxs, 2.] A. *13. Joseph (instead of Joses) is the proper name of Barnabas (Acts iv. 86) according to the oldest MSS. and the best critical editions. [JosxEs, 3.] A JO’SEPH OF ARIMATH’A [A. V. Arimathe’a] (Iwohd 6 dd ’Apmabatas), a rich and pious Israelite who had the privilege of per- forming the last offices of duty and affection to the body of our Lord. He is distinguished from other persons of the same name by the addition of his birth-place Arimathzea, a city supposed by Robin- son to be situated somewhere between Lydda and Nobe, now Beit Nuba, a mile northeast of Yalo (Bibl. Res. ii. 239-41, iii. 142). Joseph is denominated by St. Mark (xv. 43) an honorable councillor, by which we are probably to understand that he was a member of the Great Council, or Sanhedrim. He is further character- ized as ‘¢a good man and a just’ (Luke xxiii. 50), one of those who, bearing in their hearts the words of their old prophets, was waiting for the kingdom of God (Mark xv. 43; Luke ii. 25, 38, xxiii. 51). We are expressly told that, he did not “consent to the counsel and deed ”’ of his colleagues in conspir- @ Calmet, however, places the admission of Joseph into the calendar of the Western Church as early as before the year 900. See Tischendorf, ut sup. JOSEPH, CALLED BARSAB, ing to bring about the death of Jesus; | seems to have lacked the courage to protest a their judgment. At all eyents we know tl shrank, through fear of his countrymen, fro1 fessing himself openly a disciple of our Lord The awful event, however, which crushe hopes while it excited the fears of the chose ciples, had the effect of inspiring him with a ness and confidence to which he had before } stranger. The crucifixion seems to haye wr in him the same clear conviction that it wr in the centurion who stood by the cross; { the very evening of that dreadful day, whe triumph of the chief priests and rulers complete, Joseph “went in boldly unto Pilat craved the body of Jesus.’ The fact is meni by all four Evangelists. Pilate, having a himself that the Divine Sufferer was dead, sented to the request of Joseph, who was rewarded for his faith and courage by the b privilese of consigning to his own new tom body of his crucified Lord. In this saered he was assisted by Nicodemus, who, like hi had hitherto been afraid to make open prof of his faith, but now dismissing his fears br an abundant store of myrrh and aloes for th balming of the body of his Lord according Jewish custom. | These two masters in Israel then haying en the sacred body in the linen shroud which J had bought, consigned it to a tomb hewn in | —a tomb where no human corpse had 4 been laid. It is specially recorded that the tomb Mi | garden belonging to Joseph, and close to the of crucifixion. The minuteness of the narrative seems pur: designed to take away all ground or pretext i rumor that might be spread, after the Resurre that it was some other, not Jesus himself, thi risen from the grave. But the burial of Je} the new private sepulchre of the rich man ¢ mathea must also be regarded as the fulfil of the prophecy of Isaiah (iii. 9): according | literal rendering of Bishop Lowth, “ with th? man was his tomb.’ Nothing, but of the it legendary character, is recorded, of Joseph, li what we read in Scripture. There is a trail surely a very improbable one, that he was number of the seventy disciples. Another, Wi authentic or not, deserves to be mentioned ai erally current, namely — that Joseph, beings to Great Britain by the Apostle St. Philip,' the year 63, settled with his brother discij} Glastonbury, in Somersetshire; and there ¢? of wicker-twigs the first Christian oratory ir land, the parent of the majestic abbey whi) afterwards founded on the same site. Thi guides to this day show the miraculous thon to bud and blossom every Christmas-day} sprung from the staff which Joseph stuck i ground as he stopped to rest himself on tl? top. (See Dugdale’s Monasticon, i. 1; and EF Hist. and Ant. of Glastonbury ; Assemann? Orient. iii. 819.) Winer refers to © moni on Joseph — Broemel, Diss. de Jusepho Arlt Viteb. 1683, 4to. E. Bags , JO’SEPH, called BAR/SABAS [or SAB’/BAS, Lachm. Tisch. Treg.], and adi Justus; one of the two persons chosen by ? sembled church (Acts i. 23) as worthy to '{ place in the Apostolic company from which } < JOSEPHUS uien. He, therefore, had been a companion » disciples all the time that they followed from his baptism to his ascension. jas (ap. Kuseb. H. £. iii. 39) calls him Jus. rsabas, and relates that having drunk some poison he, through the grace of the Lord, ied no harm. Eusebius (//. /. i. 12) states 2 was one of the seventy disciples. He is to inguished from Joses Barnabas (Acts iv. 36) ym Judas Barsabas (Acts xv. 22). The sig- on of Barsabas is quite uncertain. Light- Hor. Hebr. Acts i. 23) gives five possible etatious of it, namely, the son of conversion, at, of an oath, of wisdom, of the old man. fers the last two; and suggests that Joseph as may be the same as Joses the son of Al- and that Judas Barsabas may be his brother ‘ostle.¢ Wl B. SE’PHUS (Idengpos; [Vat. boonmos: us)), 1 Esdr. ix. 34. [JosEepn, 3.] SES (Iwofs [or Iwojs; Lachm. Tisch. Alford “Incots; "lwoh [or "Iwo7] is the sease: [Jesus]). 1. Son of Eliezer, in the gy of Christ (Luke iii. 29), 15th generation avid, t. e. about the reign of Manasseh. ‘e A. Y. gives the name as JosE, which is ‘the form of the genitive case. A. In Matt. xiii. 55, Lachm. Tisch. Treg. ;and so Sin. in Mark vi. 3; Tisch. reads » also in Matt. xxvii. 56: Joseph.] Oue ‘Lord’s brethren (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. is name connects him with the preceding. > inquiry who these brethren of the Lord ‘eJAmes. All that appears with certainty |tipture is that his mother’s name was Mary, brother’s James (Matt. xxvii. 56; [Mark 47). jachm. Tisch. Treg. "Iwahp: Joseph.] for JosepH] Bar’NABAS (Acts iv. 36). BAS. | A. C. H. SHAH (mw [perh. Jehovah lets dwell, Twola; [Vat. Iwoea;] Alex. Iwotas: ja prince of the house of Simeon, son of 4, and connected with the more prosperous f the tribe, who, in the days of Hezekiah, 2 marauding expedition against the peace- ‘mite shepherds dwelling in Gedor, exter- , them, and occupied their pasturage (1 Chr. 8-41). HAPHAT (Dow [Jehovah judges] : ir; FAL Iwoapas: Josaphat), the Mith- + of David’s guard, apparently selected from ithe warriors from the east of Jordan (1 | 43). Buxtorf (Lex. Tulm. col. 1284) jathnan as the Chaldee equivalent of Ba- | which the latter is always represented in }. Onk.; and if this were the place which shaphat his surname, he was probably a _In the Syriac, Joshaphat and Uzziah (ver. @ interchanged, and the latter appears as 1 Anathoth.”” eee ee pre ee : rsabas, says Meyer, is a patronymic (son of }hd Justus a Roman surname such as Jews pted at that time (Apostelgesch. i. 28). H. Its been questioned whether the Captain of 's Host was a created being or not. Dr. W. ‘iscusses this point at full length and with ning and decides in favor of the former al- i JOSHUA 1475 JOSHAVI’AH mw [Jehovah makes to dwell, Ges. |: Iwata; [ Vat. FA. ] Iwoeta: Jo saia), the son of Elnaam, and one of David's guards (1 Chr. xi. 46). The LXX. make him the son of Jeribai, by reading 12 for S23. The name appears in eight, and probably nine, different forms in the MSS. collated by Kennicott. JOSHBEK’ASHAH (TWPBW?: ‘lea Ba- gaka;[Vat. le:Bacaxa, Baxara;] Alex. S went from Egypt to Carchemish to carry on w against Assyria (comp. Herodotus, ii. 159), a, possibly i in a spirit of loyalty to the Assyr- ng, to whom he may have been bound,“ op- | his march along the sea-coast. Necho relue- paused and gave him battle in the Valley of elon; and the last good king of Judah was Jwounded from Hadadrimmon, to die before ild arrive at Jerusalem. ‘was buried with extraordinary honors; and eral dirge, in part composed by Jeremiah, ‘the affection of his subjects sought to per. e as an annual solemnity, was chanted prob- t Hadadrimmon. Compare the narrative in _xxxy. 25 with the allusions in Jer. xxii. 10, d Zech. xii. 11, and with Jackson, On the , bk. viii. ch. 23, p. 878. The prediction of h, that he should “be gathered into the jin peace,”’ must be interpreted in accordance he explanation of that phrase given in Jer. . 5. Some excellent remarks on it may be in Jackson, On the Creed, bk. xi. ch. 36, p. / Josiah’s reformation and his death are com- don by Bishop Hall, Contemplations on the bk. xx. ‘as in the reign of Josiah that a nomadic ‘of Scythians overran Asia (Herodotus, i. 16). A detachment of them went towards by the way of Philistia: somewhere south- “f Ascalon they were met by messengers from Wietichus and induced to turn back. ‘They »t mentioned in the historical accounts of i But Ewald (Die Psalmen, 165) ‘osiah during a siege of Jerusalem by these ams. The towu Beth-shan is said to derive ek name, Scythopolis (Reland, Pal. 992; 1)0t, Chor. Marc. vii. § 2), from these inva- 8 The facility with which Josiah appears to € [white]: adgav; Joseph. Ad- Bavos: Lada), son of Bethuel, grandson of Nahor and Mileah, grand-nephew of Abraham, brother of Rebekah, and father of Leah and Rachel; by whom and their handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah he was the natural progenitor of three fourths of the nation of the Jews, and of our Blessed Lord, and the legal ancestor of the whole. The elder branch of the family remained at Haran when Abraham removed to the land of Canaan, and it is there that we first meet with Laban, as taking the leading part in the betrothal of his sister Re- bekah to her cousin Isaac (Gen. xxiy. 10, 29-60, xxvil. 43, xxix. 4). Bethuel, his father, plays so insignificant a part in the whole transaction, being in fact only mentioned once, and that after his son (xxiv. 50), that various conjectures have been formed to explain it. Josephus asserts that Bethuel was dead, and that Laban was the head of the house and his sister’s natural guardian (Ant. i. 16, § 2); in which case “ Bethuel’”’ must have crept into the text inadvertently, or be supposed, with some (Adam Clarke, in Joc.), to be the name of another brother of Rebekah. Le Clere (in Pent.) mentions the con- jecture that Bethuel was absent at first, but re- turned in time to give his consent to the marriage. The mode adopted by Prof. Blunt (Undesigned Coincidences, p. 85) to explain what he terms *“ the consistent insignificance of Bethuel,’”’ namely, that he was incapacitated from taking the management of his family by age or imbecility, is most ingenious; but the prominence of Laban may be sufliciently explained by the custom of the country, which then, as now (see Niebuhr, quoted by Rosenmiiller in loc.), gave the brothers the main share in the arrange- ment of their sister’s marriage, and the defense of her honor (comp. Gen. xxxiv. 13; Judg. xxi. 22; 2 Sam. xiii. 20-29). [BernueEt.] The next time Laban appears in the sacred nar- rative it is as the host of his nephew Jacob at Haran (Gen. xxix. 13, 14). The subsequent transactions by which he secured the valuable services of his nephew for fourteen years in return for his twe daughters, and for six years as the price of his cattle, together with the disgraceful artifice by which he palmed off his elder and less attractive daughter on the unsuspecting Jacob, are familiar to all (Gen. The | xxix., xxx.). 1578 LABAN Laban was absent shearing his sheep, when Jacob, having gathered together all his possessions, started with his wives and children for his native land; and it was not till the third day that he heard of their stealthy departure. In hot haste he sets off in pur- suit of the fugitives, his indignation at the prospect of losing a servant, the value of whose services he had proved by experience (xxx. 27), and a family who he hoped would have increased the power of his tribe, being increased by the discovery of the loss of his teraphim, or household gods, which Rachel had carried off, probably with the view of securing a prosperous journey. Jacob and _ his family had crossed the Kuphrates, and were already some days’ march in advance of their pursuers; but so large a caravan, encumbered with women and children, and cattle, would travel but slowly (comp. Gen. xxxiii. 13), and Laban and his kinsmen came up with the retreating party on the east side of the Jordan, among the mountains of Gilead. The eollision with his irritated father-in-law might have proved dangerous for Jacob but for a divine intima- tion to Laban, who, with characteristic hypocrisy, passes over in silence the real ground of his dis- pleasure at Jacob's departure, urging only its clan- destine character, which had prevented his sending him away with marks of affection and honor, and the theft of his gods. After some sharp mutual recrimination, and an unsuccessful search for the teraphim, which Rachel, with the cunning which characterized the whole family, knew well how to hide, a covenant of peace was entered into between the two parties, and a cairn raised about a pillar- stone set up by Jacob, both as a memorial of the covenant, and a boundary which the contracting parties pledged themselves not to pass with hostile intentions. After this, in the simple and beautiful words of Scripture, *“‘ Laban rose up and kissed his sons and his daughters, and blessed them, and de- parted, and returned to his place; ’’ and he thence- forward disappears from the Biblical narrative. Few Scriptural characters appear in more repul- sive colors than Laban, who seems to have concen- trated all the duplicity and acquisitiveness which marked the family of Haran. The leading principle of his conduct was evidently self-interest, and he was little scrupulous as to the means whereby his ends were secured. Nothing can excuse the abom- inable trick by which he deceived Jacob in the matter of his wife, and there is much of harshness and mean selfishness in his other relations with him. At the same time it is impossible, on an unbiased view of the whole transactions, to acquit Jacob of blame, or to assign him any very decided superiority over his uncle in fair and generous dealing. In the matter of the flocks each was evidently seeking to outwit the other; and though the whole was divinely overruled to work out im- portant issues in securing Jacob’s return to Canaan in wealth and dignity, our moral sense revolts from what Chalmers (Daily Scr. Readings, i. 60) does not shrink from designating the “ sneaking artifices for the promotion of his own selfishness,’ adopted for his own enrichment and the impoverishment of his uncle; while we can well excuse Laban’s morti- a The ordinary editions of the Vatican LXX., Tischendorf’s included, give Aaxis, and the Alex. Aaxeis ; but the edition of the former by Cardinal Mai has the Aaxe/s throughout. In Josh. xv. 39, all trace of Lachish has disappeared in the common editions; but in Mai’s, Maxzjs is inserted between | thousands of places. — A.] LACHISH fication at seeing himself outdone by his ney in cunning, and the best of his flocks chan hands. In their mistaken zeal to defend J: Christian writers have unduly depreciated La and even the ready hospitality shown by hir Abraham’s servant, and the affectionate recey of his nephew (Gen. xxiv. 30, 31, xxix. 13, have been misconstrued into the acts of a s man, eager to embrace an opportunity of a luer connection. No man, however, is wholly sel and even Laban was capable of. generous imp however mean and unprincipled his general. duct. bay LA/BAN (72°? [white]: AoBév: Laban) of the landmarks named in the obscure and puted passage, Deut. i. 1: “Paran, and Tophel, Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab.”” The mei of Hazeroth has perhaps led to the only conjec regarding Laban of which the writer is a namely, that it is identical with Lipnan (} xxxiii. 20), which was the second station Hazeroth. | The Syriac Peshito understands the nam Lebanon. The Targums, from Onkelos downy play upon the five names in this passage, conne them with the main events of the wander Laban in this way suggests the manna, becau' its white color, that being the force of the : i Hebrew. LAB’/ANA (AaBavd : Labana), 1 Esdr. 1 [LEBANA. | | * LACE (0. Eng. las, Fr. lacs, Span. “lasso,” It. daccio, from the Lat. 7agweus) is in the sense of cord or band in Ex. xxviii. 2¢ xxxix. 21, 31. The corresponding Hebrew D3, pathil, from a verb signifying “to ty is translated thread in Judg. xvi. 9, line in E 3, wire (of gold) in Ex. xxxix. 3, ribband in } xv. 38, and very improperly bracelets in | xxxviii. 18, 25, where it denotes the cord ors by which the signet-ring was suspended fron neck. | LACEDEMO’NIANS (Srapridirat; | Aakedaiudvior, 2 Mace. v. 9: Spartiate, Spar Lacedemone), the inhabitants of Sparta or. demon, with whom the Jews claimed kin (1 Mace. xii. 2, 5, 6, 20, 21; xiv. 20, 235 xv 2 Mace. v. 9). [SPARTA.] LA/CHISH (tw [perh. obstinate, in ble, Dietr.]: [Rom. Aayis, exc. Is. xxxv Aaxns, Mie. i. 18, Aaxeis; Vat. Alex., Fy Neh. and Jer., Sin. in Is. xxxvi. 2,] Aaxels’ Is. xxxvii. 8, Alex. Sin. omit;] but in Va Josh. xv. Mayns; Joseph. Adxeoa! Lach city of the Amorites, the king of which joined: four others, at the invitation of Adonizedek | of Jerusalem, to chastise the Gibeonites for | league with Israel (Josh. x. 3, 9). They | however, routed by Joshua at Beth-horon, an; king of Lachish fell a victim with the others | the trees at Makkedah (ver. 26). The destruct the town seems to have shortly followed the i "Taxapend and Kai Baoydod. [In this note, as thr: out the original edition of the Dictionary, the e of the LXX. printed at Rome in 1587 is erron¢ supposed to represent the Vatican manuscript No. though it differs from it, in proper names alo | bi LACHISH LACHISH 1579 » king: it was attacked in its turn, immediately | plied many centuries later (2 K. xix. 8). lachish the fall of Libnah, and notwithstanding an| was one of the cities fortified and garrisoned by to relieve it by Horam king of Gezer, was| Rehoboam after the revolt of the northern king- , and every soul put to the sword (vv. 31-33). | dom (2 Chr. xi. 9). What was its fate during the e special statement that the attack lasted two | invasion of Shishak— who no doubt advanced by in contradistinction to the other cities which| the usual route through the maritime lowland, taken in one (see ver. 35), we gain our first} which would bring him under its very walls — we se of that strength of position for which| are not told. But it is probable that it did not sh was afterwards remarkable. In the cata-| materially suffer, for it was evidently a place of of the kings slain by Joshua (xii. 10-12), | security later, when it was chosen as a refuge by sh occurs in the same place with regard to the} Amaziah king of Judah from the conspirators who sas in the narrative just quoted; but in Josh.! threatened him in Jerusalem, and to whom he at there the towns are separated into groups, it | last fell a victim at Lachish (2 K. xiv. 19, 2 Chr. eed in the Shefeluh, or lowland district, and | xxv. 27). Later still, in the reign of Hezekiah, it same group with Eylon and Makkedah (ver. ! was one of the cities taken by Sennacherib when part from its former companions. It should |on his way from Phoenicia to Egypt (Rawlinson’s 2 overlooked that, though included in the low- | Herod. i. 477). It is specially mentioned that he listrict, Lachish was a town of the Amorites, | laid siege to it “ with all his power” (2 Chr. xxxii. ippear to have been essentially mountaineers. | 9), and here “ the great king”? himself remained, ag is expressly named as one of the “ kings of | while his officers only were dispatched to Jerusalem morites who dwell in the mountains”’ (Josh. | (2 Chr. xxxii. 9; 2 K. xviii. 17). A similar remark has already been made of This siege is considered by Layard and Hincks UTH, KEILAH, and others; and see JuDAH, | to be depicted on the slabs found by the former in Pp 1490 b. Its proximity to Libnah is im-!one of the chambers of the palace at Kouyunjik, Bs ee gales) oN la Ble & TEN al Pak Pie fee paces er ek ee ee S My [o15) 10/90) ij aq ¢ re) Fi a Bias g boo g ooo a | @ jelgla| g One ) SbN ONO may ec eeep lalglol7 —~ mia gl ) Fig. 1. The city of Lachish repelling the = sy) attack of Sennacherib. From Layard’s Men- uments of Nineveh, 2d Series, plate 21. eel bd bale | bear the inscription “ Sennacherib, the | also testified to by the background of the scene in ? king, king of the country of Assyria, fig. 2, which is too remote to be included in the | on the throne of judgment before (or at the | limits of the woodcut, but which in the original 2e of) the city of Lachish (Lakhisha). [shows a very hilly country covered with vineyards armission for its slaughter”? (Layard, N. ¢:| and fig-trees. On the other hand the palms round 149-52, and 153, note). These slabs con-| the town in fig. 2 point to the proximity of the view of a city which, if the inscription is | maritime plain, in which palms flourished — and ly interpreted, must be Lachish itself. still flourish— more than in any other region of ther slab seems to show the ground-plan of | Palestine. But though the Assyrian records thus ae city after its occupation by the conquerors | appear @ to assert the capture of Lachish, no state- | Assyrian tents pitched within the walls, and | ment is to be found either in the Bible or Josephus ign worship going on. ‘The features of the | that it was taken. Indeed, some expressions in the ‘ppear to be accurately given. At any rate | former would almost seem to imply the reverse (see ‘8 considerable agreement between the two} thought to win them,’’ 2 Chr. xxxii. 1; “ de- ‘a the character of the walls and towers, and | parted > from Lachish,’’ 2 K. xix. 8; and especially te unlike those represented on other slabs. Jer. xxxiv. 7). ‘Upport in a remarkable manner the con-| The warning of Micah (i. 13)¢ was perhaps de- 5S above drawn from the statement of the |livered at this time. Obscure as the passage is, it "18 to the position of Lachish. ‘The eleva- plainly implies that from Lachish some form of the town (fig. 1) shows that it was on hilly idolatry, possibly belonging to the northern king- one part higher than the other. This is|dom, had been imported into Jerusalem. IEE S| bes oleh: She ee | eo seems to read the name as Lubana, c The play of the words is between Lacish and b (Layard, N. § B. 158, note). 5 ee * ” also the opinion of Rawlinson (Herod. i. Recesh (WW aus AINE hai oe ot le | hortation is to flight. 1580 LACUNUS After the return from Captivity, Lachish with its surrounding “ fields’? was reoccupied by the Jews (Neh. xi. 30). It is not, however, named in the books of the Maccabees, nor indeed does its name reappear in the Bible. By Eusebius and Jerome, in the Onomasticon, Lachish is mentioned as “7 miles from Eleuthe- ropolis, towards Daroma,’’ 7. e. towards the south. No trace of the name has yet been found in any position at all corresponding to this. A site called Um-Lakis, situated on a “low round swell or knoll,” and displaying a few columns and other fragments of ancient buildings, is found between LADDER OF TYRUS, THE Gaza and Beit-Jibrin, probably the ancien’ theropolis, at the distance of 11 miles (14° miles), and in a direction not S., but about W. from the latter. Two miles east of Um is a site of similar character, called ’.Aj/an (] 46, 47). Among modern travellers, thes appear to have been first discovered by Dr. son. While admitting the identity of ’Ajlé Econ, he disputes that of Um-Lakis, © ground that it is at variance with the staten Eusebius, as above quoted; and further th remains are not those of a fortified city | brave an Assyrian army (47). On the othe OAS} = 20° ZAG il; abe al : Fig. 2. Plan of Lachish (?) after its capture. From the same work, plate 24. in favor of the identification are the proximity of Eglon (if ’Ajldn be it), and the situation of Um- Lakis in the middle of the plain, right in the road from Egypt. By ‘*Daroma’’ also Eusebius may have intended, not the southern district, but a place of that name, which is mentioned in the Talmud, and is placed by the accurate old traveller hap-Parchi as two hours south of Gaza (Zunz in Benj. of Tudela, by Asher, ii. 442). With regard to the weakness of Um-Ldkis, Mr. Porter has a good comparison between it and Ashdod (Handbk. p- 261). G. LACU’NUS (Aakkodvos: Caleus), one of the sons of Addi, who returned with Ezra, and had married a foreign wife (1 Esdr. ix. 81). . The name does not occur in this form in the parallel lists of Ezr. x., but it apparently occupies the place of CHELAL (ver. 80), as is indicated by the Caleus of the Vulg. ‘ LA’DAN ({Ald. Aaddv;] Aaddy, Tisch. [7. e. Rom.], but Agay in Mai’s ed. [%. e. Vat.]: Dalarus), 1 Esdr. y. 87. [DELAIAH, 2.] @ This name is found in the Talmud, mnbo “ZV. See Zunz (Benj. of Tud. 402). b Maundrell, ordinarily so exact (March 17), places LADDER OF TYRUS, THE (7 Tipou: a termins Tyrt, possibly reading | one of the extremities (the northern) of the over which Simon Maccabeeus was made (orparnyés) by Antiochus VI. (or Theo: shortly after his coming to the throne; th being “the borders of Egypt’? (1 Mace. : The Ladder of Tyre,¢ or of the Tyrians, | local name for a high mountain, the highest neighborhood, a hundred stadia north of Pt the modern Akka or Acre (Joseph. B. J. § 2). The position of the Ras en-Nakhura very nearly with this, as it lies 10 miles, © 120 stadia, from Akka, and is character travellers from Parehi downwards as very h steep. Both the Ras en-Nakhurah and t el-Abyad, i. e. the White Cape, sometime: Cape Blanco. a headland 6 miles still farthei are surmounted by a path cut in zigzag over the latter is attributed to Alexander tht It is possibly from this circumstance that ! el-Abyad> is by some travellers (Irby, } Velde, etc.) treated as the ladder of the | ‘the mountain climax” at an hour and @ south of the Nahr Ibrahim Bassa (Adonis meaning therefore the headland which enclose! north the bay of Juneh above Beirtt/ On tl i / ‘ P LAEL y the early and accurate Jewish traveller, archi * (Zunz, 402), and in our own times by gon (iii. 89), Mislin (Les Saints Lieu, ii. rter (Handbk. p. 389), Schwarz (76), Stanley P. p. 264), the Ras en-Nakhurah is identified he ladder; the last-named traveller pointing all that the reason for the name is the fact of differing from Carmel in that it leaves no between itself and the sea, and thus, by cut- ff all communication round its base, acts as atural barrier between the Bay of Acre and aritime plain to the north — in other words, en Palestine and Phenicia’’ (comp. p. 266). G. /EL (os [to God, i. e. consecrated to First]: Aaja: Laél), the father of Eliasaph, . of the Gershonites at the time of the [xo- Num. iii. 24). HAD Giniee Aaad; [Vat. Aaad;] Alex. Laad), son of Jahath, one of the descendants dah, from whom sprung the Zorathites, a h of the tribe who settled at Zorah, accord- y the Targ. of R. Joseph (1 Chr. iv. 2). \HAI’-ROT, THE WELL on> “Na [7d ppéap Ths Spdcews: puteus, cujus no- est [xxv. 11, nomine] Viventis et Videntis). In mis given in the A. V. of Gen. xxiv. 62, and l1, the name of the famous well of Hagar’s in the oasis of verdure round which Isaac rards resided. In xvi. 14—the only other rence of the name —it is represented in the Iebrew form of BEER-LAHAT-ROI. In the ilman traditions the well Zemzem in the Bezt- of, Mecea is identical with it. [Leni.] G. \H’MAM (mary? : Maxés kat Maaxds} Aauas: Leheman, Leemas), a town in the 1d district of J udah (Josh. xv. 40) named be- Casson and KirH isn, and in the same with LAcuisH. It is not mentioned in the sasticon, nor does it appear that any traveller bught for or discovered its site. many MSS. and editions of the Hebrew Bible, gst them the Rec. Text of Van der Hooght, ‘ame is given with a final s — Lachmas.? pt as the LXX. text is here, it will be ob- ‘that both MSS. exhibit the s. This is the isoin the Targum and the other oriental ns. The ordinary copies of the Vulgate have nm, but the text published in the “Benedic- dition of Jerome Leemas. G. \H/MI (aT? [ Bethichemite ? Rom. rdv ts Vat.] tov EAeuee; Alex. rov Aceuev: \ehem-ites), the brother of Goliah the Gittite, oy Elhanan the son of Jair, or Jaor @! Chr. In the parallel narrative (2 Sam. xxi. 19), ‘st other differences, Lahmi disappears in the Beth hal-lachmi, i. e. the Bethlehemite. This Trby and Mangles (Oct. 21), with equally unu- accuracy, give the name of Cape Blanco to the Yakurah—an hour’s ride from es-Zib, the an- 1dedippa. Wilson also (ii. 282) has fallen into a '8 confusion between the two. ‘© gives the name as al-Navakir, probably a orruption of en-Nakura. many for oor, by interchange of D LAISH 1581 reading is imported into the Vulgate of the Chron. (see above). What was the original form of the passage has been the subject of much debate; the writer has not however seen cause to alter the conclu- sion to which he came under ELNANAN — that the text of Chronicles is the more correct of the two. In addition to the LXX., the Peshito and the Tar- gum both agree with the Hebrew in reading Lachmi. The latter contains a tradition that he was slain on the same day with his brother. G. LA’ISH (wis [lion] ; in Isaiah, TTB : * Aa od; Judg. xvii. 29, OdAauals;¢ Alex. Gierirt [in Is. x. 30, Vat. Alex. ev Sa, Sin. omits:] Lais, [Laisa in Is.]), the city which was taken by the Danites, and under its new name of DAN became famous as the northern limit of the nation, and as the depository, first of the graven image of Micah (Judg. xviii. 7, 14, 27, 29), and subsequently of one of the calves of Jeroboam. In another ac- count of the conquest the name is given, with a variation in the form, as LeEsHemM (Josh. xix. 47). It is natural to presume that Laish was an ancient sanctuary, before its appropriation for that purpose by the Danites, and we should look for some ex- planation of the mention of Dan instead of Laish in Gen. xiv.; but nothing is as yet forthcoming on these points. There is no reason to doubt that the situation of the place was at or very near that of the modern Banias. [DAN.] In the A. V. Laish is again mentioned in the graphic account by Isaiah of Sennacherib’s march on Jerusalem (Is. x. 30): ‘Lift up thy voice, O daughter of Gallim! cause it to be heard unto Laish, oh poor Anathoth!”? — that is, cry so loud that your shrieks shall be heard to the very con- fines of the land. This translation — in which our translators followed the version of Junius and Tremellius, and the comment of Grotius — is adopt- ed because the last syllable of the name which ap- pears here as Laishah is taken to be the Hebrew particle of motion, ‘to Laish,” as is undoubtedly the case in Judg. xvili. 7. But such a rendering is found neither in any of the ancient versions, nor in those of modern scholars, as Gesenius, Ewald, Zunz, etc.; nor is the Hebrew word @ here rendered ‘‘eause it to be heard,’’ found elsewhere in that voice, but always absolute — ‘“ hearken,” or “ at- tend.’ There is a certain violence in the sudden introduction amongst these little Benjamite vil- lages of the frontier town so very far remote, and not less in the use of its ancient name, elsewhere so constantly superseded by Dan. (See Jer. viii. 16.) On the whole it seems more consonant with the tenor of the whole passage to take Laishah as the name of a small village lying between Gallim and Anathoth, and of which hitherto, as is still the case with the former, and until 1831 was the case with the latter, no traces have been found. In 1 Mace. ix. 5 a village named Alasa (Mai, and Alex. AAaca; A. V. Eleasa) is mentioned as the ce The LXX. have here transferred literally the He- brew words piss DOAN), «sand indeed Laish.”? Ex actly the same thing” is done in the case of Luz Gen. xxviii. 19. d sawp, hiphil imp., from aw}. 1582 LAISH scene of the battle in which Judas was killed. In the Vulgate it is given as Lazsa. If the Berea at which Demetrius was encamped on the same occa- sion was Beeroth —and from the Peshito reading this seems likely — then Alasa or Laisha was some- where on the northern road, 10 or 12 miles from Jerusalem, about the spot at which a village named Adasa existed in the time of Eusebius and Jerome. D (A) and L (A) are so often interchanged in Greek manuscripts, that the two names may indi- cate one and the same place, and that the Laishah of Isaiah. Such an identification would be to a certain extent consistent with the requirements of [s. x. 80, while it would throw some light on the nncertain topography of the last struggle of Judas Maccabeus. But it must be admitted that at present it is but conjectural; and that the neigh- borhood of Beervth is at the best somewhat far removed from the narrow circle of the villages enumerated by Isaiah. G. LA’ISH (wis [lion]; in 2 Sam. the orig. text, Cethib, has WD: [Rom. Apts, Vat-] Apers, Sedans; Alex. Aais, Aae:s: Lais), father of Phal- tiel, to whom Saul had given Michal, David's wife (1 Sam. xxv. 44; 2 Sam. iii. 15). He wasa native of GALLIM. It is very remarkable that the names of Laish (Laishah) and Gallim should be found in conjunction at a much later date (Is. x. 80). G. LAKES. [PALESTINE.] LA/KUM (ean, 2. @ Lakkim [way-ob- structer = castle, defense]: AwSdu; Alex. — un- usually wide of the Hebrew — ews Axpov} [Comp. Aakrovm: | Lecum), one of the places which formed the landmarks of the boundary of Naphtali (Josh. xix. 33), named next to Jabneel, and apparently between it and the Jordan; but the whole state- ment is exceedingly obscure, and few, if any, of the names have yet been recognized. Lakkum is but easually named in the Onomasticon, and no one _ since has discovered its situation. The rendering of the Alex. LXX. is worth remark. G. LAMB. 1. “YES, immar, is the Chaldee equivalent of the Hebrew cebes. See below, No. 6 (Ezr. vi. 9,17, vii. 17). 2. rT2%, taléh (1 Sam. vii. 9; Is. Ixv. 25), a young sucking lamb; originally the young of any animal. The noun from the same root in Arabic signifies a fawn,” in Ethiopic “a kid,” in Samar- itan “a boy;”’ while in Syriac it denotes ‘‘a boy,’’ and in the fem. “a girl.” Hence “ Talitha kumi,” “‘Damsel, arise!’ (Mark v. 41). The plural of a cognate form occurs in Is. xl. 11. 3. WIAD, cebes, airs, ceseb, and the femi- nines mw», cibsah, or mwa, cabsdh, and TIDWD, cisbah, respectively denote a male and female lamb from the first to the third year. The former perhaps more nearly coincide with the pro- vincial term hog or hogget, which is applied to a young ram before he is shorn. ‘The corresponding word in Arabic, according to Gesenius, denotes a ram at that period when he has lost his first two teeth and four others make their appearance, which happens in the second or third year. Young rams of this age formed an important part of almost every sacrifice. They were offered at the daily morning and evening sacrifice (Ex. xxix. 38-41), .xxxil. 14; 2 K. iii. 4; Is. xxxiv. 6). LAMECH on the Sabbath day (Num. xxviii. 9), at th of the new moon (Num. xxviii. 11), of tr (Num. xxix. 2), of tabernacles (Num. xxix. | of Pentecost (Lev. xxiii. 18-20), and of the over (Ex. xii. 5). They were brought princes of the congregation as burnt-offer: the dedication of the tabernacle (Num. vi were offered on solemn occasions like the co tion of Aaron (Lev. ix. 3), the coronation o mon (1 Chr. xxix. 21), the purification of th ple under Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 21), a great passover held in the reign of Josiah xxxv. 7). They formed part of the sacrifice at the purification of women after childbirt xii. 6), and at the cleansing of a leper (L 10-25). They accompanied the presentat first-fruits (Lev. xxiii. 12). When the N commenced their period of separation they a he-lamb for a trespass-offering (Num. » and at its conclusion a he-lamb was sacrific burnt-offering, and an ewe-lamb as a sin- (v. 14). An ewe-lamb was also the offering sin of ignorance (Ley. iv. 32). 4. ~D, car, a fat ram, or more probably | er,’ as the word is generally employed in tion to aytl, which strictly denotes a “ ram” Mest of Moab sent tribute to the king of Israe 000 fat wethers; and this circumstance is m of by R. Joseph Kimchi to explain Is. which he regards as an exhortation to the M to renew their tribute. The Tyrians o their supply from Arabia and Kedar (Kz. xx and the pastures of Bashan were famous as , grounds (Ez. xxxix. 18). [BAsHAN, Amer 5. JS, isdn, rendered “lamb” in Ex. is properly a collective term denoting a “ of small cattle, sheep and goats, in distincti herds of the larger animals (Eccl. ii. 7; 15). In opposition to this collective term tl 6. TTIW, seh, is applied to denote the uals of a flock, whether sheep or goats; an¢ though “lamb ”’ is in many passages the re of the A. V., the marginal reading gives (Gen. xxii. 7, 8; Ex. xii. 3, xxii. 1, &e.). [S On the Paschal Lamb see PASSOVER. W. A LAMECH (792: [perh. youth, on strength, Ges.]: Aapéx : Lamech), properly | the name of two persons in antediluvian - 1. The fifth lineal descendant from Cain (( 18-24). He is the only one except Enoch, posterity of Cain, whose history is relate some detail. He is the first polygamist on His two wives, Adah and Zillah, and his d Naamah, are, with Eve, the only antec women whose names are mentioned by His three sons —JABAL, JUBAL, and - CAIN, are celebrated in Scripture as autl useful inventions. The Targum of Jonatha that his daughter was ‘the mistress of soul songs,”’ 7. e. the first poetess. Josephus 2, § 2) relates that the number of his s¢ seventy-seven, and Jerome records the sam tion, adding that they were all cut off byt uge, and that this was the seventy-and-s vengeance which Lamech imprecated. | The remarkable poem which Lamech utte not yet been explained quite satisfactorily, LAMECH subject of a dissertation by Hilliger in ssaurus Theologico-Philol. i. 141, and is dis- sed at length by the various commentators on resis. The history of the descendants of Cain es with a song, which at least threatens blood- 4. Delitzsch observes, that as the arts which e afterwards consecrated by pious men to a venly use had their origin in the family of Cain, this early effort of poetry is composed in honor, of God, but of some deadly weapon. It is the y extant specimen of antediluvian poetry; it ne down, perhaps as a popular song, to the eration for whom Moses wrote, and he inserts it its proper place in his history. Delitzsch traces it all the peculiar features of later Semitic try —rhythm, assonance, parallelism, strophe, | poetic diction. It may be rendered: — Adah and Zillah! hear my voice, Ye wives of Lamech! give ear unto my speech ; for a man had I slain for smiting me, And a youth fur wounding me: Surely sevenfold shall Cain be avenged, But Lamech seventy and seven. The A. V. makes Lamech declare himself a irderer, “1 have slain a man to my wounding,” . This is the view taken in the LXX. and the gate. Chrysostom (Hom. xx. in Gen.) regards mech as a murderer stung by remorse, driven to ke public confession of his guilt solely to ease ; conscience, and afterwards (Hom. in Ps. vi.) taining mercy. Theodoret (Quest. in Gen. y.) sets him down as a murderer. Basil (£p. 0 [817], § 5) interprets Lamech’s words to mean it he had committed two murders, and that he served a much severer punishment than Cain, as ving sinned after plainer warning; Basil adds, at some persons interpret the last lines of the emi as meaning, that whereas Cain’s sin increased, d was followed after seven generations by the nishment of the Deluge washing out the foulness the world, so Lamech’s sin shall be followed in e seventy-seventh (see St. Luke iii. 23-38) neration by the coming of Him who taketh vay the sin of the world. Jerome (/p. xxxvi. ! Dimasum, t. i. p. 161) relates as a tradition of 3 predecessors and of the Jews, that Cain was cidentally slain by Lamech in the seventh genera- m from Adam. This legend is told with fuller tails by Jarchi. According to him, the occasion the poem was the refusal of LLamech’s wives to sociate with him in consequence of his having lled Cain and Tubal-cain; Lamech, it is said, is blind, and was led about by Tubal-cain; when e latter saw in the thicket what he supposed to ' a wild-beast, Lamech, by his son’s direction, ‘ot an arrow at it, and thus slew Cain; in alarm d indignation at the deed, he killed his son; nee his wives refused to associate with him; and ' excuses himself as having acted without a ngeful or murderous purpose. Luther considers ‘e occasion of the poem to be the deliberate urder of Cain by Lamech. Lightfoot (Decas horogr. Marc. prem. § iv.) considers Lamech as pressing remorse for having, as the first polyg- aist, introduced more destruction and murder ‘an Cain was the author of into the world. eiffer (Diff. Scrip. Loc. p. 25) collects different ‘Inions with his usual diligence, and concludes at the poem is Lamech’s vindication of himself to '3 Wives, who were in terror for the possible conse- ences of his having slain two of the posterity of ¥ LAMENTATIONS 1583 Seth. Lowth (De S. Poesi Heb. iv.) and Michaelis think that Lamech is excusing himself for some murder which he had committed in self-defense ‘for a wound inflicted on me.” A rather milder interpretation has been given to the poem by some, whose opinions are perhaps of greater weight than the preceding in a question of Hebrew criticism. Onkelos, followed by Pseudo- jonathan, paraphrases it, “I have not slain a man that I should bear sin on his account.’’ The Arab. Ver. (Saadia) puts it in an interrogative form, ‘Have I slain a man?” etc. ‘These two versions, which are substantially the same, are adopted by De Dieu and Bishop Patrick. Aben-Ezra, Calvin, Drusius, and Cartwright, interpret it in the future tense as a threat, “I will slay any man who wounds me.” ‘This version is adopted by Herder; whose hypothesis as to the occasion of the poem was partly anticipated by Hess, and has been received by Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and Delitzsch. Herder regards it as Lamech’s song of exultation on the invention of the sword by his son Tubal- cain, in the possession of which he foresaw a great advantage to himself and his family over any enemies. This interpretation appears, on the whole, to be the best that has been suggested. But whatever interpretation be preferred, all persons will agree in the remark of Bp. Kidder that the occasion of the poem not being revealed, no man can be expected to determine the full sense of it; thus much is plain, that they are vaunting words in which Lamech seems, from Cain’s indemnity, to encourage himself in violence and wickedness. W.Va. * The sacred writer inserts the lines, says Dr. Conant, “as an illustration of the spirit of the period of violence and blood, which culminated in the state of society described in Gen. vi. 5 and 11-13, when ‘the earth was filled with violence.’ They celebrate the prowess of an ancient hero, who boasts that he had signally avenged his wrong upon his adversary, and that the vengeance promised to Cain was light, compared with what he had inflicted” (Genesis, with a revised Version and Notes, p. 29; N. Y. 1868). H. 2. The father of Noah (Gen. vy. 25-81; 1 Chr. i. 3). Chrysostom (Serm. ix. in Gen. and Hom. xxi. in Gen.), perhaps thinking of the character of the other Lamech, speaks of this as an unrighteous man, though moved by a divine impulse to give a prophetic name to his son. Buttmann and others, observing that the names of Lamech and Enoch are found in the list of Seth’s, as well as in the list of Cain’s family, infer that the two lists are merely different versions or recensions of one origi- nal list, — traces of ‘two conflicting histories of the first human family. This theory is deservedly repudiated by Delitzsch on Gen. v. We: “Toa LAMENTATIONS. The Hebrew title of this book, Echah (7D), is taken, like those of the five books of Moses, from the Hebrew word with which it opens, and which appears to have been almost a received formula for the commence- ment of a song of wailing (comp. 2 Sam. i. 19-27). The Septuagint translators found themselves obliged, as in the other cases referred to, to substitute some title more significant, and adopted @pjvot "Tepeulou as the equivalent of Kinoth (Fp, «‘ lamenta- tions’’), which they found in Jer. vii. 29, ix. 10; 20; 2 Chr. xxxy. 25, and which had probably been ¥ 1584 LAMENTATIONS applied familiarly, as it was afterwards by Jewish commentators, to the book itself. The Vulgate gives the Greek word and explains it (Threni, zd est, Lamentationes Jeremie Prophete). Luther and the A. V. have given the translation only, in Klaglieder and Lamentations respectively. The poems included in this collection appear in the Hebrew canon with no name attached to them, and there is no direct external evidence that they were written by the prophet Jeremiah earlier than the date given in the prefatory verse which appears in the Septuagint. ‘This represents, however, the established belief of the Jews after the completion of the canon. Josephus (Ant. x. 5, § 1) follows, as far as the question of authorship is concerned, in the same track, and the absence of any tradition or probable conjecture to the contrary, leaves the consensus of critics and commentators almost un- disturbed.o An agreement so striking rests, as might be expected, on strong internal evidence. The poems belong unmistakably to the last days of the kingdom, or the commencement of the exile. They are written by one who speaks, with the vividness and intensity of an eye-witness, of the misery which he bewails. It might almost be enough to ask who else then living could have written with that union of strong passionate feeling and entire submission to Jehovah which charac- terizes both the Lamentations and the Prophecy of Jeremiah. The evidences of identity are, however, stronger and more minute. In both we meet, once and again, with the picture of the ‘“ Virgin- daughter of Zion,” sitting down in her shame and misery (Lam. i. 15, ii. 13; Jer. xiv. 17). In both there is the same vehement outpouring of sorrow. The prophet’s eyes flow down with tears (Lam. i. 16, ii. 11, iii. 48, 49; Jer. ix. 1, xiii. 17, xiv. 17). There is the same haunting feeling of being suwr- rounded with fears and terrors on every side (Lam. ii. 22; Jer. vi. 25, xlvi. 5).¢ In both the worst of all the evils is the iniquity of the prophets and the priests (Lam. ii. 14, iv. 13; Jer. v. 80, 31, xiv. 13, 14). The sufferer appeals for vengeance to the righteous Judge (Lam. iii. 64-66; Jer. xi. 20). He bids the rival nation that exulted in the fall of Jerusalem prepare for a like desolation (Lam. iv. 21; Jer. xlix. J2). We can well understand, with all these instarces before us, how the scribes who compiled the Canon after the return from Babylon should have been led, even in the absence of external testimony, to assign to Jeremiah the authorship of the Lamentations. Assuming this as sufficiently established, there come the questions —(1.) When, and on what occasion did he write it? (2.) In what relation did it stand to his other writings? (3.) What light does it throw on his personal history, or on that of the time in which he lived ? I. The earliest statement on this point is that of Josephus (Ant. x. 5, § 1). He finds among the books which were extant in his own time the lamentations on the death of Josiah, which are mentioned in 2 Chr. xxxv. 25. As there are no a* And it came to pass that after Israel was led captive and Jerusalem was laid waste, Jeremiah sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said.” b The question whether all the five poems were by the same writer, has however been raised by Thenius, Die Klagelieder erklart: Vorbemerk., quoted in David- son’s Introd. to O. T., p. 888. LAMENTATIONS traces of any other poem of this kind in the Jewish literature, it has been inferred, natu enough, that he speaks of this. This opinion maintained also by Jerome, and has been dete by some modern writers (Ussher, Dathe, Micha Notes to Lowth, Prel. xxii.; Calovius, Prole ad Thren. ; De Wette, Linl. in das A. T., Kk It does not appear, however, to rest on any b grounds than a hasty conjecture, arising fron reluctance of men to admit that any work b inspired writer can haye perished, or the arbi assumption (De Wette, 7. c.) that the same could not, twice in his life, have been the sp man of a great national sorrow.e And again we have to set (1) the tradition on the other embodied in the preface of the Septuagint. (2 contents of the book itself. Admitting that of the calamities described in it may haye common to the invasions of Necho and Nebuc nezzar, we yet look in vain for a single word tinctive of a funeral dirge over a devout and ze: reformer like Josiah, while we find, step by the closest possible likeness between the pictur misery in the Lamentations and the events of closing years of the reign of Zedekiah. The siege had brought on the famine in which young children fainted for hunger (Lam. ii. 11 20, iv. 4, 9; 2K. xxy. 3). The city was take storm (Lam. ii. 7, iv. 12; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 17). Temple itself was polluted with the massacre o priests who defended it (Lam. ii. 20, 21; 2 xxxvi. 17), and then destroyed (Lam. ii. 6; 2 xxxvi. 19). The fortresses and stronghold: Judah were thrown down. The anointed of Lord, under whose shadow the remnant of people might have hoped to live in safety, taken prisoner (Lam. iy. 20; Jer. xxxix. 5), — chief of the people were carried into exile (Lai 5, ii. 9; 2 K. xxv. 11). The bitterest. grief found in the malignant exultation of the Edor (Lam. iv. 21; Ps. exxxvii. 7). Under the rul the stranger the Sabbaths and solemn feasts forgotten (Lam. i. 4, ii. 6), as they could h: have been during the short period in which Ja lem was in the hands of the Egyptians. U we adopt the strained hypothesis that the v poem is prophetic in the sense of being predic the writer seeing the future as if it were acti present, or the still wilder conjecture of Jarchi, this was the roll which Jehoiachin destroyed, which was re-written by Baruch or Jere (Carpzov, Introd. ad lib. V. T. iii. e. iv.), we compelled to come to the conclusion that the cidence is not accidental, and to adopt the | not the earlier of the dates. At what period ’ the capture of the city the prophet gave this u ance to his sorrow we can only conjecture, anc materials for doing so with any probability are scanty. The local tradition, which pointed 0 cavern in the neighborhood of Jerusalem as refuge to which Jeremiah withdrew that hen write this book (Del Rio, Proleg. in Th: quoted by Carpzov, /ntrod. 1. c.), is as trustw ¢ More detailed coincidences of words and ph are given by Keil (quoting from Pareau) in his . in das A, T. § 129, d Michaelis and Dathe, however, afterwards doned this hypothesis, and adopted that of the date. e The argument that iii 27 implies the youth 0 writer, hardly needs to be confuted. ” : LAMENTATIONS LAMENTATIONS 1585 ost of the other legends of the time of Helena. ingenuity which aims at attaching each indi- al poem to some definite event in the prophet’s is for the most part simply wasted. He may -written it immediately after the attack was , or when he was with Gedaliah at Mizpeh, or n he was with his countrymen at Tahpanhes. . It is well, however, to be reminded by these sctures that we have before us, not a book in chapters, but five separate poems, each com- } in itself, each having a distinct subject, yet ght at the same time under a plan which in- 2s them all. It is clear, before entering on other characteristics, that we find, in full pre- inance, that strong personal emotion which sled itself, in greater or less measure, with the e prophetic work of Jeremiah. ‘There is here word of Jehovah,”’ no direct message to a sin- eople. The man speaks out of the fullness of eart, and though a higher Spirit than his own | him to give utterance to his sorrows, it is yet anguage of a sufferer rather than of a teacher. e is this measure of truth in the technical ification which placed the Lamentations among Hagiographa of the Hebrew Canon, in the ig which led the rabbinic writers (Kimchi, "in Psalm.) to say that they and the other s of that group, were written indeed by the of the Holy Spirit, but not witb the special f prophecy. her differences between the two books that the prophet’s name grew out of this. Here ig more attention to form, more elaboration. thythm is more uniform than in the prophecies. mplicated alphabetic structure pervades nearly thole book. It will be remembered that this tic form of writing was not peculiar to Jere- . Whatever its origin, whether it had been ed as a help to the memory, and so fitted lally for didactic poems, or for such as were \sung by great bodies of people (Lowth, Pre. ? it had been a received, and it would seem ar, framework for poems of very different eters, and extending probably over a consid- : period of time. The 119th Psalm is the ‘monument which forces itself upon our notice; ‘is found also in the 25th, 34th, 37th, 111th, | 145th —and in the singularly beautiful frag- appended to the book of Proverbs (Prov. xxxi. ). Traces of it, as if the work had been left ished (De Wette, Psalmen, ad loc.) appear /9th and 10th. In the Lamentations (con- ourselves for the present to the structure) we with some remarkable peculiarities. EE EE EE ee Areau (quoted by De Wette, /.c.) connects the ‘in the life as follows : — + During the siege (Jer. xxxvii. 5). -L. After the destruction of the Temple. II. At the time of Jeremiah’s imprisonment in Dgeon (Jer. xxxviii. 6, with Lam. iii. 55). /V. After the capture of Zedekiah. 2+ After the destruction, later than ec. ii. » Wette maintains (Comment. iiber die Psalm. hat this acrostic form of writing was the out- ‘ ofa feeble and degenerate age dwelling on the ‘tructure of poetry when the soul had departed. Igment as to the origin and character of the atic form is shared by Ewald (Poet. Biich. i. p. ) It is hard, however, to reconcile this estimate ile impression made on us by such Psalms as Qand 34th; and Ewald himself, in his transla- the Alphabetic Psalms and the Lamentations, 100 (1.) Ch. i., ii, and iv. contain 22 verses each, arranged in alphabetic order, each verse falling into three nearly balanced clauses (Ewald, Poet. Biich. p- 147); ii. 19 forms an exception as having a fourth clause, the result of an interpolation, as if the writer had shaken off for a moment the restraint of his self-imposed law. Possibly the inversion of the usual order of Y and 5 in ch. ii., iii., iv., may have arisen from a like forgetfulness. Grotius, ad foc., explains it on the assumption that here Jere- miah followed the order of the Chaldean alphabet.¢ (2.) Ch. iii. contains three short verses under each letter of the alphabet, the initial letter being three times repeated. (3.) Ch. y. contains the same number of verses as ch. i., ii., iv., but without the alphabetic order. The thought suggests itself that the earnestness of the prayer with which the book closes may have carried the writer beyond the limits within which he had previously confined himself; but the con- jecture (of Ewald) that we have here, as in Ps. ix. and x., the rough draught of what was intended to have been finished afterwards in the same manner as the others, is at least a probable one. III. The power of entering into the spirit and meaning of poems such as these depends on two distinct conditions. We must seek to see, as with our own eyes, the desolation, misery, confusion, which came before those of the »rophet. We must endeavor also to feel as he felt when he looked on them. And the last is the more difficult of the two. Jeremiah was not merely a patriot-poet, weeping over the ruin of his country. He was a prophet who had seen all this coming, and had foretold it as inevitable. He had urged submission to the Chaldeans as the only mode of diminishing the terrors of that “day of the Lord.’? And now the Chaldeans were come, irritated by the perfidy and rebellion of the king and princes of Judah; and the actual horrors that he saw, surpassed, though he had predicted them, all that he had been able to imagine. All feeling of exultation in which, as mere prophet of evil, he might have indulged at the fulfillment of his forebodings, was swallowed up in deep overwhelming sorrow. Yet sorrow, not less than other emotions, works on men according to their characters, and a man with Jeremiah’s gifts of utterance could not sit down in the mere silence and stupor of a hopeless grief. He was compelled to give expression to that which was devouring his heart and the heart of his people. ‘I'he act itself was a relief to him. It led him on (as will be seen hereafter) to a‘calmer and serener state. It revived has shown how compatible such a structure is wien the highest energy and beauty. With some of these, too, it must be added, the assignment of a later date than the time of David rests on the foregone conclusion that the acrostic structure is itself a proof of it. (Comp. Delitzsch, Commentar iiber den Psalter, on Ps. ix., x.). De Wette however allows, condescendingly, that the Lamentations, in spite of their degenerate taste, “have some merit in their way ” (‘ sind zwar in ihrer Art von einigen Werthe ”). ¢ Similar anomalies occur in Ps. xxxvii., and have received a like explanation (De Wette, Ps. p. 57). It is however a mere hypothesis that the Chaldean alphabet differed in this respect from the Hebrew; nor is it easy to see why Jeremiah should have chosen the Hebrew order for one poem, and the Chaldswan for the other three. L 1586 LAMENTATIONS the faith and hope which had been nearly crushed | out. It has to be remembered too, that in thus speak- ing he was doing that which many must have looked for from him, and so meeting at once their expectations and their wants. Other prophets and poets had made themselves the spokesmen of the nation’s feelings on the death of kings and heroes. The party that continued faithful to the policy and principles of Josiah remembered how the prophet had lamented over his death. The lamentations of that period (though they are lost to us) had been accepted as a great national dirge. Was he to be silent now that a more terrible calamity had fallen upon the people? Did not the exiles in Babylon need this form of consolation? Does not the appearance of this book in their Canon of Sacred writings, after their return from exile, indi- eate that during their captivity they had found that consolation in it? The choice of a structure so artificial as that which has been described above, may at first sight appear inconsistent with the deep intense sorrow of which it claims to be the utterance. Some wilder less measured rhythm would seem to us to have been a fitter form of expression. It would belong, however, to a very shallow and hasty criticism to pass this judgment. A man true to the gift he has received will welcome the discipline of self- imposed rules for deep sorrow as well as for other strong emotions. In proportion as he is afraid of being carried away by the strong current of feeling, will he be anxious to make the laws more difficult, the discipline more effectual. Something of this kind is traceable in the fact that so many of the master-minds of European literature have chosen, as the fit vehicle for their deepest, tenderest, most impassioned thoughts, the complicated structure of the sonnet; in Dante’s selection of the terza rima for his vision of the unseen world. What the sonnet was to Petrarch and to Milton, that the alphabetic verse-system was to the writers of Jere- miah’s time, the most difficult among the recognized forms of poetry, and yet one in which (assuming the earlier date of some of the Psalms above referred to) some of the noblest thoughts of that poetry had been uttered. We need not wonder that he should have employed ‘it as fitter than any other for the purpose for which he used it. If these Lamenta- tions were intended to assuage the bitterness of the Babylonian exile, there was, besides this, the sub- sidiary advantage that it supplied the memory with an artificial help. Hymns and poems of this kind, once learnt, are not easily forgotten, and the’ cir- cumstances of the captives made it then, more than ever, necessary that they should have this help afforded them. An examination of the five poems will enable us to judge how far each stands by itself, how far they are connected as parts forming a whole. We must deal with them as they are, not forcing our own meanings into them; looking on them not as prophetic, or didactic, or historical, but simply as lamentations, exhibiting, like other elegies, the dif- ferent phases of a pervading sorrow. I. The opening verse strikes the key-note of the a The reappearance of this structure in the later literature of the East is not without interest. Alpha- betic poems are found among the hymns of Ephraem Syrus (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. iii. p. 68) and other writers ; sometimes, as in the case of Ebed-jesus, with : LAMENTATIONS whole poem. That which haunts the pr mind is the solitude in which he finds |] She that was * princess among the natior sits (like the sJuD#A CAPTA of the Roman 1 “solitary,” “as a widow.’ Her “lovers nations with whom she had been allied) hol from her (2). ‘he heathen are entered i sanctuary, and mock at her Sabbaths ( After the manner so characteristic of Hebrew the personality of the writer now recedes a advances, and blends by hardly perceptible tions with that of the city which he personit with which He, as it were, identifies hims one time, it is the daughter of Zion that a: it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?” (1 another, it is the prophet who looks on } portrays her as “spreading forth her har there is none to comfort her’’ (17). Mingli this outburst of sorrow there are two t characteristic both of the man and the tim calamities which the nation suffers are th quences of its sins. There must be the co of those sins: * The Lord is righteous, fo rebelled against His commandment” (18). is also, at any rate, this gleam of consolati Judah is not alone in her sufferings. ‘Th have exulted in her destruction shall drink same cup. ‘They shall be like unto her in that the Lord shall call (21). If. As the solitude of the city was the of the first lamentation, so the destructi had laid it waste is that which is most con: in the second. Jehovah had thrown dowr wrath the strongholds of the daughter o! (2). The rampart and the wall lament (8). The walls of the palace are given up hand of the enemy (7). The breach is gr¢ made by the inrushing of the sea (13). W there had been united all the horrors of th and the assault: young children fainting foi in the top of every street (19); women eati own children, and so fulfilling the curse « xxviii. 53 (20); the priest and the prophet the sanctuary of the Lord (ébed.). Added to there was the remembrance of that which all along the great trial of Jeremiah’s life, which he had to wage continual war. The: of Jerusalem had seen vain and foolish thir burdens, and causes of banishment (14). Ar judgment had fallen on them. The prophe no vision of Jehovah (9). The king and the who had listened to them were captive al Gentiles. Ill. The difference in the structure of # which has been already noticed, indicates sponding difference in its substance. In preceding poems, Jeremiah had spoken of th and destruction of Jerusalem. In the | speaks chiefly, though not exclusively, of He himself is the man that has seen afflic who has been brought into darkness and light (2). He looks back upon the lon; suffering which he has been called on t the scorn and derision of the people, the t as of one drunken with wormwood (14, 1: that experience was not one which had ¢ ee es il ia a a much more complicated plan than any of poems of this type (iid. iii. p. 828), and ‘the in hymns to be sung by boys at solemn fe: in confessions of faith which were meant instruction. LAMENTATIONS ness and despair. Here, as in the prophecies, ind a Gospel for the weary and heavy-laden, a ; not to be shaken, in the mercy and righteous- of Jehovah. The mercies of the Lord are new y morning (22, 23). He is good to them that for Him (25). And the retrospect of that » experience showed him that it all formed of the discipline which was intended to lead on toa higher blessedness. It was good for a to bear the yoke in his youth, good that he ld both hope and quietly wait (26, 27). With equally characteristic of the prophet’s indi- lity, there is the protest against the wrong h had been or might hereafter be conmitted ilers and princes (34-36), the confession that hat had come on him and his people was but ghteous retribution, to be accepted humbly, searchings of heart, and repentance (39-42). closing verses may refer to that special epoch @ prophet’s life when his own sufferings had sharpest (53-56), and the cruelties of his ies most triumphant. If so, we can enter ‘fully, remembering this, into the thanksgiving which he acknowledges the help, deliverance, uption, which he had received from God (57, And feeling sure that, at some time or other, }would be for him a yet higher lesson, we can ‘with some measure of sympathy, even into errible earnestness of his appeal from the un- judgment of earth to the righteous Judge, into ry for a retribution without which it seemed m that the Eternal Righteousness would fail 6). » It might seem, at first, as if the fourth poem ut reproduce the pictures and the thoughts @ first and second. There come before us, once , the famine, the misery, the desolation, that allen on the holy city, making all faces gather ness. One new element in the picture is found e contrast between the past glory of the con- ted families of the kingly and priestly stocks arites in A. V.) and their later misery and e. Some changes there are, however, not with- hterest in their relation to the poet’s own life 0 the history of his time. All the facts gain significance by being seen in the light of the nal experience of the third poem. The decla- 1 that all this had come “ for the sins of the iets and the iniquities of the priests,” is clearer harper than before (13). ‘There is the giving the last hope which Jeremiah had cherished, he urged on Zedekiah the wisdom of submis- to the Chaldeans (20). The closing words ite the strength of that feeling against the tites which lasted all through the Captivity ¢ 2). She, the daughter of Edom, had rejoiced é fall of her rival, and had pressed on the of destruction. But for her too there was the of being drunken with the cup of the Lord's ‘| For the daughter of Zion there was hope tdon, when discipline should have done its ‘and the punishment of her iniquity should be plished. | One great difference in the fifth and last nof the poem has been already pointed out. Tr omp. with this Obad. ver. 10, and Ps. cxxxvii. 7. he Vulgate imports into this verse also the ht of a shameful infamy. It must be remem- however, that the literal meaning conveyed to ind of an Israelite one of the lowest offices of abor (comp. Judg. xvi. 21). j LAMENTATIONS 1587 It obviously indicates either a deliberate abandon- ment of the alphabetic structure, or the unfinished character of the concluding elegy. The title pre- fixed in the Vulgate, “ Oratio Jeremie Prophete,” points to one marked characteristic which may have occasioned this difference. There are signs also of a later date than that of the preceding poems. Though the horrors of the famine are ineffaceable, yet that which he has before him is rather the con- tinued protracted suffering of the rule of the Chal- dans. The mountain of Zion is desolate, and the foxes walk on it (18). Slaves have ruled over the people of Jehovah (8). Women have been gsub- jected to intolerable outrages (11). The young men have been taken to grind,’ and the children have fallen under the wood (13). But in this also, deep as might be the humiliation, there was hope, even as there had keen in the dark hours of the prophet’s own life. He and his people are sustained by the old thought which had been so fruitful of comfort to other prophets and psalmists. The periods of suffering and struggle which seemed so long, were but as moments in the lifetime of the Kternal (19); and the thought of that eternity brought with it the hope that the purposes of love which had been declared so clearly should one day be fulfilled. The last words of this lamentation are those which have risen so often from broken and contrite hearts, “ Turn thou us, O Lord, and we shall be turned. Renew our days as of old” (21). That which had begun with wailing and weeping ends (following Ewald’s and Michaelis’s translation) with the question of hope, “ Wilt thou utterly reject us? Wilt thou be very wroth against us? ”" There are perhaps few portions of the O. T. which appear to have done the work they were meant to do more effectually than this. It has presented but scanty materials for the systems and controversies of theology. It has supplied thousands with the fullest utterance for their sorrows in the critical periods of national or individual suffering. We may well believe that it soothed the weary years of the Babylonian exile (comp. Zech. i. 6, with Lam. ii. 17). When they returned to their own land, and the desolation of Jerusalem was remem- bered as belonging only to the past, this was the book of remembrance. On the ninth day of the month of Ab (July), the Lamentations of Jeremiah were read, year by year, with fasting and weeping, to commemorate the misery out of which the people had been delivered. It has come to be connectel with the thoughts of a later devastation, and its words enter, sometimes at least, into the prayers of the pilgrim Jews who meet at the “place of wailing”? to mourn over the departed glory of their city.© It enters largely into the nobly-constructed order of the Latin Church for the services of Pas- sion-week (Brevicr. Rom. Feria Quinta. “In Coena Domini’’). If it has been comparatively in the background in times when the study of Serip- ture had passed into casuistry and speculation, it has come forward, once and again, in times of danger and suffering, as a messenger of peace, com- forting men, not after the fashion of the friends of ¢ Is there any uniform practice in these devotions? The writer hears from some Jews that the only prayers said are those that would have been said, as the prayer of the day, elsewhere; from others, that the Lamentations of Jeremiah are frequently employed. 1588 LAMENTATIONS Job, with formal moralizings, but by enabling them to express themselves, leading them to feel that they might give utterance to the deepest and sad- dest feelings by which they were overwhelmed. It is striking, as we cast our eye over the list of writers who have treated specially of the book, to notice how many must have passed through scenes of trial not unlike in kind to that of which the Lamenta- tions speak. The book remains to do its work for any future generation that may be exposed to anal- ogous calamities. A few facts connected with the external history of the book remain to be stated. The position which it has occupied in the canon of the O. T. has varied from time to time. In the received Hebrew arrangement it is placed among the Kethubwm or Hagiographa, between Ruth and Koheleth (Eccle- siastes). In that adopted for synagogue use, and reproduced in some editions, as in the Bomberg Bible of 1521, it stands among the five Megilloth after the books of Moses. The LXX. group the writings connected with the name of Jeremiah together, but the Book of Baruch comes between the prophecy and the Lamentation. On the hypothesis of some writers that Jer. lii. was originally the introduction to the poem, and not the conclusion of the prophecy, and that the preface of the LXX. (which is not found either in the Hebrew, or in the Targum of Jonathan) was inserted to diminish the abruptness occasioned by this separation of the book from that with which it had been originally connected, it would follow that the arrangement of the Vulg. and the A. V. corresponds more closely than any other to that which we must look on as the original one. Literature.—Theodoret, Opp. ii. p. 286; Jerome, Opp. v. 165. Special Commentaries by Calvin (Prol. in Thren.); Bullinger (Tigur. 1575); Peter Martyr (Tigur. 1629); C&colampadius (Argent. 1558); Zuinglius (Tigur. 1544) ; Maldonatus ; Pareau (Threni Jeremie, Lugd. Bat. 1790); Tar- novius (1624); Kalkar [Lamentationes crit. et exeget. illustrate] (1836); Neumann (J eremias U. Klagelieder, 1858). Translated by Ewald, in Poet. Biich. parti. [Dichter des Alten Bundes, i. 821- 848, 3e Ausge. Gott. 1866]. E. -H.'P. * Some find a reference to Lamentations in 2 Chr. xxxv. 25: “ And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah; and all the singing men and the singing women | ferred to above, spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel; and behold, they are written in the Lamentations.” Jerome (Comm. ad Sach. xii. 11) went so far as to main- tain that the death of Josiah forms the proper sub- ject of the entire book. See also Jos. Ant. x. 5, § 1. But the contents of Lamentations utterly for- bid this supposition. It is evident from the above passage that a collection of elegies on the death of this king existed at the time when Chronicles was written; and among them it no doubt contained some composed by Jeremiah. But it is impossible to identify them with any part of our present Lamentations. They belonged in all probability to songs of Jeremiah, which like various other books cited in Chronicles, were not received into the Jew- ish Canon, and have perished. See Bleek, Linl. in das A. Test. p. 504. Some critics, as already stated, assign a low rank to the poetry of this book in comparison with other Hebrew poetry. It has been decried as artificial, overwrought, without vigor of imagination or style. Against this view we may oppose the authority of so LAMENTATIONS eminent a critic and scholar as the late Dear man. ‘“ Never,’ he says (History of the Je 446), “was ruined city lamented in langue exquisitely pathetic. Jerusalem is, as it were sonified, and bewailed with the passionate sori private and domestic attachment; while the general pictures of the famine, common mis every rank and age and sex, all the desolatio carnage, the violation, the dragging awa) captivity, the remembrance of former glori the gorgeous ceremonies, and of the glad fes the awful sense of the Divine wrath, heigh the present calamities, are successively draw! all the life and reality of an eye-witness. illustration of this statement he presents in E several extracts from these elegies, which as pression of the thoughts and spirit of the origit remarkably faithful. We cannot forbear citin one of these translations for the gratification reader. Itis taken from the last chapter (v. ‘Remember, Lord, what hath befallen, Look down on our reproach :: Our heritage is given to strangers, Our home to foreigners. Our water have we drank for money, Our fuel hath its price. « We stretch our hands to Egypt, To Assyria for our bread, At our life’s risk we gain our food, From the sword of desert. robbers. Our skins are like an oven, parched By the fierce heat of famine. Matrons in Zion have they ravished, Virgins in Judah’s cities. ¢ Princes were hung up by the hand, And age had no respect. ; Young men are grinding at the mill, Boys faint ‘neath loads of wood. The elders from the gate have ceased, The young men from their music. « The crown is fallen from our head, Woe! woe! that we have sinned. ‘Tis therefore that our hearts are faint, Therefore our eyes are dim, For Zion’s mountain desolate ; The foxes walk on it.” * Literature. —In addition to the wot the following may be noted: Michaelis, notes, in the Uberiores Ad Hagiogr. V. T. Libros by J. H. Michael others, vol. ii. (1730). J. G. Lessing, 0 Tristia Jerem., Lips. 1770. J. G. Bormel, gestinge iibers. mit Anmerkungen, t. mi Vorrede von Herder, Weimar, 1781. J. F.8 ner, Cure crit. et exeg. in Threnos Jer Eichhorn’s Repert. (1783), xii. 1-57. @. y. rer, Neue Bearbeitung d. Klaggesange, 1784. Benj. Blayney, Jerem. and Lam. Transl. with Notes, Oxf., 1784, 8d ed. Lond A. Wolfssohn and J. Lowe, Die Klagelie deutscher Uebersetzung u. hebr. Comm. 1788 (the introd. and comm. by Lowe). Jel Comm. sur les Lam. de Jérémie, Paris, 17 D. Michaelis, Obss. philol. et crit. in Jeren cinia et Threnos. Edidit et ausxit J. F. Sch Gotting. 1793. J. K. Volborth, Klaggesan Neue iibers., Celle, 1795. T. A. Deres Klagelieder u. Baruch, aus d. Hebr. Ue iibers. u. erklart, Frankf. a. M. 1809. J.™ mann, Klaglieder tibersetat, in Justi’s althebr. Dichtkunst, Giessen, 1809, ii. at's | LAMP m, Threnos Jerem. et Vaticin. Nahumi metrice didit, Notisque illustravit, Hauniz, 1814. Geo. ler, Klagelieder metrisch iibers., Erlang. 1814. P. Conz, Die Klagelieder, in E. G. Bengel’s hiv f. d. Theol. (1821), iv. 146-66, 374-428. F. C. Rosenmiiller, Lat. trans. and notes, in his olia in V. T., pars viii. vol. ii. (1827). F. W. dwitzer, Die Klagelieder iibers., mit d. LXX. 1. Vulgata verglichen, nebst krit. Anmerkk., zb. 1828. K. W. Wiedenfeld, Klagelieder, neu rs. u. erldutert, Elberf. 1830. Maurer, notes, is Comm. gram. crit. in V. T. (1835), i. 691- . *G. R. Noyes, transl. and notes, in his Hebrew pphets, vol. ii. Boston, 1837, 3d ed. 1866. FE. iderson, Jerem. and Lam. translated, with a nm., Lond. 1851, reprinted Andover, 1868. A. wel, Die Klagelieder in teutsche Liederform rtragen, mit erkl. Anmm., 1854. O. Thenius, | Klagelieder erklirt (with a transl.), Leipz. 5 (Lief. xvi. of the Kurzgef. exeg. Hundb. zum Test.). J. G. Vaihinger, Spriiche u. Klaglieder, r. tibers. u. erkldart, Stuttg. 1857 (Bd. iii. of his dicht. Schriften des A. Bundes). W. Engel- dt, Die Klagelieder Jerem. bers. u. ausgelegt, pz. 1867. C. W. E. Niigelsbach, Der Proph. emia u. die Klagelieder, Bielefeld, 1868 (Theil of Lange’s Bihelwerk). Other translations ch deserve mention here, but which embrace er the poetical books or the whole of the Old tament, are those of Dathe, De Wette, Cahen, ler, and H. A. Perret-Gentil (La Sainte Bible, is, 1866, publ. by the Suciéte biblique protestante Paris). The article Lamentations in Kitto’s Cycl. of i. Lit., 3d ed., by Emanuel Deutsch of the tish Museum, is particularly good. A. LAMP.¢ 1. That part of the golden candle- k belonging to the ‘l'abernacle which bore the it; also of each of the ten candlesticks placed by omon in the Temple before the Holy of Holies xxv. 67; 1 K. vii. 49; 2 Chr. iv. 20, xiii. 11; sh. iv. 2). The lamps were lighted every evening, ‘ cleansed every morning (Ex. xxx. 7, 8; Reland, t. Heb. i. y. 9, and vii. 8). The primary sense light (Gen. xv. 17) gives rise to frequent meta- tical usages, indicating life, welfare, guidance, 2g. 2 Sam. xxi. 17; Ps. cxix. 105; Prov. vi. “xiii. 9. 1. A torch or flambeau, such as was carried by soldiers of Gideon (Judg. vii. 16, 20; comp. 4). See vol. i. p. 695, note. In N. T. Aaumddes is in A. V., Acts xx. 8, ghts;” in John xviii. 3, “ torches;” in Matt. «1, Rev. iv. 5, “lamps.” derodotus, speaking of Egyptian lamps used at sstival, describes them as vessels filled with salt a and olive oil, with floating wicks, but does not mention the material of the ves- sels (Herod. ii. 62; Wilkinson, dne. hy. y Abridg. i. 298, ii. Lhasa 71). Egyptian Lamp. The use of lamps ie fed with oil at mar- © processions is alluded to in the parable of the Virgins (Matt. xxv. 1). ) 72, onee “93 (2 Sam. xxii. 29), from “3, Shine,” Ges. p. 867: Avxvos: lucerna. ‘along, i. e. a ‘street.’ LANGUAGE 1589 Modern Egyptian lamps consist of small glass vessels with a tube at the bottom containing a cotton-wick twisted round a piece of straw. Some water is poured in first, and then oil. [The en- graving also illustrates the conical wooden receptacle, which serves to protect the flame from the wind. | For night-travelling, a lantern composed of waxed cloth strained over a sort of cylinder of wire-rings, and a top and bottom of per- forated copper. This would, in form at least, answer to the lamps within pitchers of ° Gideon. [It may also, possibly, correspond with the lamps re- ferred to in the parable of the ten virgins.] On occasions of marriage the street or quarter where the bridegroom lives is Egyptian Lamp. Lanterns. illuminated with lamps suspended from cords drawn across. Sometimes the bridegroom is accompanied to a mosque by men bearing flambeaux, consisting of frames of iron fixed on staves, and filled with burn- ing wood; and on his return, by others bearing frames with many lamps suspended from them (Lane, Mod. Kg. i. 202, 215, 224, 225, 230; Mrs. Poole, Englishw. in Lg. ili. 131). HWE LANCET. This word is found in 1 K. xviii. 28 only. The Hebrew term is omach, which is elsewhere rendered, and appears to mean a javelin, or light spear. [See Arms, vol. i. 160 @.] In the original edition of the A. V. (1611) this meaning is preserved, the word being “ lancers.”’ * LAND-MARK. [Frep.] * LANES. The Greek word (pdun) 80 ren- dered occurs in Luke xiv. 21, Matt. vi. 12, and Acts ix. 11, and xii. 10. It originally meant “a rushing,’ and then a “line of direction,” or ‘ cur- rent,’ and occasionally in later Greek and the N. T., a place where the current of people flows It denoted especially a “narrow street ’’ (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 404), where, as in Luke xiv. 21, the poorer class of people would be found. RDC. RR. LANGUAGE. [Toncves, Coxrusion OF.] 1590 * LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TES- TAMENT. The subject of this article is not the language used by the writers of the New Testa- ment (see NEw TrsTaAMEnt, IV.), but the lan- guage of its speaker's, the actual language of the discourses and conversations which stand reported in the Greek of the New Testament. On the question, What was the prevailing lan- guage of Palestine in the time of our Saviour? there has been great difference of opinion and much earnest controversy. Some have maintained that the mass of the people spoke Aramaic only: others that they spoke Greek only; and yet others that they were acquainted with both languages, and could use this or that at pleasure. To understand the merits of the case, the simplest way will be to ‘ake up each of the two languages in question, and trace the indications of its use among the Palestine- “ews of the first century. We begin then with THE ARAMAIC (the Jewish- Aramaic or Chaldee, in distinction from the Christian-Aramaic or Syriac, dialect). It is not unlikely that the long intercourse, friendly and hostile, between the Kingdom of Israel and _ its Arameean neighbors on the north, especially the Syrians of Damascus, may have produced some effect on the language of the northern Israelites. l_ut the effect must have been much greater when ihe Kingdom of Israel was overthrown by the . ssyrians, the higher classes carried into other l.nds, and their places filled by importations from tr.bes of Arameean speech. In the siege of Jeru- salem by the Assyrians, a few years later, it appears from the proposal of the Jewish chiefs to Rabsha- keh (2 K. xviii. 26) that the Aramzan language was understood by the leading men of the city, though unintelligible to the people at large. The course of events during the next century must have added to the influence of the Aramaic in southern Palestine, until at length the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian Captivity gave it a decided preponderance. Surrounded for two generations by speakers of Aramaic, the Judean exiles could not fail to acquire that language. It may be presumed that many, perhaps most of them, still kept up the use of Hebrew in their intercourse with one another; but some, doubtless, forgot it altogether. After the return to their own land, the Aramaic was still required for communication with many brethren out of Palestine or in it, and with the officers or agents of the Persian govern- ment, which seems to have made this the official language for the provinces between the Tigris and the Mediterranean (comp. Ezra iv. 7,8). ‘The prog- ress of the change which made the Hebrew a dead language, and put the Aramaic in its place as a living one, cannot be distinctly traced for want of literary monuments. But the result is certain: it was complete at the Christian era, and may have been so two or three centuries earlier. It is true that the New Testament in several passages speaks of the Hebrew as if still in use; but in some of these (John v. 2, xix. 13, 17) it is evident from the form of a word described as Hebrew (Bnéecdd, TaBBaba, Tod-yo0a), that the Aramaic is meant, the current language of the Hebrew people. In many other cases, where words of the popular idiom are given in the N. T., but without being called Hebrew, they can only be explained from the Aramaic: thus Matt. v. 22, parka; vi. 24 (Luke xvi. 9, 13), wapwvas; xvi. 17, Bap Iwva; Mark v. 41, raAsdd Kodput; Vil. 34, eppabd; xiv. 36, "ABBA; LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT John i. 43, Kinga: Acts i. 19, "AxeASaud; 1 xvi. 22, papay aOd; — to which add the w paBBi, paBBovrvt, pecoias, maoxa, and names beginning with Bar- (son). By Josep too, the name Hebrew is often used to denote popular Aramaic; thus édwua “red ’’ (Ant. |} § 1), xavaias ‘priests’? (iii. 7, § 1), "Aw ‘Pentecost ’’ (iil. 10, § 6), éufay * priest’s gir (iii. 7, § 2), all of which he designates as Heb are evidently Aramaic. That this Jewish-Aramaic was not confined fraction of the people, but was in general familiar use among the Jews of Palestine in first century, is proved by a variety of evide outside of the N. T. as well as in it. Jose speaks of it repeatedly (B. J. pr. § 1, v. 6, & 9, § 2) as 7) wdrpios yAdooa, the tongue of fathers and fatherland, or, as we should say. mother-tongue, the native, vernacular idiom. such he contrasts it with the Greek, whiel describes (Ant. pr. § 2) as &nroBamhy hui Eévns diadéxrov ovvfiPeray, “a mode (of ex] sion) alien to us and belonging to a for language.” From Josephus we learn (B. J. y. 3) that in the siege of Jerusalem, when the wa man on the towers saw a heavy stone laun from the Roman catapults, he cried in the n: tongue, “the missile is coming;’’ he would course. give warning in the language best un stood by the citizens at large. Josephus hin when sent by Titus to communtcate with the. and persuade them to surrender, addressed multitude in Hebrew (B. J. vy. 9, § 2), whiel would not have done, if the language had not generally intelligible and acceptable. For fur proof we might appeal to the Targums or Cha paraphrases of parts of the Old Testament which the oldest, that of the Pentateuch Onkelos, was probably written not far from time of Christ; but it is possible that these gums may have been composed, not for the - of Palestine, but for those of Babylonia and adjacent countries; as Josephus states (B. J § 1) that the first edition of his own History composed in the native tongue (rf mar pie) for barbarians of the interior eee’ avw BapBdp Of more weight as proof of a vernacular Aral in Palestine is the early existence of a Hel gospel (2. e. an Aramaic, or, as Jerome calli Syro-Chaldaic gospel, “« Chaldaico Syroque sern conscriptum ’’), commonly ascribed to the Ap: MATTHEW. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, flourished in the first half of the second cent speaks of such a book, and holds it for the cor sition of the Apostle. He may have been © taken as to the authorship; but as to the exist of an Aramaic gospel at a very early period, t t is no sufficient ground to discredit his testim It appears then that there was a body of peop: Palestine during the first century to whon seemed desirable to have the gospel in Aran perhaps not solely as being more intelligible, be recommended also by patriotic or sectarian ing. Turning to the New Testament, we fin stated (Acts i. 19) that when the catastrophi Judas became known to the inhabitants of J salem, the place where it oecurred was ¢ "Akerdaud, “field of blood,” a name clearly - maic; and that it was called thus +7 (dia dia: Tw avra@y, “in their own dialect. ” This not imply that the Aramaic belonged to a jitants of Jerusalem exclusively, so as to be an by no other population; nor that it be- to them as their only language, so that no - tongue was spoken in the city; but that it to them more properly than any other ye which might be spoken there, which could be true of the native vernacular, % mdrpios roa, A strong light is thrown on this whole ct by the account of Paul's address to the e of the city (Acts xxi. 27 ff.). The Apostle, ig been rescued by the chief captain from a who sought to kill him, was about to be taken e castle; but was allowed at his own request dress the multitude. ‘ And when there was ya great silence, he spake unto them in the ew tongue.’ “ And when they heard that he sin the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the silence.”’ (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2.) It is plain he took them by surprise. If they did not rhim for a native of the Greek city Tarsus, had heard him charged with bringing Greeks the Temple; and they expected him to use the k. When they found him speaking Aramaic, showed by their greater attentiveness that they not only surprised but gratified; not that a k address would have been unintelligible, and ups not on account of any prejudice against the lage, but because the speaker, by adopting an i which was peculiarly their own, evinced his et for their nationality, his sympathy with feelings, and, as it were, made himself one eir number. t our Lord himself it is expressly stated that hree occasions he made use of the Aramaic: i with the words raA.0a Kodus he raised the hter of Jairus (Mark v. 41); when with éopadd yened the ears of the deaf man (Mark vii. 34); when upon the cross, paraphrasing the first s of Ps. xxii., he cried, édwt, éAwi, Aqua Gavi (Mark xv. 34; in Matt. xxvii. 46. HAI, Ana caBaxéavi). It is hardly supposable among all his utterances recorded in the Gospels three were the only ones for which he used iative idiom of the country. Yet it is not easy y why out of a larger series these alone should ven in the original form. In the last case it 8 probable that the Aramaie words actually ed by our Lord were given by the writer to ‘in how it was that some of the bystanders ived him to be calling on Elias. As to the i it is noteworthy that they appear in only {the Evangelists. The miracle wrought with vord éppa0d is found in Mark alone: the le wrought with rqAda Kove is found in _also, but the words ascribed to our Lord (viii. te Greek, » wats, éyelpov, — showing how un- it is in other cases to conclude that he spoke « beeause he is not said to have spoken Ara- Tt is not an unlikely supposition that in _ two instances’ the narrative of Mark reflects mpressions of an individual, whose mind was larly struck by the stupendous effect instantly fing, and seemingly produced by, the utterance or two words, so that the very sound of the 3 became indelibly fixed in his memory. That ‘ame subjective impression was not made in 1 cases of the same kind, or that being made 1 not find its way with uniformity into the ‘tive, are both easily conceivable. There is yer, yet another instance in which our Lord is ssly stated to have spoken Hebrew (Aramaic): appearance to Paul when journeying to LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 1591 Damascus. Of this event there are three narrativea (Acts ix., xxii., xxvi.); and here again it is worth noticing that among the parallel accounts only one (xxvi. 14) alludes to the fact that the language used was Hebrew. An able writer, who holds that Christ seldom spoke Hebrew, suggests that he used it on this occasion to keep his words from being understood by Paul’s companions. But if these companions failed to hear or to understand the voice (Acts ix. 7, xxii. 9), it is not safe in an event of this nature to infer their ignorance of the lan- guage. And it is quite supposable that the use of Hebrew here belonged to the verisimilitude of the manifestation, Jesus appearing to this new apostle not only with the form in which he was known to the T'welve, but with the language in which he was accustomed to converse with them. The influence of THE GREEK in Palestine began with the conquest by Alexander. The country fell under the power of Macedonian rulers, the Ptolemies of Egypt, and afterwards the Seleucide of Syria, with whom Greek was the language of court and govern- ment. It was used for the official correspondence of the state; for laws and proclamations; for peti- tions addressed to the sovereign, and charters, rights, or patents granted by him. The administration of justice was conducted in it, at least so far as the higher tribunals were concerned. At the same time commercial intercourse between the countries under Macedonian rule came into the hands of men who either spoke Greek as their native tongue or adopted it as the means of easiest and widest com- munication. Partly for purposes of trade and partly as supports for Macedonian domination, colonial cities were planted in these regions, and settled by people who, if not all of Hellenic birth, had the Greek language and civilization and bore the name of Greeks. Such influences were common to the countries about the eastern Mediterranean; and their effect in all was to establish the Greek as the general language of public life, of law, of wade, of literature, and of communication between men of different lands and races. It did not in general supplant the native idioms, as the Latin afterwards supplanted those of Gaul and Spain: it subsisted along with them, contracting but not swallowing up the sphere of their use. Its position and influ- ence may be compared with those possessed, though in a much inferior degree, by the French language in modern Europe. The sway of the Greek ex- tended to lands never conquered by Alexander. To a language so capable, so highly cultivated, so widely diffused, so rich in literature and science, the Romans could not remain indifferent, especially when the regions where it prevailed became part of their empire. Long before the Christian era a knowledge of Greek was an indispensable element in the training of an educated Roman. In the reign of the emperor Tiberius, under whom our Lord suffered, we are told (Val. Max. ii. 2, 3) that speeches in the Roman Senate were often made in Greek. ‘I'he eMperor himself, acting as judge, fre- quently heard pleadings and made examinations in it (Dion. Cass. lvii. 15). Of the emperor Claudius, a few years later, it is said (Sueton. Claud. 42) that he gave audience to Greek ambassadors speak- ing in their own tongue and made replies in the same language. The people of Palestine were subjected to Hel- lenizing influences of a special character. Their Seleucid rulers, not content with the natural opera- tion of circumstances, made strenuous efforts to 1592 impose upon them the Greek culture and religion. The great national reaction under the Maccabees, provoked by these efforts, was of no long duration. The Romans became masters of the country; and must have given new force to the Greek influences to which they had themselves yielded. It cannot be doubted that the Roman administration of state and justice in Palestine was conducted in the Greek, not the Latin, language. The first Herod, who reigned for many years under Roman supremacy, was manifestly partial to the Greeks. Czesarea, which he founded, and made, after Jerusalem, the greatest city in the land, was chiefly occupied by Greek inhabitants. Of many other cities in or near the Holy Land, we learn, mostly from incidental notices, that the population was wholly or partly Greek. Thus Gaza, Ascalon, Joppa, Ptolemais, Dora, as well as Ceesarea, on the western sea-coast ; Tiberias and Sebaste in the interior; and on the east and northeast, Hippos, Gadara, Scythopolis (or Bethshan), Pella, Gerasa, Philadelphia, and perhaps the remaining cities of the Decapolis. It is obvious that the Jews must have been powerfully affected by so many Greek communities established near them and connected with them by manifold political relations, —and especially the Jews of Galilee, surrounded as they were and pressed upon by such communities. While many Greeks were becoming settled in Palestine, Jews in yet larger numbers were leaving it to establish themselves in all the important places of the Grecian world. Without losing their nation- ality and religion, they gave up their Aramaic mother-tongue for the general language of the people round them. Had the Jews of Egypt re- tained the native idiom, the first translation of the Scriptures would probably have been made in Aramaic and not in Greek. Even Philo of Alex- andria, an older contemporary of our Lord, gives no evidence in his voluminous and learned writings of an acquaintance with either Hebrew or Aramaic. But these Jews of the dispersion frequently returned to their fatherland; they gathered in crowds to the great national festivals; and in personal communi- cation with their Palestinian kindred, did much to extend the use of their adopted language. In many cases they continued to reside in Palestine. Thus we hear (Acts vi. 9) of one or more synagogues of Libertines (Jewish freedmen from Italy), Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and peoples from western Asia Minor. That many would content themselves with their familiar Greek, as being sufficient for the ordinary purposes of communication, without taking the trouble to learn Aramaic, is a fact which can hardly be doubted. It is generally believed that the Hellenists, mentioned in Acts ix. 29 and (as converts to Christianity) in Acts vi. 1, were persons of this sort, — separated from those around them not by speaking Greek (for most others could do so), but by speaking on/y Greek. The satisfac- tion which Paul gave by his use of Aramaie (Acts xxii. 2), makes it easy to understand how such persons, who being settled in Palestine disdained to acquire the native idiom, might be looked upon with coldness or disfavor as a class by themselves, especially if they showed, as may often have been the case, a weakened attachment to other features of the national life. © [HELLENISTS. ] The Greek version of the LXX. did much to make the Greek known and familiar to the Jews of Palestine. The original Hebrew was an object of scholastic study; a learned acquaintance with it LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT was highly valued in popular estimation (Jos. xx. 11, § 2); and the number of scribes, lay etc., who possessed such knowledge was pro not inconsiderable; but to the mass of the 7 the Hebrew Scriptures were a sealed book. No there, so far as we know, prior to the Christiar any Aramaic version. ‘To the common man- man of common education —if he had any kp edge of Greek, the most natural and easy way to a knowledge of the Scriptures was by readin Greek translation. That such use was made by great numbers of the people cannot we doubted. Of the quotations from the Old 17 ment made by the writers of the New, the gr part are in the words of the LXX. Comparai few give any clear evidence that the writer h mind the Hebrew original. This familiarity the Greek version makes it probable that it used not only for private reading, but in the p services of the synagogue. In many places may have been no one sufficiently acquainted the ancient Hebrew to read and translate it fo congiegation; but in every community, we presume, there were persons who could both the Greek and add whatever paraphrase or exp tion may have been needed in Aramaic. It i: parent in the case of Josephus, that even me learning who had studied the Hebrew were fan with the version of the LXX.; in his Anti Josephus makes more use of the latter than o former. To the influence of the LXX. mu added that of a considerable Jewish-Greek litera composed mainly in the last two centuries b Christ, the so-called Apocrypha of the Old 7 ment. It is true that one of these books, the dom of Jesus the son of Sirach, is declared i preface to be the translation of a work compos Hebrew (2. €., not improbably, in Aramaic) b: grandfather of the translator. There is much re for believing also that the First Book of Mace: was written in Hebrew; and the same may per be true of some other apocryphal books. The however, that no one of them is extant in language seems to show that in general use (é: perhaps in countries east of the Syrian desert Hebrew (or Aramaic) original was early supers by the Greek version. A case nearly parall seen in Josephus’s History of the Jewish War was composed (according to the statement preface) in the native tongue for the barbarial the interior, 2. e. beyond the Syrian desert limit of the Roman power. But for those u the Roman government he translated it into 6 (rots Kara THY ‘Pwmalwy jyenoviay TH EA yAdoon peTraBarwy)- And this translation so thoroughly superseded the original work but for the statement of its author, we shoulc have known, or perhaps even suspected, its ¢ ence. : That Greek was generally understood by people of Jerusalem, is evident from the cir stances of Paul's address in Aets xxii. The m tude, who listened with hushed attention whe spoke to them in Aramaie, were already attel while expecting to hear him in Greek. It doe follow that all understood him in the former guage, or that all would have understood hit the latter. To gain attention, it would be en that a large majority could understand the lang of the speaker; those who could not, might get some notion of the speech, its drift and stance, by occasional renderings of their fellows | LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT he Greek New Testament is itself the strongest f of the extent to which its language had be- e naturalized among the Jews of Palestine. t of its writers, though not belonging to the st class, to the very poor or the quite unedu- J, were men in humble life, in whom one could ly expect to find any learning or accomplish- t beyond what was common to the great body eir countrynicn. We are not speaking of Saul uke or the unknown writer of the Epistle to Hebrews; but of Peter, Jude, James, John, and thew, if (as is most probable) we have his Gospel ts original language. Yet we find them not writing in Greek, but writing in a way which es that they were familiar with it and at home . They do not write it with elegance or with { grammatical correctness; but they show a ty, a confidence, an abundance of apt and ble expression, which men seldom attain in a wage not acquired during early life. Some found in the Hebrew idioms which color their 1598 It is acommon opinion that by the pentecosta] gift of tongues (Acts ii.) the Apostles were miracu lously endowed with a knowledge of many languages and the power of using them at pleasure. But this gift would seem from the tenor of the accounts to have been a kind of inspiration under which the speaker gave utterance to a succession of sounds, without himself willing, or perhaps even under- standing, the sounds which he uttered. It does not appear from the subsequent history that the Apostles in their teaching made use of any other languages than Greek and Aramaic. It is not necessary to suppose that Paul spoke Latin at Rome, or Maltese in Melita (Acts xxviii.) or Lycao- nian at Lystra (Acts xiv.). In the transactions at Lystra it is pretty clearly implied that Paul and Barnabas did not understand the speech of Lycaonia, and therefore failed to perceive and oppose the idol- atrous intentions of the people until they had broken out into open act. In choosing between the two an indication that they thought in Hebrew lramaic), and had to translate their thoughts | they expressed them in Greek. But similar ig occur in the compositions of Paul, who as native of a Greek city must have been all his uniliar with the Greek language. When Greek n to be spoken by Hebrews, learning it in adult , they-had to go through a process of mental lation; and the natural result was the forma- of a Hellenistic dialect, largely intermixed with tic idioms, which they handed down to their ndants. The latter, as they did not cease eak an Aramaic idiom, were little likely to et the Aramaic peculiarities in the Greek re- Josephus speaks with 1 from their fathers. asis of the difficulty which even a well-educated ound in writing Greek with idiomatic accuracy. Greek style of a Jew, especially when writing ligious subjects, was naturally affected by his iarity with the LXX., which copied from the tal many Hebrew forms of expression, and them alive in the memory and use of the View of these proofs, the conclusion seems idable that, as a general fact, the Palestine of the first century were acquainted with both ages, Greek and Aramaic. It is probable, 1, as already stated, that some were not ac- ted with the Aramaic; and it is by no means bable, though the proof is less distinct, that Were not acquainted with the Greek. Of both lasses the absolute number may have been lerable. But apparently they were the excep- the majority of the people having a knowl- More or less extended of both languages. Instances of bilingual communities, of popu- sable for the most part to express themselves » different, tongues, are by no means wanting. f the most striking at the present day is to ind ina people of Aramean origin with ly held Aramaic vernacular, the Nestorian ‘s or Chaldee Christians. “In Persia most of Storians are able to speak fluently the rude (Turkish) dialect used by the Mohammedans ‘province, and those of the mountains are ‘familiar with the language of the Koords. hey have a strong preference for their own \ and make it the constant and only medium Teourse with each other.’’ (Stoddard, Preface : tern Syriac Grammar, in Journal of Amer. Soc. vol. v.) languages which they undoubtedly possessed, the Apostles were of course guided by the circumstances. Outside of the Holy Land, they would generally, if not always, make use of the Greek. In Syria, indeed, a considerable part of the people — the same for which the Peshito version was made in the next century — would probably have understood an address in the Aramaic of Palestine; but in Antioch, the capital, where the disciples were first called Christians, Greek must have been the preva- lent language. Even in Palestine, Paul’s addresses to the Roman governors Felix and Festus would naturally be made in Greek. This is not so clear of the address to Agrippa, who had enjoyed a Jewish education. In the meeting of apostles and elders at Jerusalem (Acts xv.), occasioned by events in Antioch and attended by delegates from that city, the proceedings were probably in Greek, as also the circular letter which announced its re- sult to “the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.””. When Peter on the day of Pentecost addressed the multitude of Jews gathered from many different countries, he would naturally use the language which was most widely understood. It is true that the “ Parthians and Medes and Elamites— and Arabians,” if no others, would have been most accessible to an Aramaic address: so we judge from the fact that Josephus, writing for readers in these very lands, composed his history in the native tongue. _ Still, when we consider the “dwellers in Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,” it is probable that more would have understood Greek than Aramaic; so that if there was only one address in one language (which perhaps the terms of the narrative do not require us to suppose), it was probably made in Greek. The difficulty of determining the language used for each particular discourse is even greater in the Gospels than in the Acts. It seems reasonable to suppose that conversations between kindred and friends, and the familiar utterances of Christ to his disciples, were in Aramaic; the native idiom of the country, if not wholly given up, would naturally be employed for occasions like these. Yet as long as speakers and hearers had another language at command, there always remains, in the absence of express statements, a possibility that this, and not Aramaic, may have been used for any given con- versation. And if, on the other hand, it seems reasonable to suppose that our Lord in his more 1594 LANGUAGE OF THE N.T. public discourses spoke Greek, there is a similar difficulty about being sure in particular cases that he did not use the other language which was familiar to him and to the mass of his hearers. A recent writer assumes that every discourse which, as reported to us, contains quotations from the O. T. in the words of the LXX., must have been pro- nounced in Greek; and this criterion, were it trust- worthy, would decide many cases. But if an Aramaic speech containing Scripture quotations were to be reported in Greek by a writer familiar with the LXX., who seldom (if ever) read the Scriptures in any other form, is it not probable that he would give the quotations for the most part according to the LXX.? Sometimes, it is likely, he would depart from it, because he did not cor- rectly remember its phraseology; and sometimes, because he remembered that the Aramaic speaker gave the passage a sense varying from that given by the LXX. As the writers of the Gospels were probably in this condition — of persons familiar with the LXX., who seldom (if ever) read the Scriptures in any other form — itis unsafe from the way in which they give the Scripture quota- tions to infer anything as to the language used by the speakers who quoted them. There are in- stances, however, in which the circumstances of the case afford some indications on this point. Thus in communicating with the people of Gadara, which Josephus calls’ a Greek city, our Lord would use the Greek language. Among the crowds who fol- lowed him before the Sermon on the Mount and who seem to have stood abuut the mountain while he was speaking, were some from Decapolis (Matt. iv. 25). As already stated, the ten cities of that region were (most, if not all, of them) Greek. As our Lord had thus in the surrounding multitude of his auditors some who probably were unacquainted with Aramaic, there is plausible ground for believ- ing that. on this important occasion he made use of the Greek language. In the closing scenes of his life, when he was brought before the Roman governor for judgment and execution, it is nearly certain that Greek was used by Pilate himself and by the various speakers about his tribunal. It is stated in the Mishnah (Sofad, c. 9,n. 14), that when the war of Titus broke out, an order was issued in which fathers were forbidden to have their sons instructed in Greek. Whether this is true or not, it would be only natural that the excited patriotism of such a time should cause the Jews to set a higher value on their national tongue. Per- haps those who spoke Greek and Aramaic were now inclined as far as possible to discard the use of Greek; the Targums, which seem to have made their first appearance or to have assumed a perma- nent shape about this time, would be a help in doing so. At all events there is reason for believing that after this period there was a considerable pop- ulation in Palestine who did not understand Greek. The general opinion of the Fathers (from Clement of Alexandria down) that the Epistle to the Hebrews was composed in Aramaic, had probably no other foundation than the belief that it would otherwise have been unintelligible to the Jews of Palestine for whom it was designed. This belief is of little weight as regards the original language of the epis- tle; but as regards the prevailing language of Pal- estine in later times it may not be without. value. Eusebius of Csesarea, a native and lifelong resi- dent of Palestine, declares (Dem. Evang. lib. iii.) that the Apostles before the death of their Master LAODICEA understood no language but that of the Sy this he would hardly have done if Greek had generally spoken by the Galilzans of his own The discussion as to the language of Pale in our Saviour’s time has been quite generally nected with the question whether Matthew his Gospel in Hebrew or in Greek. Most defe of the Hebrew original (as Du Pin, Mill, Mick Marsh, Weber, Kuinoel, ete.) have maintained this was the only language then understood b body of the people. And many champions o Greek original (as Cappell, Basnage, Masch, | ner, Walus, etc.) have made a like claim f Greek. For a full list of the older writers Kuinoel in Fabricius, Bibl. Greca ed. Harle 760. We add the names of some writers who treated the subject more at large. Isaac Vi (De Oraculis Sibyllinis, Oxon. 1680), thou; staunch believer in the Hebrew original, held Greek was almost universal in the towns of ] tine, and that the Syriae still spoken in the eo and in villages had become so corrupted as t kind of mongrel Greek. He found an oppon Simon (Hist. Crit. du Texte du N. T., Ro 1689), who allowed that Greek was the cor language (langue vulgaire) of the country contended that the Jews, beside the Greek preserved the Chaldee which they brought them from Babylon, and which they calle nationwl language. Diodati of Naples (De C Greece loquente, 1767; reprinted London, went further than Vossius, asserting that Gr the days of our Lord had entirely supplante old Palestinian dialect. Replies to this work put forth by Ernesti (in Neweste Theol. 1771) and De Rossi (Della Lingua pi di Cristo, Parma, 1772). De Rossi’s wor adopted by Pfannkuche as the basis of his on the Aramsan language in Palestine (in horn’s Allgem. Bibl., 1797), translated by E. inson (in Am. Bibl. Repos., 1831) with an duction on the literature of the subject. At translation (by T. G. Repp) is given in € Biblical Cabinet, vol. ii. Against Pfannl who is one-sided in his advocacy of the Ar Hug (“inl. in d. N. T., 4th ed., 1847; transl. by Fosdick, Andover, 1836) maintaine concurrent use of Greek. His position — is nearly the same with that of Simon —1 substantially by most later writers, as © (Kinl. ind. N. T., Halle, 1836) and Bleek (E d. N. T., Berlin, 1862). A somewhat mo vanced position is taken by Dr. Alex. B (Discussions on the Gospels, 2d ed., London, who, while admitting that both languages V general use, contends that our Lord spoke | most part in Greek, and only now and tl Hebrew (Aramaic). J. LANGUAGES, SEMITIC. LANTERN (qavés) occurs only in Joht 3. See Dict. of Ant. art. Laternu: [La 1589. ] LAODICH’A (Aaodirea: [ Laodicea]) two passages in the N. T. where this city i tioned, define its geographical position in ha with other authorities. In Rev. i. 11, iii. 1 spoken of as belonging to the general district contained , Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Per Sardis, and Philadelphia. In Col. iv. 18, appears in still closer association with Colos Hierapolis. And this was exactly its posit [Siem LAODICEA of some consequence in the Roman e of ASIA; and it was situated in the valley Meander, on a small river called the Lycus, oLoss.£ and H1ERAPOLIS a few miles dis- the west. , or rather rebuilt, by one of the Seleucid hs, and named in honor of his wife, Laodicea, under the Roman government a place of nportance. Its trade was considerable; it the line of a great road; and it was the seat wentus. Krom Rey. iii. 17 we should gather pe of great wealth. The damage which sed by an earthquake in the reign of Tiberius Inn. xiv. 27) was promptly repaired by the of the inhabitants. It was soon after this nee that Christianity was introduced into a, not however, as it would seem, through et agency of St. Paul. We have good reason wing that when, in writing from Rome to LAODICEA 1595 the Christians of Colossee, he sent a greeting to those of Laodicea, he had not personally visited either place. But the preaching of the Gospel at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 19-xix. 41) must inevitably have resulted in the formation of churches in the neighboring cities, especially where Jews were settled; and there were Jews in Laodicea (Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, § 4; xiv. 10, § 20). In subsequent times it became a Christian city of eminence, the see of a bishop, and a meeting-place of councils. It is often mentioned by the Byzantine writers. The Mohammedan invaders destroyed it; and it is now a scene of utter desolation; but the extensive ruins near Denislu justify all that we read of Laodicea in Greek and Roman writers. Many travellers (Pococke, Chandler, Leake, Arundell, Fellows) have visited and described the place, but the most elabo- rate and interesting account is that of Hamilton. One Biblical subject of interest is connected with @ From Col. iv. 16 it appears that St. tote a letter to this place (4 éx Aaodixelas) ® wrote the letter to Colosse. The question vhether we can give any account of this an epistle. Wieseler’s theory (Apost. Zeit- | 450) is that the Epistle to Philemon is ‘and the tradition in the Apostelical Con- 's that he was bishop of this see is adduced irmation. Another view, maintained by nd others, and suggested by a manuscript 1 in Eph. i., is that the Epistle to the ‘ns is intended. [Epuestans.] Ussher’s that this last epistle was a circular letter Laodicea among other places (see Life and of St. Paul, ii. 488, with Alford’s Pro- a, G. T. v. iii. 13-18). None of these can be maintained with much confidence. however be said, without hesitation, that cry] Epistola ad Laodicenses is a late ‘sy forgery. It exists only in Latin MSS., and is evidently a cento from the Galatians and ‘phesians. A full account of it is given by Jones (On the Canon, ii. 31-49) The subscription at the end of the First Epistle to Timothy (éypdoy ard Aaodikelas, ris eon) untpémoris Spvylus ris Takariavfjs) is of no authority; but it is worth mentioning, as showing the importance of Laodicea. Ain Baas * The reasons for regarding Paul’s letter to Philemon as the letter to the Laodiceans are very inconclusive. The letter to Philemon was of a private nature, and in the salutation (vv. 1, 2) re- stricts itself to a private circle, and could not there- fore be a letter to the entire Laodicean church (comp. Col. i. 1 f.). Further as Onesimus certainly belonged to Colossa (Col. iv. 9), Philemon also must have belonged there, and the letter have been written to him at that place. Wieseler argues (Chronolugie des Apost. Zeitalters, p. 454) that Philemon lived at Laodicea because Archippys 1596 LAODICEANS (Phil. ver. 2 and Col. iv. 17) lived there; and he argues that Archippus lived there because Paul sends a message to him just after speaking of the church in Laodicea. But Paul directs these same Colossians to whom he writes to deliver this mes- sage as by word of mouth to Archippus (e%rare "Apxirr), and hence Archippus must have been at Colosse as well as the Colossians. It may be said indeed that efrure denotes an intermediate act like adomacacOe in ver. 15; that is possible, we must admit, but altogether against the natural impression of the passage. ‘The tradition that an Archippus was bishop at Laodicea (Apost. Const. vii. 46) may or may not have some weight as an argument. It is an inadvertence in the article above that Wieseler is said to connect that tradition with Philemon. The best edition of this Latin £pistola ad Laodicenses is Anger’s, appended to his treatise Ueber den Laodicenerbrief (Leipz. 1843). He agrees with those who regard the Epistle to the Ephesians as encyclical, and hence the one from Laodicea (Col. iv. 16) to which Paul refers. Prof. Lightfoot (Zpistle to the Philippians, p. 187 f.) maintains also this opinion. He has a valuable note there on this question of lost Apostolic epistles. Hutter’s Greek translation of this epistle will be found in Anger as above (p. 172), and in Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 873 f. Dr. Eadie has given an English version of this Greek copy in his Com- mentary on the Epistle to the Colossians. H. LAODICE’ANS (AaoSixets: Laodicenses), the inhabitants of Laodicea (Col. iv. 16; Rev. iii. 14). LAPIDOTH (M7129, 2 ¢. Lappidoth : [Rom. Alex. Aapiddd; Vat. Ald.] Aapedoé: Lapidoth), the husband of Deborah the prophetess (Judg. iv. 4 only). The word rendered ‘“ wife ’’ in the expression “wife of Lapidoth,”’ has simply the force of “woman; ’’ and thus lappidoth (* torches ”’) has been by some understood as descriptive of Deborah’s disposition, and even of her occupations. [DEeBorAH.] But there is no real ground for supposing it to mean anything but wife, or for doubting the existence of her husband. ‘True, the termination of the name is feminine; but this is the case in other names undoubtedly borne by-men, as MEREMOTH, MAHAZIOTH, etc. Te LAPWING (MD°DVA, dukiphath: Soy: upupa) occurs only in Lev. xi. 19, and in the paral- lel passage of Deut. xiv. 18, amongst the list of those birds which were forbidden by the law of Moses to be eaten by the Israelites. Commentators generally agree with the LXX. and Vulg. that the hoopoe is the bird intended, and with this interpre- tation the Arabic versions @ coincide: all these three versions give one word, hoopoe, as the meaning of OOF OA @ KS K esl , ahudhud, from root AD AD, © to moan as a dove.’’ Hudasud is the modern Arabic name for the hoopoe. At Cairo the name of this bird is hidhid (vid. Forskal, Descr. Animal. p. Vii.). i oes Ya tye Syriac), woodlund-cock. je Ss ( M4 ’ ‘Cc STN “V3 (Chaldee), artifex montis: German Bergmeister (then, gallus montanus): from the rab- LAPWING dukiphath ; but one cannot definitely say the Syriac reading,o the Targums of Je Onkelos, and Jonathan,¢ and the Jewish indicate any particular bird or not, for the} appear to resolve the Hebrew word into i ponent parts, dukiphath being by them un as the “ mountain-cock,” or * woodlan This translation has, as may be supposed, j considerable discussion as to the kind of 1 resented by these terms — expressions whicl before the date of acknowledged scientific clature, have a very wide meaning. Acco Bochart, these four different interpretatio been assigned to dukiphath: 1. The 8 supposed the bird intended to be the comn which they therefore refused to eat. 2. — interpretation understands the cock of th (Tetrao urogallus). 38. Other interpreter the attagen is meant. 4. The last intery is that which gives the hoopoe as the rend the Hebrew word.? Oh Wf dP ZEPLDLLELL — 7p Ls ALCP POPZZ: 1 “ijt op The Hoopoe ( Upupa epops). As to the value of 1. nothing can be urg favor except that the first part of the wor dik does in Arabic mean a cock.¢ 2. Wit as little reason can the cock of the woods, ¢ cailzie, be considered to have any claim t bird indicated; for this bird is an inhabita northern parts of Europe and Asia, and : it has been occasionally found, accordin; Temminck, as far south as the Ionian Isl: such occurrences are rare indeed, and we record of its ever having been seen in | Egypt. The capercailzie is therefore a bi all likely to come within the sphere of the tion of the Jews. 8. As to the third the certainly at least as much a question what fied by attagen, as by dukiphath.f Many, and curious in some instances, derivations proposed for the Hebrew word, most probable one is that which was all d There can be no doubt that the hoop bird intended by dukiphath ; for the Coptic. the Syriac kikupha, which stand for the Up are almost certainly allied to the Hebrew f dukiphath. e X) the extent | Stope of the law; (c) the penalties by which ee re , = LAW OF MOSES 1607 it is enforced; and (d) the character which it seeks to impress on the people. (a.) The basis of human society is ordinarily sought, by law or philosophy, either in the rights of the individual, and the partial delegation of them to political authorities; or in the mutual needs of men, and the relations which spring from them; or in the actual existence of power of man oyer man, whether arising from natural relationship, or from benefits conferred, or from physical or intel- lectual ascendency. The maintenance of society is supposed to depend on a “ social compact’? between governors and subjects; a compact, true as an ab- stract idea, but untrue if supposed to have been a historical reality. The Mosaic Law seeks the basis of its polity, first, in the absolute sovereignty of God, next in the relationship of each individual to God, and through God to his countrymen. It is clear that such a doctrine, while it contradicts none of the common theories, yet lies beneath them all, and shows why each of them, being only a secondary deduction from an ultimate truth, cannot be in itself sufficient; and, if it claim to be the whole truth, will become an absurdity. It is the doctrine which is insisted upon and developed in the whole series of prophecy; and which is brought to its perfection only when applied to that universal and spiritual kingdom for which the Mosaic system was a preparation. (6.) The Law, as proceeding directly from God, and referring directly to Him, is necessarily abso- lute in its supremacy and unlimited in its scope. It is supreme over the governors, as being only the delegates of the Lord, and therefore it is incom- patible with any despotic authority in them. This is seen in its limitation of the power of the master over the slave, in the restrictions laid on the priest- hood, and the ordination of the “manner of the kingdom ”’ (Deut. xvii. 14-20; comp. 1 Sam. x. 25). By its establishment of the hereditary priest- hood side by side with the authority of the heads of tribes (‘the princes”), and the subsequent sovereignty of the king, it provides a balance of powers, all of which are regarded as subordinate. The absolute sovereignty of Jehovah is asserted in the earlier times in the dictatorship of the judge; but much more clearly under the kingdom by the spiritual commission of the prophet. By his re- bukes of priests, princes, and kings, for abuse of their power, he was not only defending religion and morality, but also maintaining the divinely- appointed constitution of Israel. On the other hand, it is supreme over the governed, recognizing no inherent rights in the individual, as prevailing against, or limiting the law. It is therefore un- limited in its scope. There is in it no recognition, such as is familiar to us, that there is one class of actions directly subject to the coercive power of law, while other classes of actions and the whole realm of thought are to be indirectly guided by moral and spiritual influence. Nor is there any distinc- tion of the temporal authority which wields the former power, from the spiritual authority to which belongs the other. In fact these distinctions would have been incompatible with the character and ob- jects of the law. They depend partly on the want of foresight and power in the lawgiver; they could have no place in a system traced directly to God: they depend also partly on the freedom which be- longs to the manhood of our race; they could not therefore be appropriate to the more imperfect period of its youth. 1608 LAW OF MOSES ‘Thus the Law regulated the whole life of an Israelite. Elis house, his dress, and his food, his domestic arrangements and the distribution of his property, all were determined. In the laws of the release of debts, and the prohibition of usury, the dictates of self-interest and the natural course of commercial transactions are sternly checked. His actions were rewarded and punished with great minuteness and strictness; and that according to the standard, not of their consequences, but of their intrinsic morality; so that, for example, forni- cation and adultery were as severely visited as theft or murder. His religious worship was defined and enforced in an elaborate and unceasing ceremonial. In all things it is clear, that, if men submitted to it merely as a law, imposed under penalties by an irresistible authority, and did not regard it asa means to the knowledge and love of God, and a preparation for his redemption, it would well de- serve from Israelites the description given of it by St. Peter (Acts xv. 10), as ‘a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear.”’ (c.) The penalties and rewards by which the Law is enforced are such as depend on the direct theocracy. With regard to individual actions, it may be noticed that, as generally some penalties are inflicted by the subordinate, and some only by the supreme authority, so among the Israelites some penalties came from the hand of man, some directly from the providence of God. So much is this the case, that it often seems doubtful whether the threat that a “soul shall be cut off from Israel ’’ refers to outlawry and excommunication, or to such mi- raculous punishments as those of Nadab and Abihu, or Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. In dealing with the nation at large, Moses, regularly and as a mat- ter of course, refers for punishments and rewards to the providence of God. ‘This is seen, not only in the great blessing and curse which enforces the law as a whole, but also in special instances, as, for example, in the promise of unusual fertility to com- pensate for the sabbatical year, and of safety of the country from attack when ‘left undefended at the three great festivals. Whether these were to come from natural causes, 7. e. laws of his providence, which we can understand and foresee, or from causes supernatural, 7. e. incomprehensible and inscrutable to us, is not in any case laid down, nor indeed does it affect this principle of the Law. The bearing of this principle on the inquiry as to the revelation of a future life inthe Pentateuch is easily seen. So far as the Law deals with the nation as a whole, it is obvious that its penalties and rewards could only refer to this life, in which alone the nation exists. So far as it relates to such individual acts as are generally cognizable by human law, and capable of temporal punishments, no one would expect that its divine origin should neces- sitate any reference to the world to come. But the sphere of moral and religious action and thought to which it extends is beyond the cognizance of human laws, and the scope of their ordinary penal- ties, and is therefore left by them to the retribution of God’s inscrutable justice, which, being but im- perfectly seen here, is contemplated especially as exercised in a future state. Hence arises the ex- pectation of a direct revelation of this future state in the Mosaic Law. Such a revelation is certainly not given. Warburton (in his Divine Legation of Moses) even builds on its non-existence an argu- ment for the supernatural power and commission of the law-giver, who could promise and threaten on the people. LAW OF MOSES retribution from the providence of God in thi and submit his predictions to the test of experience. The truth seems to be that, in which appeals directly to God himself for it thority and its sanction, there cannot be that line of demarcation between this life and the which is. drawn for those whose power is limit the grave. Our Lord has taught us (Matt 31, 32) that in the very revelation of God | ‘¢God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, promise of immortality and future retributio implicitly contained. We may apply this de tion even more strongly to a law in which Go revealed as entering into covenant with Israe in them drawing mankind directly under h mediate government. His blessings and curs ‘the very fact that they came from Him, wou felt to be unlimited by time; and the plai immediate fulfillment, which they found in th would be accepted as an earnest of a deeper, ti more mysterious completion in the world to But the time for the clear revelation of this was not yet come, and therefore, while the life and its retribution is implied, yet the re and penalties of the present life are those whi plainly held out and practically dwelt upon. * Moses was of course acquainted witl doctrine of a future state of rewards and pi ments as held by the Egyptians. ‘This eml the following particulars. (1.) The continued ence of the soul after death. (2.) The imm descent of every soul, at death, into Hades, « under-world. (8.) The inspection of the s Hades by judges and tests, with a view to dete its moral character. (4.) The remanding | wicked from Hades to a degraded form of exi in this world, as for instance, in the body of (5.) The progress of the justified, through y experiences, sometimes purgatorial, up to th sium of the gods. (6.) A final judgment ai condemnation of the incorrigibly wicked. (7. reunion of the justified soul with its mum body. (See idl. Sacra, January 1868, p. 69.) cording to Egyptian theology the future con of the soul was determined by its conduct present life. The Israelites must have been fa with the same principle; and the absence explicit statement of it in their Law may counted for by the fact that it belonged 1 sphere of theology rather than of legislation was assumed throughout as the basis of th ernment of the spiritual, holy, and eternal Jel J&P. (d.) But perhaps the most important consec of the theocratic nature of the Law was the pe character of goodness which it sought to ™ Goodness in its relation tc takes the forms of righteousness and love; independence of all relation, the form of purit in its relation to God, that of piety. Laws, contemplate men chiefly in their mutual rel: endeavor to enforce or protect in them the fir qualities; the Mosaic Law, beginning with as its first object, enforces most emphatical purity essential to those who, by their unio! God, have recovered the hope of intrinsic g00 while it views righteousness and love rather ductions from these than as independent 0 Not that it neglects these qualities; on th trary it is full of precepts which show a hig ception and tender care of our relative du sos LAW OF MOSES 3% but these can hardly be called its distin- hing features. It is most instructive to refer he religious preface of the Law in Deut. vi.—xi. ecially to vi. 4-13), where all is based on the great commandment, and to observe the sub- nate and dependent character of ‘the second is like unto it,’ — Thou shalt love thy hbor as thyself; J am the Lord”? (Lev. xix. 18). the contrary, the care for the purity of the le stands out remarkably, not only in the en- ment of ceremonial “ cleanness,’’ and the mul- le of precautions or remedies against any breach , but also in the severity of the laws against uality and self-pollution, a severity which dis- uishes the Mosaic code before all others ancient modern. In punishing these sins, as committed nst a man’s own self, without reference to their t on others, and in recognizing purity as having bstantive value and glory, it sets up a standard dividual morality, such as, even in Greece and 1¢, philosophy reserved for its most esoteric hing. iin all this it is to be noticed that the appeal ot to any dignity of human nature, but to the zations of communion with a Holy God. The dination, therefore, of this idea also to the ‘ious idea is enforced; and so long as the due emacy of the latter was preserved, all other es would find their places in proper harmony. the usurpation of that supremacy in practice he idea of personal and national sanctity was which gave its peculiar color to the Jewish acter. In that character there was intense ‘ious devotion and self-sacrifice; there was a i standard of personal holiness, and connected | these an ardent feeling of nationality, based v great idea, and, therefore, finding its vent in t proverbial spirit of proselytism. But there also a spirit of contempt for all unbelievers, a forgetfulness of the existence of any duties irds them, which gave even to their religion an gonistic spirit, and degraded it in after-times ‘ground of national self-glorification. It is to raced to a natural, though not justifiable per- ‘on of the law, by those who made it their all; ‘both in its strength and its weaknesses it has peared remarkably among those Christians who | dwelt on the O. T. to the neglect of the New. is evident that this characteristic of the lites would tend to preserve the seclusion h, under God’s providence, was intended for 4, and would in its turn be fostered by it. We | Notice, in connection with this part of the Hee many subordinate provisions tending to the ‘direction. Such are the establishment of an vultural basis of society and property, and the sion against its accumulation in a few hands; liscouragement of commerce by the strict laws ) usury, and of foreign conquest by the laws ast the maintenance of horses and chariots; as 'as the direct prohibition of intermarriage with ters, and the indirect prevention of all familiar } course with them by the laws as to meats —all |; things tended to impress on the Israelitish Y 4 character of permanence, stability, and jyarative isolation. Like the nature and_posi- (of the country to which it was in great ure adapted, it was intended to preserve in “'y the witness borne by Israel for God in the See, for example, Ex. xxi. 7-11, 28-35, xxiii. 1-9; * xxii, 1-4, xxiv. 10-22, Ke., &c. | | LAW OF MOSES 1609 darkness of heathenism, until the time should come for the gathering in of all nations to enjoy the blessing promised to Abraham. III. In considering the relation of the Law to the future, it is important to be guided by the general principle laid down in Heb. vii. 19, “ The Law made nothing perfect’ (OvSty éreAclwoev 6 Néuos). This principle will be applied in different degrees to its bearing («) on the after history of the Jewish commonwealth before the coming of Christ; (6) on the coming of our Lord Himself; and (c) on the dispensation of the Gospel. (a.) To that after-history the Law was, to a great extent, the key; for in ceremonial and crim- inal law it was complete and final; while, even in civil and constitutional law, it laid down clearly the general principles to be afterwards more fully developed. It was indeed often neglected, and even forgotten. Its fundamental assertion of the The- ocracy was violated by the constant lapses into idolatry, and its provisions for the good of man overwhelmed by the natural course of human selfishness (Jer. xxxiv. 12-17); till at last, in the reign of Josiah, its very existence was unknown, and its discovery was to the king and the people as a second publication; yet still it formed the stan- dard from which they knowingly departed, and to which they constantly returned; and to it there- fore all which was peculiar in their national and individual character was due. Its direct influence was probably greatest in the periods before the establishment of the kingdom, and after the Baby- lonish Captivity. The last act of Joshua was to bind the Israelites to it as the charter of their occupation of the conquered land (Josh. xxiv. 24-27); and, in the semi-anarchical period of the judges, the Law and the Tabernacle were the only centres of anything like national unity. The establishment of the kingdom was due to an impa- tience of this position, and a desire for a visible and personal centre of authority, much the same in nature as that which plunged them so often in idolatry. The people were warned (1 Sam. xii. 6-25) that it involved much danger of their for- getting and rejecting the main principle of the Law — that “ Jehovah their God was their King.” The truth of the prediction was soon shown. Even under Solomon, as soon as the monarchy became one of great splendor and power, it assumed a heathenish and polytheistic character, breaking the Law, both by its dishonor towards God, and its forbidden tyranny over man. Indeed if the Law was looked upon as a collection of abstract rules, and not as a means of knowledge of a Personal God, it was inevitable that it should be over- borne by the presence of a visible and personal authority. Therefore it was, that from the time of the estab- lishment of the kingdom began the prophetic office. Its object was to enforce and to perfect the Law, by bearing witness to the great truths on which it was built, namely, the truth of God’s government over all, kings, priests, and people alike, and the con- sequent certainty of a righteous retribution. It is plain that at the same time this witness went far beyond the Law as a definite code of institutions. It dwelt rather on its great principles, which were to transcend the special forms in which they were embodied. It frequently contrasted (as in Is. i., etc.) the external observance of form with the spiritual homage of the heart. It tended there- fore, at least indirectly, to the time.when, according 1610 LAW OF MOSES to the well-known contrast drawn by Jeremiah, the Law written on the tables of stone should give place to a new Covenant, depending ‘on a law written on the heart, and therefore coercive no longer (Jer. xxxi. 31-34). In this they did but carry out the prediction of the Law itself (Deut. xviii. 9-22), and prepare the way for ‘the Prophet”’ who was to come. Still the Law remained as the distinctive standard of the people. In the kingdom of Israel, after the separation, the deliberate rejection of its leading principles by Jeroboam and his successors was the beginning of a gradual declension into idolatry and heathenism. But in the kingdom of Judah the very division of the monarchy and consequent diminu- tion of its splendor, and the need of a principle to assert against the superior material power of Israel, brought out the Law once more in increased honor and influence. In the days of Jehoshaphat we find, for the first time, that it was taken by the Levites in their circuits through the land, and the people taught by it (2 Chr. xvii. 9). We find it especially spoken of in the oath taken by the king ‘at his pillar’? in the Temple, and made the stan- dard of reference in the reformations of Hezekiah and Josiah (2 K. xi. 14, xxiii. 3; 2 Chr. xxx., xxxiv. 14-31). Far more was this the case after the Captivity. The revival of the existence of Israel was hallowed by the new and solemn publication of the Law by Ezra, and the institution of the synagogues, through which it became deeply and familiarly known. [Ezra.] The loss of the independent monarchy, and the cessation of prophecy, both combined to throw the Jews back upon the Law alone, as their only distinctive pledge of nationality, and sure guide to truth. ‘The more they mingled with the other subject-nations under the Persian and Grecian empires, the more eagerly they clung to it as their distinction and safeguard; and opening the knowl- edge of it to the heathen, by the translation of the LXX., based on it their proverbial. eagerness to proselytize. This love for the Law, rather than any abstract patriotism, was the strength of the Maccabean struggle against the Syrians,4 and the success of that struggle, enthroning a Levitical power, deepened the feeling from which it sprang. It so entered into the heart of the people that open idolatry became impossible. The certainty and authority of the Law’s commandments amidst the perplexities of paganism, and the spirituality of its doctrine as contrasted with sensual and carnal idolatries, were the favorite boast of the Jew, and the secret of his influence among the heathen. The Law thus became the moulding influence of the Jewish character; and, instead of being looked upon as subsidiary to the promise, and a means to its fulfillment, was exalted to supreme importance as at once a means and a pledge of national and individual sanctity. This feeling laid hold of and satisfied the mass of the people, harmonizing as it did with their ever-increasing spirit of an almost fanatic nation- ality,.until the destruction of the city. The Phari- sees, truly representing the chief strength of the people, systematized this feeling; they gave it fresh food, and assumed a predominant leadership over it by the floating mass of tradition which they @ Note here the question as to the lawfulness of war vf the Sabbath in this war (1 Mace. ii. 23-41). LAW OF MOSES gradually accumulated around the Law as a nu The popular use of the word “lawless ’’. (gp as a term of contempt (Acts ii. 23; 1 Cor. i for the heathen, and even for the uneducated of their followers (John vii. 49), marked and si typed their principle. | Against this idolatry of the Law (which imported into the Christian Church is describe vehemently denounced by St. Paul), there wer reactions. The first was that of the SAppuC one which had its basis, according to commor dition, in the idea of a higher love and seryi God, independent of the Law and its sanctions which degenerated into a speculative infidelity an anti-national system of politics, and probably had but little hold of the. people. other, that of the EssrNEs, was an attem burst the bonds of the formal law, and assei ideas in all fullness, freedom, and purity. 1] practical form it assumed the character of high ascetic devotion to God; its speculative gui seen in the school of Philo, as a tendency merely to treat the commands and history 0 Law on a symbolical principle, but actual allegorize them into mere abstractions. In née form could it be permanent, because it ha sufficient relation to the needs and realitie human nature, or to the personal Subject of a Jewish promises; but it was still a declaratic the insufficiency of the Law in itself, and a pre tion for its absorption into a higher prineiy unity. Such was the history of the Law befor coming of Christ. It was full of effect and bles when used as a means; it became hollow an sufficient, when made an end. (6.) The relation of the Law to the adve' Christ is also laid down clearly by St. Paul. ‘ Law was the rra:daywyds eis Xpiordv, the se (that is), whose task it was to guide the chi the true teacher (Gal. iii. 24); and Christ was end”’ or object “of the Law’ (Rom. x. 4). being subsidiary to the promise, it had ac plished its purpose when the promise was fulf In its national dspect it had existed to guar faith in the theocracy. The chief hindrance to faith had been the difficulty of realizing the ir ble presence of God, and of conceiving 4 munion with the infinite Godhead which shoul crush or absorb the finite creature (comp. Der 24-27; Num. xvii. 12, 18; Job ix. 82-85, xii 22; Is. xlv. 15, lxiv. 1, &c.). From that had in earlier times open idolatry, and a half-idola longing for and trust in the kingdom; in ¢ times the substitution of the Law for the pro This difficulty was now to pass away forev the Incarnation of the Godhead in One truly visibly man. The guardianship of the Law no longer needed, for the visible and per presence of the Messiah required no further wif Moreover, in the Law itself there had always a tendency of the fundamental idea to burs formal bonds which confined it. In looking t¢ as especially their King, the Israelites were in! ing a privilege, belonging originally to all man and destined to revert to them. Yet that ele of the Law which was local and national, now prized of all by the Jews, tended to limit thi to them, and place them in a position antago to the rest of the world. It needed therefo pass away, before all men could be brought kingdom, where there was to be « neither Je Gentile, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free.” — Ss LAW OF MOSES in its individual, or what is usually called its oral ’’ aspect, the Law bore equally the stamp transitoriness and insufficiency. It had, as we e seen, declared the authority of truth and good- s over man’s will, and taken for granted in man existence of a spirit which could recognize that hority; but it had done no more. Its presence | therefore detected the existence and the sinful- 3 of sin, as alien alike to God’s will and man’s anature; but it had also brought out with more ement and desperate antagonism the power of dwelling in man as fallen (Rom. vii. 7-25). It y showed therefore the need of a Saviour from and of an indwelling power which should ble the spirit of man to conquer the “law”? of Hence it bore witness of its own insufficiency, led men to Christ. Already the prophets, king by a living and indwelling spirit, ever h and powerful, had been passing beyond the 1 letter of the law, and indirectly condemning f insufficiency. But there was need of «the phet ”’ who should not only have the fullness of spirit dwelling in Himself, but should have the er to give it to others, and so open the new ensation already foretold. When He had come, by the gift of the Spirit implanted in man a internal power of action tending to God, the saints of the Law, needful to train the childhood ie world, became unnecessary and even injurious ie free development of its manhood. he relation of the Law to Christ in its sacrificial ceremonial aspect, will be more fully considered yhere. [Sacririce.] It is here only neces- to remark on the evidently typical character 1e whole system of sacrifices, on which alone ‘virtue depended; and on the imperfect em- ment, in any body of mere men, of the great 1 which was represented in the priesthood. he former declaring the need of Atonement, te latter the possibility of Mediation, and yet self doing nothing adequately to realize either, aw again led men to Him, who was at once mly Mediator and the true Sacrifice. jaus the Law had trained and guided man to acceptance of the Messiah in his threefold iter of King, Prophet, and Priest; and then, ork being done, it became, in the minds of who trusted in it, not only an encumbrance i, snare. To resist its claim to allegiance was a a matter of life and death in the days of pal and, in a less degree, in after-ages of the ch. ) It remains to consider how far it has any )ation or existence under the dispensation of Hrospel. As a means of justification or salva- d it ought never to have been regarded, even » Christ; it needs no proof to show that still (0 this be so since He has come. But yet Kjuestion remains whether it is binding on ‘tians, even when they do not depend on it Ivation. Seems clear enough, that its formal coercive rity as a whole ended with the close of the h dispensation. It is impossible to separate, A We may distinguish, its various elements: | 8t be regarded as a whole, for he who offended "he point against it was guilty of all’? (James »)- Yet it referred throughout to the Jewish “ant, and in many points to the constitution, toms, and even the local circumstances of vople. That covenant was preparatory to the ‘lau, in which it is now absorbed; those cus- LAW OF MOSES 1611 toms and observances have passed away. It follows, by the very nature of the case, that the formal obli- gation to the Law must have ceased with the basis on which it is grounded. This conclusion is stamped most unequivocally with the authority of St. Paul through the whole argument of ‘the Kpistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, That we are “not under law”? (Rom. vi. 14, 15; Gal. v 18); “that we are dead to law’ (Rom. vii. 4-6, Gal. ii. 19), redeemed from under law ”’ (Gal. iv, 5), ete., ete., is not only stated without any limita- tion or exception, but in many places is made the prominent feature of the contrast between the ear- lier and later covenants. It is impossible, therefore, to make distinctions in this respect between the various parts of the Law, or to avoid the conclusion that the formal code, promulgated by Moses and sealed with the prediction of the blessing and the curse, cannot, as a daw, be binding on the Chris- tian. But what then becomes of the declaration of our Lord, that He came “not to destroy the Law, but to perfect it,” and that “not one jot or one tittle of it shall pass away?” what of the fact conse- quent upon it, that the Law has been reverenced in all Christian churches, and had an important influence on much Christian legislation ? The explanation of the apparent contradiction lies in the difference between positive and moral obligation. The positive obligation of the Law, as such, has passed away; but every revelation of God’s Will, and of the righteousness and love which are its ele- ments, imposes a moral obligation, by the very fact of its being known, even on those to whom it is not primarily addressed. So far as the Law of Moses is such a revelation of the will of God to mankind at large, occupying a certain place in the education of the world as a whole, so far its declara- tions remain for our guidance, though their coer- cion and their penalties may be no longer needed. It is in their general principle, of course, that they remain, not in their outward form; and our Lord has taught us, in the Sermon on the Mount, that these principles should be accepted by us in a more extended and spiritual development than they could receive in the time of Moses. To apply this principle practically there is need of much study and discretion, in order to distin- guish what is local and temporary from what. is universal, and what is mere external form from what is the essence of an ordinance. The moral law undoubtedly must be most permanent in its influence, because it is based on the nature of man generally, although at the same time it is modified by the greater prominence of love in the Christian system. Yet the political law, in the main prin- ciples which it lays down as to the sacredness and responsibility of all authorities, and the rights which belong to each individual, and which neither slavery nor even guilt can quite eradicate, has its permanent value. Even the ceremonial law, by its enforcement of the purity and perfection needed in any service offered, and in its disregard of mere costliness on such service, and limitation of it strictly to the prescribed will of God, is still in many respects our best guide. In special cases (as for example that of the sabbatical law and the prohibition of marriage within the degrees) the question of its authority must depend on the further inquiry, whether the basis of such laws is one com- mon to all human nature, or one peculiar to the Jewish people. This inquiry will be difficult, espe- 1612 LAWYER LAZARUS lawyer”? in Matt. xxii. 85 and Luke x. called “one of the scribes’? in Mark xii. 2 the common reading in Luke xi. 44, 45, 46, rect, it will be decisive against this; for ther our Lord's denunciation of the “ scribes and sees,” we find that a lawyer said, “ Maste saying, thou reproachest us a/so. And Jest Woe unto you also ye lawyers.” But it is that the true reading refers the passage Pharisees alone. By the use of the word ; (in Tit. iii. 9) as a simple adjective, it seem probable that the title “scribe’’ was a leg official designation, but that the name vow properly a mere epithet signifying one “lea the law ’? (somewhat like the of é« vduov it iv. 14), and only used as a title in comm lance (comp. the use of it in Tit. iii. 13, : the lawyer’). This would account for tl parative unfrequency of the word, and the f it is always used in connection with ‘Pha never, as the word ‘“scribe’’ so often is, ' nection with ‘chief priests’? and ‘*¢ [SCRIBES. ] ! LAYING ON OF HANDS. [See ment to BAPTISM, vol. i. p. 242 ff. LAZARUS (Ad¢apos: Lazarus). . name, which meets us as belonging to two ters in the N. T., we may recognize an abb: form of the old Hebrew Eleazar (Tertull. L Grotius, et al.). The corresponding “ry? in the Talmud (Winer, Realwd. 8. Y. Josephus, and in the historical books of th rypha (1 Mace. viii. 17; 2 Mace. vi. 18), th frequent form is "EAed¢apos; but Ad Capos also (B. J. v. 18, § 7). 1. Lazarus of Bethany, the brother of and Mary (John xi. 1). All that we know is derived from the Gospel of St. John, a records little more than the facts of his de: resurrection. We are able, however, withot violence to the principles of a true histori icism, to arrive at some conclusions helj with at least some measure of probability, t these scanty outlines. In proportion as ¥ the scattered notices together, we find the bining to form a picture far more disti interesting than at first seemed possible; distinctness in this case, though it is not to taken for certainty, is yet less misleading #] which, in other cases, seems to arise from th statements of apocryphal traditions. (1.) guage of John xi. 1 implies that the siste the better known. Lazarus is “ of (d7é) of the village (ék ris k@uns) of Mary sister Martha.’? No stress can be laid difference of the prepositions (Meyer and in loc.), but it suggests as possible the i that while Lazarus was, at the time of St narrative, of Bethany, he was yet described the kéun tis of Luke x. 38, already know! dwelling-place of the two sisters (Greswell, Village of Martha and Mary, Dissert. V. i Ee ee ee eee cially in the distinction of the essence from the form; but by it alone can the original question be thoroughly and satisfactorily answered. For the chief authorities, see Winer, Realv. 6 Gesetz.’? Michaelis (Jos. Gerecht) is valuable for facts and antiquities, not much so for theory. Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vol. ii. pp. 124-205, is most instructive and suggestive as to the main ideas of the Law. But after all, the most important parts of the subject need little else than a careful study of the Law itself, and the references to it contained in the N. T. foe Bs * The moral law does not derive its obligation from the preceptive form of the ten commandments. Every duty there enjoined, with the exception per- haps of keeping the Sabbath, lies in the moral nature of man, and was in force from the beginning. And even the Sabbath was observed upon moral grounds before the decalogue gave it such promi- nence as a positive institution. If then the deca- logue as a national code, passed away with the Jewish polity, as some interpret 2 Cor. iii. 7, the moral force of its precepts remains unimpaired for all mankind. Ewald, who regards the institution of the Sab- bath as purely Mosaic, yet says concerning it, “ the Sabbath, though the simplest and most spiritual, is at the same time the wisest and most fruitful of institutions. | Nothing could be devised which would require so few outward signs or equipments, nor which would so directly lead man both to sup- ply what is lost in the tumult of life, and effectually to turn his thoughts again to the higher and the eternal. Thus it becomes the true symbol of the higher religion which now entered into the world, and the most eloquent witness to the greatness of the human soul which first grasped the idea of it.” Hence the Sabbath rests upon the indestructible grounds of the moral law. It has been fitly said that “ the legislation of the Pentateuch is impregnated with Lygyptian memo- ries.’ The diet, the dress, and the ablutions of the priests, the details of the sacrifice, the scape- goat and the red-heifer, the Urim and Thummim, the waters of jealousy, and various purifying cer- emonies, show a correspondence more or less marked with Egyptian customs. The same is true of some of the more humane and delicate provisions of the Law concerning widows and orphans, the poor and _ slaves, the rights of private property, etc. But such incidental correspondences, while confirming its author’s acquaintance with Egypt, by no means detract from that superiority which marks the Law of Moses as an ethical and spiritual code. In ad- dition to authorities above named, see Saalschitz, das Mos. Recht; J. Salvador, Histoire des Institu- tions de Moise ; Rey. W. Smith, The Pentateuch ; Ebers, Zgypten und die Biicher Moses. J. P. T. LAWYER (vourds). The title “lawyer” is generally supposed to be equivalent to the title ‘¢geribe,” both on account of its etymological meaning, and also because the man, who is called a ence, their use in close juxtaposition migh' antithetical, and that this was more likely t one who, though writing in Greek, was not as his native tongue; (8) that John i. 45 is 0] same doubt as this passage; (4) that our always said to be amd, never ék Na¢apéer. In connection with this verse may be n¢ the Vulg. translation, “ de castello Martha, a By most commentators (Trench, Alford, Tholuck, Liicke) the distinction which Greswell insists on is re- jected as utterly untenable. It may be urged, how- ever, (1) that it is the distinction drawn by a scholar like Hermann (‘*t Ponitur autem a7 nonnisi de origine secunda, cum in origine prima usurpetur éx,” quoted by Wahl, Clavis N. T.); (2) that though both might come to be used apart with hardly any shade of differ- q LAZARUS this, and from the order of the three names hn xi. 5, we may reasonably infer that Lazarus he youngest of the family. The absence of ame from the narrative of Luke x. 38-42, and ibordinate position (eis r@y dvareiuévwy) in ast of John xii. 2, lead to the same conclusion. The house in which the feast is held appears, John xii. 2, to be that of the sisters. Martha es,” as in Luke x. 40. Mary takes upon her- hat which was the special duty of a hostess ‘ds an honored guest (comp. Luke vii. 46). impression left on our minds by this account, stood alone, would be that they were the givers e feast. In Matt. xxvi.6, Mark xiv. 3, the fact * appears as occurring in ‘“ the house of n the Leper: ’* but a leper, as such, would been compelled to lead a separate life, and inly could not have given a feast and received ltitude of guests. Among the conjectural ex- tions which have been given of this difference, ? pothesis that this Simon was the father of wo sisters and of Lazarus, that he had been ten with leprosy, and that actual death, or the death that followed on his disease, had left his ren free to act for themselves, is at least as able as any other, and has some’ support in ecclesiastical traditions (Niceph. /7. £. i. 27; phyl. in loc.; comp. Ewald, Geschichie, v. _ Why, if this were so, the house should be ibed by St. Matthew and St. Mark as it is; the name of the sister of Lazarus should be ether passed over, will be questions that will us further on. (3.) All the circumstances hn xi. and xii., — the feast for so many guests, number of friends who come from Jerusalem mdole with the sisters, left with female rela- , but without a brother or near kinsman (John 9), the alabaster-box, the ointment of spike- very costly, the funeral vault of their own, — ,to wealth and social position above the average p. Trench, Miracles, 29). The peculiar sense h attaches to St. John’s use of of *IovSato 'p. Meyer on John xi. 19), as the leaders of the sition to the teaching of Christ, in other words, ivalent to Scribes and Elders and Pharisees, sts the further inference that these visitors or ds belonged to that class, and that previous re- is must have connected them with the family ethany. (4.) A comparison of Matt. xxvi. 6, txiy. 3, with Luke vii. 36, 44, suggests another eture that harmonizes with and in part explains regoing. ‘To assume the identity of the anoint- {the latter narrative with that of the former (so jus), of the woman that was a sinner with Mary sister of Lazarus, and of one or both of these | Mary Magdalene (Lightfoot, /arm. § 33, vol. 5), is indeed (in spite of the authorities, critical yatristic, which may be arrayed on either side) ether arbitrary and uncritical. It would be ia ‘quent traditions of a.Castle of Lazarus, pointed 9 Medizyal pilgrims among the ruins of the vil- Which had become famous by a church erected 3 honor, and had taken its Arab name (Lazarieh, azarieh) from him. [BerHany, vol. i. 195 0.) The identity has been questioned by some har- sts ; but it will be discussed under Simon. Weyer assumes (on Matt. xxvi. 6) that St. John, eye-witness, gives the true account, St. Matthew it. Mark an erroneous one. Paulus and Greswell iiiat Simon was the husband, living or de- & a LAZARUS 1613 hardly less so to infer, from the mere recurrence of so common a name as Simon, the identity of the leper of the one narrative with the Pharisee of the other; nor would the case be much strengthened by an appeal to the interpreters who have main- tained that opinion (comp. Chrysost. Hom. in Matt. Ixxx.; Grotius, in Matt. xxvi.6; Lightfoot, l.c.; Winer, Realwb. s. v. Simon). [Comp. MARY MAGDELENE and Srmon.] There are however some other facts which fall in with this hypothesis, and to that extent confirm it. If Simon the leper were also a Pharisee, it would explain the fact just noticed of the friendship between the sisters of Lazarus and the members of that party in Jeru- salem. It would account also for the ready utter- ance by Martha of the chief article of the creed of the Pharisees (John xi. 24). Mary's lavish act of love would gain a fresh interest for us if we thought of it (as this conjecture would lead us to think) as growing out of the recollection of that which had been offered by the woman that was a sinner. The disease which gave occasion to the later name may have supervened after the incident which St. Luke records. The difference between the localities of the two histories (that of Luke vii. being apparently in Galilee near Nain, that of Matt. xxvi. and Mark xiv. in Bethany) is not greater than that which meets us on comparing Luke x. 38 with John xi. 1 (comp. Greswell, Diss. 7. c.). It would follow on this assumption that the Pharisee, whom we thus far identify with the father of Lazarus, was prob- ably one of the members of that sect, sent down from Jerusalem to watch the new teacher (comp. Ellicott’s Hulsean Lectures, p. 169); that he looked on him partly with reverence, partly with suspicion ; that in his dwelling there was a manifestation of the sympathy and -love of Christ, which could not but leave on those who witnessed or heard of it, and had not hardened themselves in formalism, a deep and permanent impression. (5.) One other conjecture, bolder perhaps than the others, may yet be hazarded. Admitting, as must be admitted, the absence at once of all direct evidence and of tra- ditional authority, there are yet some coincidences, at least remarkable enough to deserve attention, and which suggest the identification of Lazarus with the young ruler that had great possessions, of Matt. xix., Mark x., Luke xviiic The age (veavlas, Matt. xix. 20, 22) agrees with what has been before inferred (see above, 1), as does the fact of wealth above the average with what we know of the condition of the family at Bethany (see 2). If the father were an influential Pharisee, if there were ties of some kind uniting the family with that body, it would be natural enough that the son, even in comparative youth, should occupy the posi- tion of an &pxwv. The character of the young ruler, the reverence of his salutation (d:5do0KaAe aryadé, Mark x. 17) and of his attitude (yovume-n- pes I aor: 2 ee, 2 Oe ear TaeEEREEAL RoeEEE ceased, of Martha ; Grotius and Kuindl, that he was a kinsman, or a friend who gave the feast for them. e The arrangement of Greswell, Tischendorf, and other harmonists, which places the inquiry of the rich ruler after the death and resurrection of Lazarus, is of course destructive of this hypothesis. It should be remembered, however, that Greswell assigns the same position to the incident of Luke x. 88-42. The order here followed is that given in the present work by Dr Thomson under GosPELs and Jesus CuRIsT, by Light. foot, and by Alford. 1614 LAZARUS vas, tbid.), his eager yearning after eternal life, the strict training of his youth in the commandments of God, the blameless probity of his outward life, all these would agree with what we might expect in the son of a Pharisee, in the brother of one who had chosen “the good part.’’ It may be noticed further, that as his spiritual condition is essentially that which we find about the same period in Martha, so the answer returned to him, “ One thing thou lackest,”’ and that given to her, “One thing is needful,’’ are substantially identical.« But fur- ther, it is of this rich young man that St. Mark uses the emphatic word (Jesus, beholding him, loved him,” jydryneev) which is used of no others in the Gospel-history, save of the beloved Apostle and of Lazarus and his sisters (John xi. 5). We can hardly dare to believe that that love, with all the yearning pity and the fervent prayer which it implied, would be altogether fruitless. There might be for a time the hesitation of a divided will, but the half-prophetic words, “ with God all things are possible,” “there are last that shall be first,’ for- bid our hasty condemnation, as they forbade that of the disciples, and prepare us to hope that some discipline would yet be found to overcome the evil which was eating into and would otherwise destroy so noble and beautiful a soul. However strongly the absence of the name of Lazarus, or of the locality to which he belonged, may seem to militate against this hypothesis, it must be remembered that there is just the same singular and perplexing omission in the narrative of the anointing in Matt. xxvi. and. Mark xiv. Combining these inferences then, we get, with some measure of likelihood, an insight into. one aspect of the life of the Divine Teacher and Friend, full of the most living interest. The village of Bethany and its neighborhood were — probably from the first, certainly at a later period of our Lord’s ministry —a frequent retreat from the controver- sies and tumults of Jerusalem (John xviii. 2; Luke xxi. 37, xxii. 39). At some time or other one household, wealthy, honorable, belonging to the better or Nicodemus section of the Pharisees (see above, 1, 2, 3), learns to know and reverence him. There may have been within their knowledge or in their presence, one of the most signal proofs of his love and compassion for the outcast (sup. 4). Dis- ease or death removes the father from the scene, and the two sisters are left with their younger brother to do as they think right. They appear at Bethany, or in some other village, where also they had a home (Luke x. 38, and Greswell, /. c.), as loving and reverential disciples, each according to her character. In them and in the brother over whom they watch, He finds that which is worthy of his love, the craving for truth and holiness, the hungering and thirsting after righteousness which shall assuredly be filled. But two at least need an education in the spiritual life. Martha tends to rest in outward activity and Pharisaic dogmatism, and does not rise to the thought of an eternal life as actually present. Lazarus (see 5) oscillates be- tween the attractions of the higher life and those @ The resemblance is drawn out in a striking and beautiful passage by Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives, § 10). b By some interpreters the word was taken as= carefiAnoev. It was the received rabbinic custom for the teacher to kiss the brow of the scholar whose LAZARUS of the wealth and honor which’ surround the 4 way of his life, and does not. see how deep and were the commandments which, as he though had “kept from his youth up.’ The: seare words; the loving look: and act,® fail to unde evil which has been corroding his inner life. — discipline which could provide a remedy for it among the things that were ‘ impossible men,’’ and “ possible with God only.” A weeks pass away, and then comes the sickne; John xi. One of the sharp malignant fevers of estine ¢ cuts off the life that was so precious. sisters know how truly the Divine Friend has ] him on whom their love and their hopes centi They send to Him in the belief that the tiding the sickness will at once draw Him to them (. xi. 8). Slowly, and in words which (though a wards understood otherwise) must at the time seemed to the disciples those of one upon w the truth came not at once but by degrees, he pares them for the worst. ‘ This sickness is unto death ’’ — “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth ‘‘ Lazarus is dead.’ The work which He was d as a teacher or a healer (John x. 41, 42) in E abara, or the other Bethany (John x. 40, and i. was not interrupted, and continues for two. after the message reaches him. Then come: journey, occupying two days more. When He his disciples come, three days have passed since burial. The friends from Jerusalem, chiefly o! Pharisee and ruler class, are there with their solations. The sisters receive the Prophet, according to her character, Martha hastening o meet Him, Mary sitting still in the house, | giving utterance to the sorrowful, half-reproa thought, ‘ Lord, if thou: hadst been here my bro had not died”? (John xi. 21-32). His symp: with their sorrow leads Him also to weep as if felt it in all the power of its hopelessness, the He came with the purpose and the power to ren it. Men wonder at what they look on as a sig the intensity of his affection for him who had cut off (John xi. 35, 86). They do not perhap: that with this emotion there mingles indigna (éveBptunoaro, John xi. 33, 88) at their wan faith. Then comes the work of might as the an: of the prayer which the Son offers to the Fa (John xi. 41, 42). The stone is rolled away J the mouth of the rock-chamber in which the | had been placed. The Evangelist writes as i were once again living through every sight sound of that hour. He records what could n fade from his memory any more than could recollection of his glance into that: other sepul (comp. John xi. 44, with xx. 7). ‘He that dead came forth, bound hand and foot with gr clothes; and his face was bound about wit napkin.”’ | It is well not to break in upon the silence w hangs over the interval of that “ four days’ sle (comp. Trench, Miracles, U. c.). In nothing» the Gospel narrative contrast more strongly ' the mythical histories which men have imag’ of those who have returned from the unseen wor answers gave special promise of wisdom and holil Comp. Grotius, ad (oc. : e The character of the’ disease is inferred fror rapid progress, and from the fear expressed by Ma (John xi. 89). Comp. Lampe, ad loc. d The return of Er the Armenian (Plato, Rep and Cunningham of Melrose (Bede. Eccl. Hist. ¥ J LAZARUS with the legends which in a later age have ered round the name of Lazarus (Wright's St. ick’s Purgatory, p. 167), than in this absence ll attempt to describe the experiences of the an soul that had passed from the life of sense ie land of the shadow of death. But thus much ast must be borne in mind in order that we ‘understand what. has yet to come, that the who was thus recalled as on eagle’s wings from cingdom of the grave (comp. the language of complaint of Hades in the Apocryphal Gospel licodemus, Tischendorf, Evang. Apoc. p. 305) t have learnt, “ what it is to die’? (comp. a pas- of great beauty in Tennyson's /n Memoriam, ., xxxii.). The soul that had looked with open ‘upon the things behind the veil had passed ch a discipline sufficient to burn out all selfish of the accidents of his outward life.¢ There haye been an inward resurrection parallel with outward (comp. Olshausen, ad loc.). What had given over as impossible had been shown twofold sense to be possible with God. ne scene more meets us, and then the life of amily which has come before us with such day- _ clearness lapses again into obscurity. The ‘of the wonder spreads rapidly, as it was likely ), among the ruling class, some of whom had essed it. It becomes one of the proximate sions of the plots of the Sanhedrim against our *s life (John xi. 47-53). It brings Lazarus io than Jesus within the range of their enmity n xii. 10), and leads perhaps to his withdrawing time from Bethany (Greswell). They persuade iselyes apparently that they see in him one who deen a sharer in a great imposture, or who has ‘restored to life through some demoniac agency.? others gather round to wonder and congratulate. e house which, though it still bore the father’s » (sup. 1), was the dwelling of the sisters and srother, there is a supper, and Lazarus is there, Martha serves, no longer jealously, and Mary 3 out her love in the costly offering of the nard ointment, and finds herself once again tdged and hastily condemned. ‘The conjecture 4 has been ventured on above connects itself ‘this fact also. The indignant question of sand the other disciples implies the expecta- fa lavish distribution among the poor. They on the feast as like that which they had seen ‘e house of Matthew the publican, the farewell \uet given to large numbers (comp. John xii. ) by one who was renouncing the habits of his x life. If they had in their minds the recol- n of the words, “Sell that thou hast, and give | poor,” we can understand with what a sharp- ledge their reproach would come as they con- fd the command which their Lord had given i the “ waste’ which He thus approved. After all direct knowledge of Lazarus ceases. We ‘think of him, however, as sharing in or wit- “ag the kingly march from Bethany to Jerusalem fe taken as two typical instances, appearing under eo the most contrasted possible, yet having ) few features in common. A tradition of more than average interest, bearing Vis Point, is mentioned (though without an au- x by Trench (Miracles, 1. c.). ‘The first question : by Lazarus, on his return to life, was whether duld die again. He heard that he was still sub- © the common doom of all men, and was never "ards seeu to smile. . LAZARUS 1615) (Mark xi. 1), “enduring life again that Passover to keep” (Keble, Christean Year, Advent Sunday) The sisters and the brother must have watched eagerly, during those days of rapid change and wonderful expectation, for the evening’s return to Bethany and the hours during which “ He lodged there’’ (Matt. xxi. 17). It would be as plausible an explanation of the strange fact recorded by St. Mark alone (xiv. 51) as any other, if we were to suppose that, Lazarus, whose home was near, who must have known the place to which the Lord ‘oftentimes resorted,’’ was drawn to the garden of Gethsemane by the approach of the officers “ with their torches and lanterns and weapons’’ (John xvili. 3), and in the haste of the night-alarm, rushed eagerly, ‘ with the linen cloth cast about his naked body,’’ to see whether he was in time to rendet any help. Whoever it may have been, it was not one of the company of professed disciples. It was one who was drawn by some strong impulse to follow Jesus when they, all of them, “ forsook him and fled.’’? It was one whom the _high-priest’s servants were eager to seize, as if destined for a second victim (comp. John xii. 10), when they made no effort to detain any other. The linen-cloth (ciwSév), forming, as it did, one of the “soft raiment’ of Matt. xi. 8, used in the dress and in the funerals of the rich (Mark xv. 46; Matt. xxvii. 59), points to a form of life like that which we have seen reason to assign to Lazarus (comp. also the use of the word in the LXX. of Judg. xiv. 12, and Prov. xxxi. 24). Uncertain as all inferences of this kind must be, this is perhaps at least as plausible as those which identify the form that appeared so startlingly with St. John (Ambrose, Chrysost. Greg. Mag.); or St. Mark (Olshausen, Lange, Isaac Williams, On the Passion, p. 80); or James the brother of the Lord (Epiphan. Her. p. 87, 13; comp. Meyer, ad loc.); and, on this hypothesis, the omission of the name is in harmony with the noticeable reticence of the first three Gospels throughout as to the members of the family at Bethany. We can hardly help believing that to them, as to others (the five hundred brethren at once,” 1 Cor. xv. 6), was manifested the presence of their risen Lord; that they must have been sharers in the Pentecostal gifts, and have taken their place among the members of the infant Church at Jerusalem in the first days of its overflowing love; that then, if not before, the command, “ Sell that thou hast and give to the poor,’’ was obeyed by the heir of Bethany, as it was by other possessors of lands or houses (Acts ii. 44, 45). But they had chosen now, it would seem, the better part of a humble and a holy life, and their names appear no more in the history of the N. T. Apocryphal tra- ditions even are singularly scanty and jejune, as if the silence which “sealed the lips of the Evan. gelists’’ had restrained others also. We almost wonder, looking at the wild luxuriance with which they gather round other names, that they have . b The explanation, ‘ He casteth out devils by Beel zebub ”? (Matt. ix. 84, x. 25; Mark iii. 22, &c.), which originated with the scribes of Jerusalem, would nat- urally be applied to such a case as this. That it was so applied we may infer from the statement in the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu (the rabbinic anticipation of another Leben Jesu), that this and other like miracles were wrought by the mystic power of the cabbalistic Shemhamphorash, or other magical formula (Lampe, Comm. in Joan, xi. 44). 1616 LAZARUS nothing more to tell of Lazarus than the meagre tale that follows: He lived for thirty years after his resurrection, and died at the age of sixty (Ipiphan. Her. i. 652). When he came forth from the tomb, it was with the bloom and fragrance as of a bridegroom (Avapopa& MiAdrov, Thilo, Cod. Apoc. N.°T. p. 807). He and his sisters, with Mary the wife of Cleophas, and other disciples, were sent out to sea by the Jews in a leaky boat, but miraculously escaped destruction, and were brought safely to Marseilles. There he preached the Gospel, and founded a church, and became its bishop. After many years, he suffered martyrdom, and was buried, some said, there; others, at Citium in Cyprus. | Finally his bones and those of Mary Mag- dalene were brought from Cyprus to Constantinople by the Emperor Leo the Philosopher, and a church erected to his honor. Some apocryphal books were extant bearing his name (comp. Thilo, Codex Apoc. N. T. p. 711; Baronius, ad Martyrol. Rom. Dee. xvii.; and for some wild Provencal legends as to the later adventures of Martha, Migne, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. **Marthe’’). These traditions have no personal or historical interest for us. In one instance only do they connect themselves with any fact of importance in the later history of Christen- dom. ‘The Canons of St. Victor at Paris occupied a Priory dedicated (as one of the chief churches at Marseilles had been) to St. Lazarus. This was assigned, in 1633, to the fraternity of the Congre- gation founded by St. Vincent de Paul, and the mission-priests sent forth by it consequently became conspicuous as the Lazarists (Butler’s Lives of the Saints, July xix.). The question why the first three Gospels omit all mention of so wonderful a fact as the resurrection of Lazarus, has from a comparatively early period forced itself upon interpreters and apologists. Ra- tionalist critics have made it one of their chief points of attack, directly on the trustworthiness of St. John, indirectly on the credibility of the Gospel history as a whole.. Spinoza professed to make this the crucial instance by which, if he had but proof of it, he would be determined to embrace the common faith of Christians (Bayle, Dict. s. v. “‘Spinoza’’). Woolston, the maledicentissimus of English Deists, asserts that the story is “ brimfull of absurdities,’ ‘a contexture of folly and fraud ”’ (Diss. on Miracles, v.; comp. N. Lardner’s Vindi- cations, Works, ii. 1-54). Strauss (Leben Jesu, pt. ii. ch. ix. § 100) scatters with triumphant scorn the subterfuges of Paulus and the naturalist interpreters (such, for example, as the hypothesis of suspended animation), and pronounces the narrative to have all the characteristics of a mythus. Ewald (Gesch. vy. p. 404), on the other hand, in marked contrast to Strauss, recognizes, not only the tenderness and beauty of St. John’s narrative, and its value as a representation of the quickening power of Christ, but also its distinct historical character. The explanations given of the perplexing phenomenon are briefly these: (1.) That fear of drawing down persecution on one already singled out for it kept the three Evangelists, writing during the lifetime of Lazarus, from all mention of him; and that, this reason for silence being removed by his death, St. John could write freely. By some (Grotius, ad loc.) this has perhaps been urged too exclusively. By others (Alford, ad loc. ; Trench, On Miracles, 1. c.) it has perhaps been too hastily rejected as extrava- gant. (2.) That the writers of the first three Gospels confine themselves, as by a deliberate plan, gy LAZARUS to the miracles wrought in Galilee (that of the man at Jericho being the only exception), anc they therefore abstained from all mention o fact, however interesting, that lay outside that (Meyer, ad loc.). This too has its weigl showing that, in this omission, the three Evang are at least consistent with themselves, but it the question, ‘ what led to that consistency ? answered. (3.) That the narrative, in its b and simplicity, its human sympathies and m ous transparency, carries with it the evidence own truthfulness, and is as far removed as po from the embellishments and rhetoric of a writ myths, bent upon the invention of a miracle. should outdo all others (Meyer, J. ¢.). In there is no doubt great truth. To invent an any story as this is told would require a ; equal to that of the highest artistic skill o later age, and that skill we should hardly exp find combined at once with the deepest year after truth and a deliberate perversion of it. would seem, to any but a rationalist critic, a probability quite infinite, in the union, in any; writer, of the characteristics of a Goethe, ar land, and ana Kempis. (4.) Another explan suggested hy the attempt to represent to one’ what must have been the sequel of such a f that now in question upon the life of him wh been affected by it, may perhaps be added. history of inonastic orders, of sudden conye: after great critical deliverances from disea: danger, offers an analogy which may help to— us. In such cases it has happened, in a tho instances, that the man has felt as if the thre his life was broken, the past buried foreye things vanished away. He retires from the | changes his name, speaks to no one, or speak: in hints, of all that belongs to his former life, sl above all from making his conversion, his resi tion from the death of sin, the subject of cot talk. ‘The instance already referred to in offers a very striking illustration of this. Cun ham, in that history, gives up all to his wii children, and the poor, retires to the monaste Melrose, takes the new name of Drithelm ‘‘ would not relate these and other things whi had seen to slothful persons and such as negligently.’’ Assume only that the laws « spiritual life worked in some such way on Laz that the feeling would be strong in proporti the greatness of the wonder to which it owe birth; that there was the recollection, in hin in others, that, in the nearest parallel inst silence and secrecy had been solemnly enj (Mark v. 48), and it will seem hardly won that such a man should shrink from publicity should wish to take his place as the last and | in the company of believers. Is it strange t should come to be tacitly recognized amon; members of the Church of Jerusalem that, so as he and those dear to him survived, the wonder of their lives was a thing to be remem with awe by those who knew it, not to be talk written about to those who knew it not? The facts of the case are, at any rate, sing! in harmony with this last explanation. St. Mai and St. Mark, who (the one writing for the brews, the other under the guidance of St: 1 represent what may be described as the feelit the Jerusalem Church, omit equally all mentt the three names. ‘They use words whieh indeed have been dwvavta cuveroiow. but a = LAZARUS {the names. Mary’s costly offering is that of woman ’’ (Matt. xxvi. 7; Mark xiv. 3). The ein which the feast was made is described so ‘indicate it sufficiently to those who knew the , and yet to keep the name of Lazarus out of ; The hypothesis stated above would add two , instances of the same reticence. St. Luke, ng later (probably after St. Matthew and St. < had left the Church of Jerusalem with the rials afterwards shaped into their Gospels), eting from all informants all the facts they will municate, comes across one in which the two rs are mentioned by name, and records it, sup- jing, or not having learnt, that of the locality. John, writing long afterwards, when all three «fallen asleep,’’ feels that the restraint is no er necessary, and puts on record, as the Spirit zs all things to his remembrance, the whole of wonderful histery. The circumstances of his too, his residence in or near Jerusalem as the ctor of the bereaved mother of his Lord (John 27), his retirement from prominent activity for ng a period [JOHN THE APOSTLE], the insight nd he had into the thoughts and feelings of 2 who would be the natural companions and ds of the sisters of Lazarus (John xx. 1, 11-18); ese indicate that he more than any other Evan- t was likely to have lived in that inmost circle isciples, where these things would be most gly and reverently remembered. Thus much uth there is, as usual, in the idealism of some preters, that what to most other disciples would simply a miracle (répas), a work of power ais), like other works, and therefore one which could without much reluctance omit, would be Mm a sign (onuetov) manifesting the glory of witnessing that Jesus was “the resurrection the life,’ which he could in no wise pass over, must when the right time came record in its ess. (Comp. for this significance of the mira- ind for its probable use in the spiritual educa- of Lazarus, Olshausen, ad loc.) It is of course jus, that if this supposition accounts for the sion in the three Gospels of the name and ty of Lazarus, it accounts also for the chron- tal dislocation and harmonistic difficulties h were its inevitable consequences. |The name Lazarus occurs also in the well- m parable of Luke xvi. 19-31. What is there remarkable is, that while in all other cases ms are introduced as in certain stations, be- ng to certain classes, here, and here only, we with a proper name. Is this exceptional fact looked on as simply one of the accessories of arable, giving as it were a dramatic semblance ality to what was, like other parables, only an ration? Were the thoughts of men called to itymology of the name, as signifying that he bore it had in his poverty no -help but God 9. Germ. “ Gotthilf’’), or as meaning, in the ened form, one who had become altogether less”? (So Theophyl. ad loc., who explains it aBonOnros, recognizing possibly the deriva- vhich has been suggested by later critics from a \ On the resurrection of Lazarus there is an essay ‘milich, Die Rathsel d. Erweckung Lazarus, in Cheol. Stud. u. Krit. 1862, pp. 65-110, 248-336. internal evidence of the truth of the narrative, Wwness, The Unconscious Truth of the Four Gos- ‘hila. 1868, pp. 46-75. A. : | 102 us | — , LAZARUS 1617 ey 8, “there is no help.’ Comp. Suicer, 8. 0-3 Lampe, ad loc.) Or was it again not a parable, but, in its starting-point at least, a history, so that Lazarus was some actual beggar, like hin who lay at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, familiar there- fore both to the disciples and the Pharisees? (So Theophyl. ad loc.; Chrysost., Maldon.; Suicer, 8. U. Ad(apos.) Whatever the merit of either of these suggestions, no one of them can be accepted as quite satisfactory, and it adds something to the force of the hypothesis ventured on above, to find that it connects itself with this question also. The key which has served to open other doors fits into the wards here. If we assume the identity sug- gested in (5), or if, leaving that as unproved, we remember only that the historic Lazarus belonged by birth to the class of the wealthy and influential Pharisees, as in (3), then, though we may not think of him as among those who were “ covetous,”’ and who therefore derided by scornful look and gesture (efeuverhpi(ov, Luke xvi. 14) Him who taught that they could not serve God and Mammon, we may yet look on him as one of the same class, known to them, associating with them, only too liable, in spite of all the promise of his youth, to be drawn away by that which had corrupted them. Could anything be more significant, if this were so, than the introduction of this name into such a parable ? Not Eleazar the Pharisee, rich, honored, blameless among men, but Eleazar the beggar, full of leprous sores, lying at the rich man’s gate, was the true heir of blessedness, for whom was reserved the glory of being in Abraham’s bosom. Very striking too, it must be added, is the coincidence between the teaching of the parable and of the history in another point. The Lazarus of the one remains in Abraham’s bosom because “if men hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be per- suaded, though one rose from the dead.’? ‘The Lazarus of the other returned from it, and yet bears no witness to the unbelieving Jews of the wonders or the terrors of Hades. In this instance also the name of Lazarus has: been perpetuated in an institution of the Christian Church. The parable did its work, even in the dark days of her life, in leading men to dread simply selfish luxury, and to help even the most loathsome forms of suffering. The leper of the Middle Ages appears as a Lazzaro.o Among the orders, half-military and half-monastic, of the 12th century, was one which bore the title of the Knights of St. Lazarus (A. D. 1119), whose special work it was to minister to the lepers, first of Syria, and afterwards of Europe. The use of dazaredto and lazar-house for the leper-hospitals then founded in all parts of Western Christendom, no less than that of dazzarone for the mendicants of Italian towns, are indications of the effect of the parable upon the mind of Europe in the Middle Ages, and thence upon its later speech. In some cases there seems to have been a singular transfer of the attri- butes of the one Lazarus to the other. Thus in Paris the prison of St. Lazare (the Clos S. Lazare, b It is interesting, as connected with the traditions given above under (1), to find that the first occurrence of the name with this generic meaning is in the old Provengal dialect, under the form Ladre. (Comp. Diez, Roman. Wirterbuch, s. v. Lazzaro, [and Scheler, Dict. d’étymol. francaise, 8, y. Ladre.}) 1618 LAZARUS so famous in 1848) had been originally a hospital for lepers. In the 17th century it was assigned to the Society of Lazarists, who took their name, as has been said, from Lazarus of Bethany, and St. Vincent de Paul died there in 1660. In the imme- diate neighborhood of the prison, however, are two streets, the Rue d’Enfer and Rue de Paradis, the names of which indicate the earlier associations with the Lazarus of the parable. It may be mentioned incidentally, as there has been no article under the head of Divxs, that the occurrence of this word, used as a quasi-proper name, in our early English literature, is another proof of the impression which was made on the minds of men, either by the parable itself, or by dramatic representations of it in the medieval mysteries. ‘The writer does not know where it is found for the first time in this sense, but it appears as early as Chaucer (“ Lazar and Dives,’ Somp- noure’s Tale) and Piers Ploughman (‘ Dives in the deyntees lyvede,” 1. 9158), and in later theological literature its use has been all but universal. In no other instance has a descriptive adjective passed in this way into the received name of an individual. The name Nimeusis, which Euthymius gives as that of the rich man (Trench, Parables, 1. ¢.), seems never to have come into any general use. KE. H. P. * The view proposed above (5) that Lazarus of Bethany and the rich ruler were the same person, deserves a brief consideration. It is not only a conjecture incapable of proof, but is open to mani- fold objections. In the first place, it requires us to reverse the probable order of events in the Evangelic history. Christ's interview with the young ruler is recorded by each of the first three Evangelists, and in all three is preceded and followed by the same incidents. Its connection with these inci- dents, since not obviously logical, may be presumed to be chronological. But Matt. (xix. 1, 2; xx. 17, 29) and Mark (x. 1, 32, 46) both represent these transactions as occurring when our Lord was ap- proaching Jerusalem by the way of Jericho. As respects this passage through Jericho, Luke (xviii. 35; xix. 1) agrees with them; and all three then coincide with John (xii. 1) in the arrival at Bethany. This arrival occurred after the resurrection of Lazarus. And it seems fair to infer, therefore, that the inquiry of the rich ruler, which three Evangelists concur in connecting with the journey, and ap- parently with its close, actually belongs where it stands. This harmonistic result is corroborated by the circumstance, that of the various visits Christ made to Jerusalem during his ministry, Matthew, Mark, and Luke record only the last; so that what they connect with that visit may be presumed to pertain to it. Further, the journeys thither shortly antecedent (John vii., x.), seem both to have been characterized by privacy; but the progress to which the interview with the ruler belongs was marked by publicity. We may conclude, therefore, with con- siderable confidence, that the interview with the rich man took place after the resurrection of Lazarus. While thus; on the one hand, we find no reason to detach that interview and its attendant events from their more obvious connection, there are ob- a * The arrangement of occurrences by which the hypothesis under consideration becomes possible, is not only at variance with the intimations of the sacred text but is rejected by the majority of critics. (Com- LAZARUS stacles, on the other hand, in the way of gt separation. In order to make the interview pr the resurrection, it is generally transferred t period of our Lord’s stay ** where John at baptized ’’ (John x. 40). But, according to the current representation of the Synoptists, it oce while Jesus was on a journey towards Jerus So that this representation does not harm easily either with the fourth Evangelist’s p Zweivev éxet (x. 40; cf. ver. 42, xi. 7); or wit fact. that John (xi. 8) represents our Lord ¢ called by the sisters’ message to a locality he recently left, rather than as hastened in his prc towards one he was already approaching; or fw with the circumstance that the afflicted family to have known at once where to send for him. Moreover, the hypothesis considered by its unsatisfactory in several respects. ‘That La was too young to be mentioned, is, indeed, : carious inference to draw from the silence of (x. 88 ff.) when relating an incident in whi was not concerned. And with still greater im ability is confirmation for this extreme of respecting his youth derived from the circums inentioned in John xii. 2. (On this view, too. does it happen that Bethany is at the same described as the place ‘‘ where Lazarus wa Still, admitting him to be as young as represe he is too young to be identified with the rich If even after his resurrection he held a “subord position ’’ in his own home, he can hardly been a man of such distinction abroad as the clearly was. Nor would his youth be comp with this official rank. The term &pywy, in may be taken in the general sense of “a le: man.’’ but such preéminence even, would re in its possessor something more than a yacill character and a large inheritance. While i word is understood to designate him as a rul the synagogue, he must have been of full [SynAGOGUE.] In fact the common impre respecting the youthfulness of the ruler also, monizes neither with his title, nor with the natural suggestion of his words ék vedrnrdés and, according to usage, yveavioxos employe him by Matthew, appears to have been appli to men quite up to middle life. Again, - makes the impression that the “loye” of | for the rich “young man,’ had_ its origi he looked upon him in their first interview each other, and not in a prior intimacy either him or with the family to which he belo Once more, the reference given to the words “ God all things are possible,” is not only at vat with Christ's apparent design in uttering | but, when we consider the miraculous meth which their verification was secured, reduces from a lofty and abiding encouragement very » to the level of a truism. The supposed identity, if established, woul¢ good ground for the perplexity that has bee: at the entire absence of an allusion to the 1 rection of Lazarus in the narratives of the sy? Evangelists. ‘That all three should introdu interesting a personage and not only make no: tion of his name, but omit also what, accordi the above hypothesis, was the sequel of the ‘ pare especially Robinson’s Greek Harmony, Introductory Note, and Ellicott on the Life @ Lord, Lect. vi. Jae. MS LEAD ustration of God's power, the fulfillment of “Master’s “half-prophetic words,” is an im- bility which requires better support than con- te. J. HT. BAD (VID: udarBos, wddArBdos), one e most common of metals, found generally in of rocks, though seldom in a metallic state, most commonly in combination with sulphur. s early known to the ancients, and the allusions in Scripture indicate that the Hebrews were yequainted with its uses. The rocks in the iborhood of Sinai yielded it in large quantities, t was found in Egypt. That it was common lestine is shown by the expression in Eeclus. 18, where it is said, in apostrophizing Solo- “Thou didst multiply silver as lead;” the t having in view the hyperbolical description lomon’s wealth in 1 K. x. 27: “the king made Iver to be in Jerusalem as stones.” It was g the spoils of the Midianites which the chil- of Israel brought with them to the plains of , after their return from the slaughter of the (Num. xxxi. 22). The ships of Tarshish sup- the market of Tyre with lead, as with other 8 (Bz. xxvii. 12). Its heaviness, to which mis made in Ex. xv. 10 and Ecelus. xxii. 14, lit to be used for weights, which were either ‘form of a round flat cake (Zech. y. 7), or a | unfashioned lump or “stone” (ver. 8) ; | having in ancient times served the purpose ights (comp. Proy. xvi. 11). This fact may os explain the substitution of “lead” for es” in the passage of Ecclesiasticus above 1; the commonest use of the commonest metal present to the mind of the writer. If Gese- jeorrect in rendering JIN, dndc, by “lead,” . vil. 7, 8, we have another instance of the ies to which this metal was applied in form- eball or bob of the plumb-line. [PLumn- | Its use for weighting fishing-lines was in the time of Homer (//. xxiv. 80). But tt and others identify dmdc with tin, and from it the etymology of « Britain.” nodern metallurgy lead is used with tin in ‘Mposition of solder for fastening metals to- | That the ancient Hebrews were acquainted Meuse of solder is evident from the descrip- ven by the prophet Isaiah of the processes faccompanied the formation of an image for jus worship. The method by which two }of metal were joined together was identical at employed in modern times; the substances united being first clamped before being sol- | No hint is given as to the composition of Ter, but in all probability lead was one of the HT ‘ls employed, its usage for such a purpose ‘of great antiquity. The ancient Egyptians ' for fastening stones together in the rough a building, and it was found by Mr. Layard the ruins at Nimroud (Nin. and Bab. p- ) Mr. Napier (Metallurgy of the Bible, p. 130) sires that “the solder used in early times I, and termed lead, was the same as is now » % Mixture of lead and tin.” ‘in addition to these more obvious uses of ‘tal, the Hebrews were acquainted with an- j ethod of employing it, which indicates some » In the arts at an early period. Job (xix. his words, “ with a pen of | P LEAF, LEAVES 1619 The allusion is supposed to be to the practice of carving inscriptions upon stone, and pouring molten lead into the cavities of the letters, to render them legible, and at the same time preserve them from the action of the air. Frequent references to the use of leaden tablets for inscriptions are found in ancient writers. Pausanias (ix. 31) saw Hesiod’s Works and Days graven on lead, but almost illegible with age. Public proclamations, according to Pliny (xiii. 21), were written on lead, and the name of Germanicus was carved on leaden tablets (Tac. Ann. ii. 69). Kutychius (Ann. Alea. p- 390) relates that the history of the Seven Sleepers was engraved on lead by the Cadi. Oxide of lead is employed largely in modern pottery for the formation of glazes, and its presence has been discovered in analyzing the articles of earthenware found in Egypt and Nineveh, proving that the ancients were acquainted with its use for the same purpose. The A. V. of Ecclus. xxxviii. 30 assumes that the usage was known to the He- brews, though the original is not explicit upon the point. Speaking of the potter’s art in finishing off his work, “he applieth himself to lead it over,” is the rendering of what in the Greek is simply «he giveth his heart to complete the smearing,’’ the material employed for the purpose not being indi- ) Were graven in the rock for ever.” | cated. In modern metallurgy lead is employed for the purpose of purifying silver from other mineral products. The alloy is mixed with lead, exposed to fusion upon an earthen vessel, and submitted to a blast of air. By this means the dross is con- sumed. This process is called the cupelling opera- tion, with which the description in Ez. xxii. 18-22, in the opinion of Mr. Napier (det. of Bible, pp. 20-24), accurately coincides. «“ The vessel contain- ing the alloy is surrounded by the fire, or placed in the midst of it, and the blowing is not applied to the fire, but to the fused metals. . . . And when this is done, nothing but the perfect: metals, gold and silver, can resist the, scorifying influence.” And in support of his conclusion he quotes Jer. vi. 28-30, adding, “ This description is perfect. If we take silver having the impurities in it described in the text, namely, iron, copper, and tin, and mix it with lead, and place it in the fire upon a cupell, it soon melts; the lead will oxidize and form a thick coarse crust upon the surface, and thus consume away, but effecting no purifying influence. The alloy remains, if anything, worse than before. . . . The silver is not refined, because ‘the bellows were burned’ — there existed nothing to blow upon it. Lead is the purifier, but only so in connection with a blast blowing upon the precious metals.’ An allusion to this use of lead is to be found in Theognis (Gnom. 1127, 28; ed. Welcker), and it is mentioned by Pliny (xxxiii. 31) as indispensable to the purifi- cation of silver from alloy. W: A. OW: LEB/ANA (NI25: AaBava; FA. AaBav: Leban), one of the Nethinim whose descendants returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 48). He is called LABANA in the parallel list of 1 Esdras, and LEB/ANAH (7329: AaBaré: Lebana) in Ezr. ii. 45. . LEAF, LEAVES. The word occurs in the A. V. either in the singular or plural number in three different senses —( 1.) Leaf‘ or leaves of trees. 1620 LEAH | (2.) Leaves of the doors of the Temple. (3.) Leaves of the roll of a book. . 1. LEAF (T2y," dleh ; FN, tereph ; ‘Dy, phi: ptAdov, atéAexos, dvdBaors : Solum, frons, cortex). The olive-leaf is mentioned in Gen. viii. 11. Fig-leaves formed the first covering of our parents in Eden. The barren fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 19; Mark xi. 13) on the road between Bethany and Jertisalem “had on it nothing but leaves.” The fig-leaf is alluded to by our Lord (Matt. xxiv. 32; Mark xiii. 28): ‘* When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh.” The oak-leaf is mentioned in Is. i. 30, and yi. 13. The righteous are often compared to green leaves (Jer. xvii. 8), ‘ her leaf shall be green ”’ -— to leaves that fade not (Ps. i. 3), “his leaf also shall not wither.” The ungodly on the other hand are as *“¢an oak whose leaf fadeth’’ (Is. i. 30); as a tree which ‘shall wither in all the leaves of her spring ’’ (Ez. xvii. 9); the ‘sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them”? (Ley. xxvi. 36). In Ezekiel’s vision of the holy waters, the blessings of the Mes- siah’s kingdom are spoken of under the image of trees growing on a river's bank; there “ shall grow all trees for food, whose leaf shall not fade’’ (Kz. xlvii. 12). In this passage it is said that ‘the fruit of these trees shall be for food, and the leaf thereof for medicine’? (margin, for bruises and sores). With this compare (Rev. xxii. 1, 2) St. John’s vision of the heavenly Jerusalem. ‘In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life . . . and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” There is probably here an allusion to some tree whose leaves were used by the Jews as a medicine or ointment; indeed, it is very likely that many plants and leaves were thus made use of by them, as by the old English herbalists. 2. Leaves of doors (BYYD™, tseld’im; 127, deleth: mrvxh, Otpwpua: ostium, ostiolum). The Hebrew word, which occurs very many times in the Bible, and which in 1 K. vi. 82 (margin) and 34 is translated .“leaves” in the A. V., signifies beams, ribs, sides, etc. In Ez. xli. 24, “ And the doors had two leaves apiece,’ the Hebrew word deleth is the representative of both doors and leaves. By the expression two-leaved doors, we are no doubt to understand what we term folding-doors. 3. LEAVES of a book or roll (n>, deleth ; cedls: pagella) occurs in this sense only in Jer. xxxvi. 23. The Hebrew word (literally doors) would perhaps be more correctly translated columns. The Latin columna, and the English column, as applied to a book, are probably derived from. re- semblance to a column of a building. Mistakes LEAH (TIN) [wearied]: Acta, Ala: Lia), the elder daughter of Laban (Gen. xxix. 16). The dullness or weakness of her eyes was so notable, that it is mentioned as a contrast to the beautiful form and appearance of her younger sister Rachel. Her father took advantage of the opportunity which the a From mY, to ascend or grow up. Precisely identical is dvéBacrs, from avaBaivery, to ascend. b Strictly, a green and tender leaf,” ‘ one easily piucked off; from F)7%4, “to tear, or pluck off,” tes Lk whence “all the leaves of her spring ” (Ez. xvii. 9). LEATHER local marriage-rite afforded to pass her off j sister’s stead on the unconscious bridegroon excused himself to Jacob by alleging that th tom of the country forbade the younger sister given first in marriage. Rosenmiiller cites ins} of these customs prevailing to this day in parts of the Kast. Jacob's preference of | grew into hatred of Leah, after he had marriec sisters. Leah, however, bore to him in quic¢) cession Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, then Iss Zebulun, and Dinah, before Rachel had a Leah was conscious and resentful (ch. xxx.) smaller share she possessed in her husband's tions; yet in Jacob’s differences with his fath law, his two wives appear to be attached t with equal fidelity. In the critical moment he expected an attack from Esau, his diserir regard for the several members of his fami shown by his placing Rachel and her child h most, in the least exposed situation, Leah ai children next, and the two handmaids with children in the front. Leah probably lived t ness the dishonor of her daughter (ch. xxxi cruelly avenged by two of her sons; and th sequent deaths of Deborah at Bethel, and of } near Bethlehem. She died some time after reached the south country in which his father lived. Her name is not mentioned in the Jacob’s family (ch. xlvi. 5) when they went into Egypt. She was buried in the family in Machpelah (ch. xlix. 31). Wik: LEASING, “falsehood.’? This word tained in the A. V. of Ps. iv. 2, v. 6, from th English versions; but the Hebrew word of it is the rendering is elsewhere almost uni translated ‘lies’? (Ps. xl. 4, lviii. 3, &.). derived from the Anglo-Saxon /eqs, ‘ false,” 5 leasung, “leasing,” ‘“ falsehood,”’ and is of fr occurrence in old English writers. So in Ploughman’s Vision, 2113: * Tel me no tales, Ne lesynge to laughen of.” And in Wickliffe’s New Testament, John y “¢Whanne he spekith a Jesinye, he spekith: owne thingis, for he is a lyiere, and fadir | It is used both by Spenser and Shakespeare. W. A. LEATHER (11D, ’or). The notices of in the Bible are singularly few: indeed th occurs but twice in the A. V:, and in each it in reference to the same object, a girdle (2 } Matt. iii. 4). There are, however, other in in which the word “leather” might with pr be substituted for “skin,’’ as in the pass which vessels (Lev. xi. 82; Num. xxxi. 20) ment (Lev. xiii. 48) are spoken of; for il cases the skins must have been prepared. the material itself is seldom noticed, yet we) doubt that it was extensively used by the shoes, bottles, thongs, garments, kneading-t, ropes, and other articles, were made of it. mode of preparing it see TANNER [Amer. 9 > Bi Comp. the Syr. I peeks folium, from D strike off (Castell. Lex. Hept. 8. v.)- c From the unused root MEY, to flowe Ios ; Arad. Lac. 7 LEAVEN ONW, seor: Chun: fermentum). » Hebrew word seor has the radical sense of myescence or fermentation, and therefore corre- nds in point of etymology to the Greek (jun m (éw), the Latin fermentum (from Serveo), | the English leaven (from levare). It occurs y five times in tite Bible (Ex. xii. 15, 19, xiii. Ley. ii. 11: Deut. xvi. 4), and is translated aven’’ in the first four of the passages quoted, | «Jeavened bread ’’ in the last. In connection h it, we must notice the terms chdmetz and zeith,? the former signifying “fermented ”’ or avened,”’ literally ‘sharpened,”’ bread ; the latter nleavened,’’ the radical force of the word being iously understood to signify sweetness or purity. 3 three words appear in juxtaposition in Ix. .7: “Unleavened bread (matzzdth) shall be eaten mn days; and there shall no leavened bread dmetz) be seen with thee, neither shall there be ven (seor) seen with thee in all thy quarters.” tious substances were known to have fermenting lities; but the ordinary leaven consisted of a ip of old dough in a high state of fermentation, ch was inserted into the mass of dough prepared ‘baking. [Breap.] As the process of pro- jing the leaven itself, or even of leavening bread an the substance was at hand, required some e, unleayened cakes were more usually produced sudden emergencies (Gen. xviii. 6; Judg. vi. 19). 2 use of leaven was strictly forbidden in all rings made to the Lord by fire; as in the case the meat-offering (Lev. ii. 11), the trespass- ring, (Lev. vii. 12), the consecration-offering « xxix. 2; Lev. viii. 2), the Nazarite-offering mm. vi. 15), and more particularly in regard the feast of the Passover, when the Israel- were not only prohibited on pain of death jn eating leavened bread, but even from having i leaven in their houses (Ex. xii. 15, 19) or in (ir land (Ex. xiii. 7; Deut. xvi. 4) during seven (s commencing with the 14th of Nisan. It is in renee to these prohibitions that Amos (iv. 5) lically bids the Jews of his day to “offer a tifice of thanksgiving wth leaven ;”’ and hence (a honey was prohibited (Lev. ii. 11), on account ‘its oceasionally producing fermentation. In er instances, where the offering was to be con- 1ed by the priests, and not on the altar, leaven itht be used, as in the case of the peace-offering ¥. vii. 13), and the Pentecostal loaves (Lev. ti. 17). Various ideas were associated with the [hibition of leaven in the instances above quoted ; the feast: of the Passover it served to remind the lielites both of the haste with which they fled out Egypt (Ex. xii. 39), and of the sufferings that y had undergone in that land, the insipidity of eayened bread rendering it a not inapt emblem (affliction (Deut. xvi. 3). But the most promi- it idea, and the one which applies equally to all | cases of prohibition, is connected with the ruption which leayen itself had undergone, and a LEAVEN | i yon. Another form of the same root, chometz Qn), is applied to sharpened or sour wine ; SEGAR]: chametz is applied exclusively to bread. ) reap. So Tacitus (Hist. v. 6): ‘ Preecipuum montium /™um erigit, mirum dictu, tantos inter ardores cum fidumque nivibus.” é eee LEBANON 1621 which it communicated to bread in the process of fermentation. It is to this property of leaven that our Saviour points when he speaks of the “ leaven (i. e. the corrupt doctrine) of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees’’ (Matt. xvi. 6); and St. Paul, when he speaks of the “old leaven’? (1 Cot. v. 7). This association of ideas was not peculiar to the Jews, it was familiar to the Romans, who forbade the priest of Jupiter to touch flour mixed with leaven (Gell. x. 15, 19), and who occasionally used the word fermentum as = “corruption” (Pers. Sat. i. 24). Plutarch’s explanation is very much to the point: “ The leaven itself is born from corruption, and corrupts the mass with which it is mixed”’ ( Quest. Rom. 109). Another quality in leaven is noticed in the Bible, namely, its secretly pene- trating and diffusive power; hence the proverbial saying, ‘a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1 Cor. v. 6; Gal. v. 9). In this respect it was emblematic of moral influence generally, whether good or bad, and hence our Saviour adopts it as illustrating the growth of the kingdom of heaven in the individual heart and in the world at large (Matt. xiii. 33). We LS. LEB’ANON (in prose with the art. 722571, 1 K. y. 6 (Heb. 20); in poetry without the art. 732°: Ps. xxix. 6: AlBavos: Libanus), a moun- tain range in the north of Palestine. The name Lebanon signifies *“ white,’ and was applied either on account of the snow, which, during a great part of the year, covers its whole summit,¢ or on account of the white color of its limestone cliffs and peaks. It is the “ white mountain’? — the Jfont Blanc of Palestine; an appellation which seems to be given, in one form or another, to the highest mountains in all the countries of the old world. Lebanon is represented in Scripture as lying upon the northern border of the land of Israel (Deut. i. 7, xi. 24; Josh. i. 4). Two distinct ranges bear this name. They both begin in lat. 33° 20’, and run in parallel, lines from S. W. to N.E. for about 90 geog. miles, enclosing between them a long fertile valley from 5 to 8 miles wide, anciently: called Cale-Syria. The modern name is e-Bukd’a,¢ “the valley,” corresponding exactly to “the valley of Lebanon” in Joshua (xi. 17).¢ It is a northern prolongation of the Jordan valley, and likewise a southern pro- longation of that of the Orontes (Porter's Handbook, p. xvi.)./ The western range is the “Libanus”’ of the old geographers, and the Lebanon of Scripture where Solomon got timber for the Temple (1 K. v. 9, &c.), and where the Hivites and Giblites dwelt (Judg. iii. 3; Josh. xiii. 5). The eastern range was called “ Anti-Libanus” by geographers, and «Lebanon toward the sun-rising”’ by the sacred writers (Josh. xiii. 5). Strabo describes (xvi. p. 754) the two as commencing near the Mediter- ranean — the former at Tripolis, and the latter at Sidon — and running in parallel lines toward Damascus; and, strange to say, this error has, in @ clit. e PIIPI OYP2. * * Rawlinson has given a fine description of the geographical features of this valley, and its historical importance as the great high-road of the Raby lonian armies on their march to Palestine (Monareaies of the Ancient Eastern World, iii. 250). EL 1622 LEBANON part at least, been followed by most modern writers, who represent the mountain-range between Tyre and the lake of Merom as a branch of Anti-Libanus (Winer, Realwd., s. y. “ Libanon;’’ Robinson, 1st ed. iii. 846; but see the corrections in the new edition). The topography of Anti-Libanus was first clearly described in Porter’s Damascus (i. 297, dic., ii. 309, &e.). A deep yalley called Wady et- Teim separates the southern section of Anti-Libanus from both Lebanon and the hills of Galilee.a Lebanon — the western range — commences on the south at the deep ravine of the Litény, the ancient river Leontes, which drains the valley of Ceele-Syria, and falls into the Mediterranean five miles north of Tyre. It runs N. E. ina straight line parallel to the coast, to the opening from the Mediterranean into the plain of Emesa, called in Scripture the ‘Entrance of Hamath”’ (Num. xxxiv. 8). Here Nahr el-Kebir — the ancient river Eleu- therus — sweeps round its northern end, as the Leontes does round its southern. The average ele- vation of the range is from 6000 to 8000 ft.; but two peaks rise considerably higher. One of these is Swnnin, nearly on the parallel of Beyrout, which is more than 9,(00 feet; the other is Jebel Mukhmel, which was measured in September, 1860, by the hydrographer of the Admiralty, and found to be very nearly 10,200 feet high (Nat. Hist. Rev., No. V.p. 11). It is the highest mountain in Syria. On the summits of both these peaks the snow remains in patches during the whole summer. The central ridge or backbone of Lebanon has smooth, barren sides, and gray rounded summits. It is entirely destitute of verdure, and is covered with small fragments of limestone, from which white crowns and jagged points of naked rock shoot up at intervals. Here and there a few stunted pine-trees or dwarf oaks are met with. The line of cultivation runs along at the height of about 6,000 ft.; and below this the features of the western slopes are entirely different. The descent is gradual; but is everywhere broken by precipices and tower- ing rocks which time and the elements have chiseled into strange, fantastic shapes. Rayines of singular wildness and grandeur furrow the whole mountain side, looking in many places like huge rents. Here and there, too, bold promontories shoot out, and dip perpendicularly into the bosom of the Mediter- ranean. The rugged limestone banks are scantily clothed with the evergreen oak, and the sandstone with pines; while every available spot is carefully cultivated. The cultivation is wonderful, and shows what all Syria might be if under a good govern- ment. Miniature fields of grain are often seen where one would suppose the eagles alone, which hover round them, could have planted the seed. Fig-trees cling to the naked rock; vines are trained along narrow ledges; long ranges of mulberries, on terraces like steps of stairs, cover the more gentle declivities; and dense groves of olives fill up the bottoms of the glens. Hundreds of villages are seen — here built amid labyrinths of rocks; there clinging like swallows’ nests to the sides of cliffs; @ Pliny was more accurate than Strabo. He says (v. 20): ‘A tergo (Sidonis) mons Libanus orsus, mille quingentis stadiis Simyram usque porrigitur, qua Coele-Syria cognominatur. Huic par interjacente valle mons adversus obtenditur, muro conjunctus.” Ptolemy (v. 15) follows Strabo; but Eusebius (Onom. 8. v. “ Antilibanus”’) says, "ApriA(Bavos, ra vmép Tov AiBavov mpos avarodds, mpds Aamackynvav Xapav. LEBANON while convents, no less numerous, are per the top of every peak. When viewed from at a morning in early spring, Lebanon j a picture which, once seen,is never forgotte deeper still is the impression left on the min one looks down over its terraced slopes elo! their gorgeous foliage, and through the viste magnificent glens, on the broad and bright terranean. How beautifully do these noble { illustrate the words of the prophet: « Isra grow as the lily, and strike forth his roots as non”’ (Hos. xiv. 5). And the fresh me breezes, filled in early summer with the fra of the budding vines, and throughout the ye, the rich odors of numerous aromatic shrubs, mind the words of Solomon —« The smell garments is like the smell of Lebanon” (Cz 11; see also Hos. xiv. 6). When the pla Palestine are burned up with the scorchin; and when the air in them is like the breat furnace, the snowy tops and ice-cold strea Lebanon temper the breezes, and make the tain-range a pleasant and luxurious retri “ Shall a man leave the snow of Lebanon . - shall the cold-flowing waters be forsaken?’ xviii. 14). The vine is still largely cultiva every part of the mountain; and the wine is lent, notwithstanding the clumsy apparatu: unskillful workmen employed in: its manuf (Hos. xiv. 7). Lebanon also abounds in olive and mulberries; while some remnants exist. forests of pine, oak, and cedar, which foi covered it (1 K. v. 6; Ps. xxix. 5; Is. xiv. 8 ili. 7; Diod. Sic. xix. 58). Considerable nu of wild beasts still inhabit its retired glen higher peaks; the writer has seen jackals, h wolves, bears, and panthers (2 K. xiv. 9; Ca 8; Hab. ii. 17). Some noble streams of classic celebrity hay sources high up in Lebanon, and rush doy sheets of foam through sublime glens, to stair their ruddy waters the transparent bosom ¢ Mediterranean. The Leontes is on the | Next comes Nahr Awvuly— the “ graceful trenos ”’ of Dionysius Periegetes (905). The lows the Damir — the “ Tamuras”’ of Strabe p- 726), and the “ Damuras”’ of Polybius | Next, just on the north side of Beyrout, | Beyrout, the Magoras”’ of Pliny (vy. 20). . miles beyond it is Mahe el-Kelb, the “ Lycu men ’’ of the old geographers (Plin. v. 20). 4 mouth is the celebrated pass where Egyptian, rian, and Roman conquerors have left, on tabl stone, records of their routes and their vic (Porter's Handbook, p. 407). Nahr Ibrahi : classic river “ Adonis,’’ follows, bursting from ¢ | beneath the lofty brow of Sunnin, beside the of Apheca. From its native rock it runs ** Purple to the sea, supposed with blood Of Thammuw, yearly wounded.” (Lucian de Syr. Dea, 6-8; Strab. xvi. 755; v. 17; Porter’s Damascus, ii. 295.) Lastly have the “sacred river,’ Kadisha — descet b* The cedar cones exude a balsam which is fragrant. The writer plucked several in the celet grove of cedars on Mt. Lebanon, and taking thi Beirfit, hung them in his apartment. For weeks every one who entered the room noticed the de perfume which filled it — * the smell of a LEBANON mm the side of the loftiest peak in the whole range, gh a gorge of surpassing grandeur. Upon its nks, in a notch of a towering cliff, is perched the eat convent of Kanobin, the residence of the aronite patriarch. The situation of the little group of cedars — the ¢ remnant of that noble forest, once the glory of anon —is very remarkable. Round the head Peaubline Valley of the Kadisha sweep the high- ; summits of Lebanon in the form of a semicircle. weir sides rise up, bare, smooth, majestic, to the mded snow-capped heads. In the centre of this st recess, far removed from all other foliage and rdure, stand, in strange solitude, the cedars of banon, as if they scorned to mingle their giant ms, and graceful fan-like branches, with the nerate trees of a later age. Along the base of Lebanon runs the irregular tin of Pheenicia; nowhere more than two miles | LEBANON O23 wide, and often interrupted by bold rocky spurs, that dip into the sea. The eastern slopes of Lebanon are much less im- posing and less fertile than the western. In the southern half of the range there is an abrupt descent from the summit into the plain of Cole- Syria, which has an elevation of about 2,500 ft. Along the proper base of the northern half runs a low side ridge partially covered with dwarf oaks. The northern half of the mountain-range is peo- pled almost exclusively by Maronite Christians — a brave, industrious, and hardy race; but sadly oppressed by an ignorant set of priests. In the southern half the Druzes predominate, who, though they number only some 20,000 fighting men, form one of the most powerful parties in Syria. The main ridge of Lebanon is composed of Jura limestone, and abounds in fossils. Long belts of more recent sandstone run along the western slopes, The grand range of Lebanon. ‘ch is in places largely impregnated with iron. jne strata towards the southern end are said to {das much as 90 per cent. of pure iron (Deut. \. 9, xxxiii. 25). Coal is found in the district of +mine was opened by Ibrahim Pasha, but soon ‘ndoned. Cretaceous strata of a very late period lie ‘1g the whole western base of the mountain-range. “€banon was originally inhabited by the Hivites # Giblites (Judg. iii. 3; Josh. xiii. 5,6). The ‘er either gave their name to, or took their name ta the city of Gebal, called by the Greeks Byblus NX of Ez. xxvii. 9; Strabo, xvi. p. 755). The € city—now almost in ruins, —and a small * Tet round it, still bear the ancient name, in the ‘bie form Jebaild (Porter's Handbook, p. 586). f ,,_ The height of the grove is now ascertained to be + ft. above the Mediterranean (Dr. Hooker, in Nat. lg Rev. No. V. p. 11). [Respecting other groves, see xiii. 2-6; Judg. iii. 1-3). 'monarchy it appears to have been subject to the tn, east of Beyrout, near the village of Kurndyil. The whole mountain range was assigned to the Is- raelites, but was never conquered by them (Josh. During the Jewish Pheenicians (1 K. v. 2-6; Ezr. iii. 7). From the Greek conquest until modern times Lebanon had no separate history, Antt-Libanus. — The main ehain of Anti-Libanus commences in the plateau of Bashan, near the par- allel of Ceesarea-Philippi, runs north to Hermon, and then northeast in a straight line till it sinks down into the great plain of Emesa, not far from the site of Riblah. Hrrmon is the loftiest peak, and has already been described; the next highest is a few miles north of the site of Abila, beside the village of Bludén, and hasan elevation of about CepaR, vol. i. p. 4U] (addition), and the supplement to this article. — A.] * a>. 1624 LEBANON 7,000 ft. The rest of the ridge averages about 5,000 ft.; it is in general bleak and barren, with shelving gray declivities, gray cliffs, and gray rounded summits. Here and there we meet with thin forests of dwarf oak and juniper. The western slopes descend abruptly into the Bukd’a ; but the features of the eastern are entirely different. Three side-ridges here radiate from Hermon, like the ribs of an open fan, and form the supporting walls of three great terraces. The last and lowest of these ridges takes a course nearly due east, bounding the plain of Damascus, and running out into the desert as far as Palmyra. The greater part of the ter- races thus formed are parched flinty deserts, though here and there are sections with a rich soil. Anti- Libanus can only boast of two streams — the Phar- par, now Nehr el Awa, which rises high up on the side of Hermon; and the Abana, now called Bardda. The fountain of the latter is in the beautiful little plain of Zebdany, on the western side of the main chain, through which it cuts in a sublime gorge, and then divides successively each of the side-ridges in its course to Damascus. A small streamlet flows down the Valley of Helbon parallel to the Abana. Anti-Libanus is more thinly peopled than its sister range; and it is more abundantly stocked with wild beasts. Eagles, vultures, and other birds of prey, may be seen day after day sweeping in cir- cles round the beetling cliffs. Wild swine are numerous; and vast herds of gazelles roam over the bleak eastern steppes. Anti-Libanus is only once distinctly mentioned in Scripture, where it is accurately described as “ Lebanon toward the sun-rising ’’ @ (Josh. xiii. 5); but the southern section of the chain is frequently referred to under other names. [See HERMon.] The words of Solomon in Cant. iy. 8 are very striking — “ Look from the top of Amana, from the top of Shenir and Hermon, from the lions’ den, from the mountains of the leopards.”’> The refer- ence is, in all probability, to the two highest peaks of Anti-Libanus,— Hermon, and that near the fountain of the Abana; and in both places panthers ¢ still exist. ‘ The tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus’’ (Cant. vii. 4) is doubtless Her- mon, which forms the most striking feature in the whole panorama round that city. Josephus men- tions Lebanon as lying near Dan and the fountains of the Jordan (Ant. v. 3, § 1), and as bounding the province of Gaulanitis on the north (B. J. iii. 3, § 5); he of course means Anti-Libanus. 2 The old city of Abila stood in one of the wildest glens of Anti-Libanus, on the banks of the Abana, and its territory embraced a large section of the range. [ABILENE.] Damascus owes its existence to a stream from these mountains; so did the once great and splendid city of Heliopolis; and the chief sources of both the Leontes and Orontes lie along their western base (Porter’s Handbook, pp. xviii., xix. ). HI Rs Ee * Fora long time it was contended that the “ ww mma. paabr- 5 Amana and Abana seem to be identical, for in 2 K. v. 12 the Keri reading is Pla S: ¢ The Heb. "35 | I eae! oo7 ~~ y panther.” is identical with the Arabic LEBANON cedar was not found in any part of Lebanon ¢ the famous grove near Besherveh, and thai trees resembling it in other localities were onh; nate species, but not the true Larix cedra have, however, settled this point by a labe search and botanical examination. There an tainly in existence the following groves: (1.) An extensive one near ¢l-Hadet, desc by previous authors, consisting of many tho) small trees. (2.) A small grove was in existence up to ber 1866, east of ’Ain Zehalta, on the crest o ridge overlooking the Buk@’a. I visited the grove in company with Rev. H. H. Jessup, | in October 1865, and at that time we counted ; twenty trees, some of them of considerable: One isolated from the grove, distant a mile, } have measured twenty feet in circumference. grove was felled when I visited it in 1866, anc last timbers were being sawn for roofing pury (3.) A large grove of very young trees ea "Ain Zehalta, in the valleys and on the we slopes of Lebanon. I estimated the numbe 10,000 trees. ‘This grove a few years since cons of very large trees, many of them from 6 to I in diameter. But & few years ago they were to acompany of pitch-burners from Beirit fo paltry sum of 30,000 piastres, and all cut ¢ and consumed in making rosin and tar. The sprouts are now beginning to re-clothe the hill: and valleys, and in a couple of centuries may : the name of a forest. (4.) A grove beginning above Bardk and str ing southward two or three miles, wee i a cluster of noble trees overhanging the villa Measir, vying with the grove at Besherreh in | nitude and beauty. The northernmost end of grove above Bartk has a few score of large j one or two of which are gigantic. The ¢ portion, clothing the western slope of the moun consists of large trees, but so miserably hacked hewed and burnt by the wood-cutters, that mo its trees are dead or dying. They may nw! 20,000 to 30,000 in all, small and large. The southernmost portion is a grand colle: of about two hundred and fifty trees. One ures 27 feet in circumference, another 23, and 1 from 15 to 20. Some of them spread widely | horizontal branches, and bear numerous ¢ The grandeur of their situation on the declivit a deep gorge enhances the interest which all attends the sight of this venerable tree. It will be seen by these remarks, that, wer groves mentioned protected from spoliation, allowed to increase, Mount Lebanon migh again covered with mighty forests of its royal } A word on the value of the cedar for buil purposes. In ‘Syria, where the wornis so soon| stroy the softer woods, and where the long soa to which roof timbers are subjected, owing t¢ oozing of water from the earth-roofs during, rainy season, causes the timbers to rot, a resit!! d Strabo says (xvi. p. 755), ‘O Maoovas éxovl kat" Oped, ev ols 7 Xadxis womep axpdmodts ? Magovov. “Apxy & abrod Aaodixera 7 mpos Aifs From this it appears that the province of Massy? his day embraced the whole of Anti-Libanws ; Laodicea ad Libanum lies at the northern end of : range (Porter's Damascus, ii. 389), and the 61 Chalcis is at its western base, tweuty miles scut 4 Ba’albek (td. i. 14). ' LEBAOTH sstructible wood like the cedar is invaluable for rafters which are universally used as supports the roofs throughout the Lebanon. It is true t the timber as now found cannot be worked into ; long straight columns, as it is gnarled and sted like the oak, but for most of the purposes which timber is used here it would be invalu- , What might be its character, were the trees wed to grow, naturally, without being lopped mutilated, cannot be positively asserted. [am pinion, however, from the symmetry of some of older trees, that much of the disparagement ch has been used in speaking of this wood is due he deformity and disease inflicted on the tree by careless hand of man, and I can readily believe ; Solomon found all that he desired for the ely columns and beams and rafters of his iple and palace in the uninjured primeval sts of which we see a faint type near Besherreh el-Measir. Since the massacres of 1860, Lebanon has itituted a separate government, tributary to the kish Sultan, but in many important respects pendent. Its governor, Daoud Pasha, is a istian, of the American Catholic sect. He was inated by the Porte, subject to the ratification he Five Powers. He governs the mountains i the aid of a police force enrolled by volunteer itments from among the various populations of mountains — Druze, Maronite, Greek, and Greek jiolic. No Turkish troops are stationed in his | ict, which includes all of both slopes of Lebanon, Ja part of the Bukd’a. Heis a man of enlight- | judgment and views, and has succeeded in dlishing a government which is an honor to self and the great powers to which he is respon- i, and an unspeakable relief to the country after venturies of misrule and anarchy which have lated it. He has even introduced the franchise, } has organized local governments, elective by yeople. He is not under the jurisdiction of the rnor-general of Syria, but is answerable direct- ‘the Sublime Porte, and the representatives of land, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. er his benign administration the fruitful moun- @ grows visibly every year in cultivation and % ty, and the thrifty aspect of its villages bears énony to the sense of security which is so sadly Wing in the neighboring plains and mountains. | Gy EP. -EB/AOTH (Misa? [lions}: AaBds; Alex. AwO: Lebwoth), a town which forms one of the a zV0up of the cities of ‘ the South ’’ in the enu- m tion of the possessions of Judah (Josh. xv. 32). named between Sansannah and Shilhim; and ry probably identical with BrrH-LEBAOTH, here called Beru-prrEr. No trace of any *$ answering to these appears to have been yet vered. If we may adopt the Hebrew signifi- oan of the name (‘lionesses’’), it furnishes an mation of the existence of wild animals in the ‘1 of Palestine. G. EBBAYUS (AcBBatos). This name oc- in Matt. x. 3, according to Codex D (Beze abrigiensis) of the sixth century [and most MSS.], and in the Received Text. In Mark it is substituted in a few unimportant MSS. addgeus. The words “ Lebbzeus who is called ”” t. x.3) are not found in the Vatican MS. (B) the Sinaitic], and Lachmann rejects them as, 18 Opinion, not received by the most ancient LEEKS 1625 Eastern churches. [So also Tregelles.] The Vul- gate omits them; but Jerome (Comm. in Matt.\ says that Thaddeus, or Judas the brother of James, is elsewhere called Lebbzeus; and he concludes that this Apostle had three names. It is much easier to suppose that ‘a strange name has been omitted than that it has been inserted by later transcribers. [Lebbzeus is retained in Tischendorf’s 8th criti- cal edition of the Greek Testament, but he omits 6 émikAnbels @addaios.—A.]| It is admitted into the ancient versions of the N. T., and into all the English versions (except the Rhemish) since Tyn- dale’s in 1534. For the signification of the name, and for the life of the Apostle, see JuDE, p. 1504. WoT? GB: LEBO/NAH (713529 [ frankincense, and in that sense also 297]: THs AeBwva; Alex. ror AtBavou tns AcBwva: Lebona), a place named in Judg. xxi. 19 only; and there but as a landmark to determine the position of Shiloh, which is stated to have lain south of it. Lebonah has survived to our times under the almost identical form of e- Lubban. It lies to the west of, and close to, the Nablés road, about eight miles north of Beztin (Bethel), and two from Sei/un (Shiloh), in rela- tion to which it stands, however, nearer W. than N. The village is on the northern acclivity of the wady to which it gives its name. Its appearance is ancient; and in the rocks above it are excavated sepulchres (Rob. ii. 272). To Eusebius and Je- rome it does not appear to have been known. The earliest mention of it yet met with is in the Itin- erary of the Jewish traveller hap-Parchi (A. D. cir. 1320), who describes it under the name of Lubin, and refers especially to its correspondence with the passages in Judges (see Asher’s Benj. of Tudela, ii. 435). It was visited by Maundrell (March 24, 25), who mentions the identification with Lebonah, but in such terms as may imply that he was only repeating a tradition. Since then it has been passed and noticed by most travellers to the Holy Land (Rob. ii. 272; Wilson, ii. 292, 293 ; Bonar, 363; Mislin, iii. 319, &c., &e.). G. LE’CAH (> ‘(walking, course]: [Rom. AnxdB; Vat.] Anya; Alex. Anxad: Lecha), a name mentioned in the genealogies of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 21) only, as one of the descendants of Shelah, the third son of Judah by the Canaanitess Bath- shua. The immediate progenitor of Lecah was Er. Many of the names in this genealogy, especially when the word “father’’is attached, are towns (comp. Eshtemoa, Keilah, Mareshah, etc.); but this, though probably the case with Lecah, is not certain, because it is not mentioned again, either in the Bible or the Onomasticon, nor have any traces of it been since discovered. G. * LEDGES (2°22), 1 K. vii. 28 35, 36. [LavEr, k.] f LEECH. LEEKS yn, chatsir: +r& mpaca, Bort- dvn xAdbn, xdpros, xAwpds: herba, porrus, feenum, pratum). The word chatsir, which in Num. xi. 5 is translated /eeks, occurs twenty times in the He- brew text. In 1K. xviii. 5; Job xl. 15; Ps. civ. 14, exlvii. 8, exxix. 6, xxxvii. 2, xe. 5, ciii. 15; Is. xxxvii. 27, xl. 6, 7, 8, xliv. 4, li. 12, it is rendered grass ; in Job viii. 12, it is rendered herd ; in Prov. xxvii. 25, Is. xv. 6, it is erroneously translated _ [Horsr-LEEcu. | 1626 LEEKS hay; in Is. xxxiv. 13, the A. V. has court (see note). The word leeks occurs in the A. V. only in Num. xi. 5; it is there mentioned as one of the good things of Egypt for which the Israelites longed in their journey through the desert, just before the terrible plague at Kibroth-hattaavah, “ the cucum- bers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic.’’. The Hebrew term, which prop- erly denotes grass, is derived from a root signifying “to be green,’?@ and may therefore stand in this passage for any green food, lettuce, endive, etc., as Ludolf and Maillet have conjectured; it would thus be applied somewhat in the same manner as we use the term “greens; ’’ yet as the chdtsir is men- tioned together with onions and yarlic in the text, and as the most ancient versions, Onkelos, the LXX., and the Vulgate, together with the Syriac and the Arabic of Saadias,? unanimously understand leeks by the Hebrew word, we may be satisfied with our own translation. Moreover, chdisi would ap- ply to the leek appropriately enough, both from its green color and the grass-like form of the leaves. There is, however. another and a very ingenious interpretation of chdatsir, first proposed by Heng- stenberg, and received by Dr. Kitto (Pictor. Bible, Num. xi. 5), which adopts a more literal translation Common leek (Alliwm porrum). of the original word, for, says Dr. Kitto, among the wonders in the natural history of Egypt, it is mentioned by travellers that the common people there eat with special relish a kind of grass similar to clover.” Mayer (Reise nach Egyptien, p. 226) says of this plant (whose scientific name is 7’rigo- nella fenum Grecum, belonging to the natural order Leguminose), that it is similar to clover, but its leaves more pointed, and that great quantities aS, viruit, i. q. Arab. 3 (khadhr). Gesenius has shown that this word is identical with WT, circumvallit, He compares the Greek xépros, which primarily means a court (for cattle) ; hence, a pasture ; hence, in an extended sense, grass or herbage. But see the different derivation of Fiirst. [In Is. xxxiv. 13 ley my is to be compared with the Arabic LEEKS of it are eaten by the people. Forskal mention Trigonella as being grown in the gardens at C its native name is Halbeh (Flor. Agypt. p. 8 Sonnini (Voyage, i. 879) says, ‘In this { country, the Egyptians themselves eat the fenu so largely, that it may be properly called the of man. In the month of November the ‘green halbeh for sale!’ in the streets o} town; it is tied up in large bunches, whiel inhabitants purchase at a low price, and 4 they eat with incredible greediness without kind of seasoning.” The seeds of this plant, which is also culti in Greece, are often used; they are eaten boil =| SS \ \\ i \ = Waly th Wat Trigonella foonum-greecum. raw, mixed with honey. Forskal includes it i Materia Medica of Egypt (Mat. Med. Kali 155). However plausible may be this theor Hengstenberg, there does not appear sufficient son for ignoring the old versions, which seer agreed that the /eek is the plant denoted by ch a vegetable from the earliest times a great fat with the Egyptians, as both a nourishing an vory food. Some have objected that, asthe f tians held the leek, onion, etc., sacred, they ¥ abstain from eating these vegetables thems and would not allow the Israelites to use tl We have, however, the testimony of Herodotu 125) to show that onions were eaten by the I tian poor, for he says that on one of the pyra is shown an inscription, which was explaine him by an interpreter, showing how much m was spent in providing radishes, onions, and g for the workmen. The priests were not allow eat these things, and Plutarch (De Js. et Osi p. 353) tells us the reasons. The Wels! reverences his leek, and wears one on St. Da Day — he eats the leek nevertheless; and doul Saas (hozirat), which is the fold or pe sheep. — G. E. P.] b The word employed here is still the name in} for leek (Hasselquist, 562). ¢ Juvenal’s derision of the Egyptians for the erence they paid to the leek may here be quoted ‘“‘ Porrum et coepe nefas violare ac frangere Morsuy O sanctas gentes, quibus hee naseuntur in hortis Numina !”— Sat. xv. 9. Cf. Plin. H. N. xix. 6; Celsii Hierob. ii. 268: ! Hierophyt. pt. ii. 36 ; Diosc. ii. 4. LEES Egyptians were not over-scrupulous (Scrip. ai p- 230). The leek is too well known to d description. Its botanical name is Adium por- m; it belongs to the order Liliacew. W.H. LEES (Oo VSw : Tpvylar: feces). The He- ww shemer bears the radical sense of preserva- n, and was applied to “lees ”’ from the custom allowing the wine to stand on the lees in order its color and body might be better preserved. nce the expression ‘“ wine on the lees,’’ as mean- +a generous, full-bodied liquor (Is. xxv. 6). The 3¢ in this state remained, of course, undisturbed its cask, and became thick and syrupy; hence proverb, ‘+ to settle upon one’s lees,”’ to express . sloth, indifference, and gross stupidity of the godly (Jer. xlviii. 11; Zeph.i. 12). Before the 1e was consumed, it was necessary to strain off : lees; such wine was then termed * well refined ”’ . xxv. 6). To drink the lees, or “dregs,’’ was expression for the endurance of extreme punish- nt (Ps. Ixxv. 8). W. L. B. LEGION (Acyedyv; [Tisch., 8th ed., Aeyidv:] gio), the chief subdivision of the Roman army, taining about 6,000 infantry, with a contingent eavalry. The term does not occur in the Bible its primary sense, but appears to have been ypted in order to express any large number, with , accessory ideas of order and subordination. us it is applied by our Lord to the angels (Matt. i. 53), and in this sense it answers to the “ hosts ”’ the Old Testament (Gen. xxxii. 2; Ps. exlviii. » It is again the name which the demoniac as- nes, “‘My name is Legion (Aeyi@y); for we are ny” (Mark v. 9), implying the presence of a sit of superior power in addition to subordinate s W. L. B. LEH A’BIM (maT? [perh. fiery, flaming]: Sietu; [in 1 Chr., Rom. Vat. omit, Alex. Aa- y:| Laabim), occurring only in Gen. x. 13 [and Chr. i. 11], the name of a Mizraite people or , supposed to be the same as the Lubim, men- ied in several places in the Scriptures as merce~- ies or allies of the Egyptians. There can be no (bt that the Lubim are the same as the ReBU or 3U of the Egyptian inscriptions, and that from m Libya and the Libyans derived their name: se primitive Libyans appear, in the period at ‘ch they are mentioned in these two historical tees, that is from the time of Menptah, B. c. ( 1250, to that of Jeremiah’s notice of them late he 6th century B C., and probably in the case 4 leek” is from the Anglo-Saxon /eac, German 1 This application of the term is illustrated by the Hbinical usage of 72 as — ‘leader, chief” xtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1123). It is unusually full of plays and paronomastic tas Thus amir) signifies a jaw, and 12 is the } 5 Tie of the place; “VVWOi] is both a he-ass and a to ete. ; i Compare the somewhat parallel case of Dunchurch Dunsmoor, which, in the local traditions, derive Tf names from an exploit of Guy of Warwick. i mo = [echi, is the name of the place in vv. 4, 19, and in Ramath-Lehi, v.17; whereas L’chi, fy is the word for jawbone. In ver. 19 the words the jaw” should be “in Lehi:” the original is LEHI 1627 of Daniel’s, prophetically to the earlier part of the second century B. C., to have inhabited the north- ern part of Africa to the west of Egypt, though lat- terly driven from the coast by the Greek colonists of the Cyrenaica, as is more fully shown under Lusim. Philologically, the interchange of TT as the middle letter of a root into 1 quiescent, is fre- quent, although it is important to remark that Gesenius considers the form with TT to be more common in the later dialects, as the Semitic lan- guages are now found (Thes. art. r1). There seems, however, to be strong reason for considering many of these later forms to be recurrences to prim- itive forms. Geographically, the position of the Lehabim in the enumeration of the Mizraites im- mediately before the Naphtuhim, suggests that they at first settled to the westward of Egypt, and near- er to it, or not more distant from it than the tribes or peoples mentioned before them [M1zrarm]. Historically and ethnologically, the connection of the keBU and Libyans with Egypt and its people suggests their kindred origin with the Egyptians. [Lusim.] On these grounds there can be no reasonable doubt of the identity of the Lehabim and Lubim. Ros? LE’HI (with the def. article, wen except in ver. 14 [the jawbone]: in ver. 9, [Rom Aexl, Vat. ] Aevet, Alex. Aevi: [in vv. 14, 19,] Srayav: Lecha, id est maxilla), a place in Judah, probably on the confines of the Philistines’ country, between it and the cliff Etam; the scene of Samson’s well-known exploit with the jawbone (Judg. xv. 9, 14, 19). It contained an eminence — Ramath-lehi, and a spring of great and lasting repute — En hak-kore. Whether the name existed before the exploit or the exploit originated the name cannot now be determined from the narrative.c On the one hand, in vv. 9 and 19, Lehiis named as if existing before this occurrence, while on the other the play of the story and the statement of the bestowal of the name Ramath-lehi look as if the reverse were in- tended. ‘The analogy of similar names in other countries @ is in favor of its having existed previous- ly. Even taken as a Hebrew word, “ Lechi”’ has another meaning besides a jawbone; and after all there is throughout a difference between the two words, which, though slight to our ears, would be much more marked to those of a Hebrew, and which so far betrays the accommodation.¢ A similar discrepancy in the case of Beer Lahai- ‘rIb3, exactly as in9; not ‘To2, asin 16. See Milton, Sams. Ag., line 582 * The above distinction between smd as the name of the place, and sm as jawbone, is not valid; for the difference arises from the pause which falls on the initial consonant in one case and not in the other. Thus the form in Ps. iii. 9 is 79, and yet certainly means ‘‘jawbone.’? Hence whether we should read ‘t Lehi ” or “jawbone ’’ in ver. 19, depends not on the punctuation, but the view taken of the nature of the occurrence. Keil understands Judg. xv. 19 as meaning that God caused water to spring forth not from the mortar ot socket of the jawbone, but from the cavity (lit. tooth- hollow) of a rock well known at Lehi when the record was written. He assigns good reasons for regarding this as the true sense af the passage (Comm., Notes 1628 LEMUEL Toi, and a great similarity between the two names in the original (Ges. 7hes. 175 6), has led to the supposition that that place was the same as Lehi. But the situations do not suit. The well Lahai-roi was below Kadesh, very far from the locality to which Samson’s adventures seem to have been con- fined. The same consideration would also appear fatal to the identification proposed by M. Van de Velde (Memoir, p. 343) at Tell el-Lekhiyeh, in the extreme south of Palestine, only four miles above Beer-sheba, a distance to which we have no authority for believing that either Samson’s achievements or the possessions of the Philistines (at least in those days) extended. As far as the name goes, a more feasible suggestion would be Bezt-Likiyeh, a.village on the northern slopes of the great Wady Sulei- man, about two miles below the upper Beth-horon (see ‘Tobler, 3te Wanderung). Here is a position at once on the borders of both Judah and the Philistines, and within reasonable proximity to Zorah, Eshtaol, Timnath, and other places familiar to the history of the great Danite hero. On this, however, we must await further investigation; and in the mean time it should not be overlooked that there are reasons for placing the cliff Etam —which seems to have been near Lehi — in the neighborhood of Bethlehem. [ETAM, THE ROCK. | The spring of En hak-kore is mentioned by Jerome (/pitaph. Paule, § 14) in such terms as to imply that it was then known, and that it was near Morasthi, the native place of the prophet Micah, which he elsewhere (Onom. s. v.; Pref. ad Mich.) mentions as east of Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin). Lehi is possibly mentioned in 2 Sam. xxiii. 11 — the relation of another encounter with the Philis- tines hardly less disastrous than that of Samson. The word @ rendered in the A, V. “into a troop,”’ by alteration of the vowel-points becomes “ to Lehi,” which gives a new and certainly an appro- priate sense. This reading first appears in Jose- phus (Ant. vii. 12, § 4), who gives it “a place called Siagona’’ —the jaw—the word which he employs in the story of Samson (Ant. v. 8, § 9). It is also given in the Complutensian ® LXX., and among modern interpreters by Bochart (Heroz. i. 2, ch. 13), Kennicott (Dissert. 140), J. D. Michaelis (Bibel fiir Ungelehrt.), Ewald (Ges- chichte, iii. 180, note). G. LEM’UEL (OS919 and S12: Lamuel), the name of an unknown king to whom his mother addressed the prudential maxims contained in Prov. xxxi. 1-9. The version of this chapter in the LXX. is so obscure that it is difficult to discover what text they could have had before them. In the rendering of Lemuel by dd @eod, in Prov. xxxi. J, some traces of the original are discernible, but in ver. 4 it is entirely lost. The rabbinical com- LENTILES ,mentators identify Lemuel with Solomon, an a strange tale how that when he marriec daughter of Pharaoh, on the day of the dedi of the Temple, he assembled musicians of all } and passed the night awake. On the morn slept till the fourth hour, with the keys oj Temple beneath his pillow, when his mother en and upbraided him in the words of Prov. xxxi, Grotius, adopting a fanciful etymology fron Arabic, makes Lemuel the same as Heze Hitzig and others regard him as king or chi an Arab tribe dwelling on the borders of Pale and elder brother of Agur, whose name stands < head of Prov. xxx. [See JAKEH.] Accordi this view massa (A. V. “the prophecy ’’) is ] in Arabia; a region mentioned twice in close nection with Dumah, and peopled by the de dants of Ishmael. In the reign of Hezeki roving band of Simeonites drove out the Amak from Mount Seir and settled in their stead (1 iv. 38-43), and from these exiles of Israe origin Hitzig conjectures that Lemuel and _ were descended, the former having been bot the land of Israel; and that the name Lem an older form of Nemuel, the first-born of Si (Die Spriiche Salomo’s, pp. 810-314). But more probable, as Eichhorn and Ewald sug that Lemuel is a poetical appellation, selecte the author of these maxims for the guidance king, for the purpose of putting in a striking the lessons which they conveyed. Signifying does ‘to God,” 2. e. dedicated or devoted to like the similar word Lael, it is in keeping the whole sense of the passage, which contain portraiture of a virtuous and righteous king belongs to the latest period of the proverbial li ture of the Hebrews. W. A. \ * LEND, LENDER. [Loan.] LENTILES (QWIY, ddashim: lens). There cannot be “the least doubt tha A. V. is correct in its translation of the He word which occurs in the four following pass Gen. xxv. 34, 2 Sam. xvii. 28, 2 Sam. xxii and Ez. iv. 9; from which last we learn th: times of scarcity lentiles were sometimes ust making bread. ‘There are three or four kin lentiles, all of which are still much esteeme those countries where they are grown, namel) South of Europe, Asia, and North Africa: th lentile is still a favorite article of food in the- it is a small kind, the seeds of which after | decorticated, are commonly sold in the ba of India. The modern Arabic name of this | is identical with the Hebrew; it is known in! and Arabia, Syria, etec., by the name ’ Adas, ‘ learn from the testimony of several travel When Dr. Robinson was staying at the cast ’Akabah, he partook of lentiles, which he sa «found very palatable, and could well conceive on Judges, p. 416f., Eng. transl.). See also Studer, Richter, p. 889. The version of the Soctété biblique protestante de Paris (1866) follows this interpretation. H. a rer, as if TTAT], from the root ‘TT (Ges. Thes. p. 470). In this sense the word very rarely occurs (see A. V. of Ps. Ixviii. 10, 80, Ixxiv. 19). It elsewhere has the sense of * living,” and thence of wild animals, which is adopted by the LXX. in this place. as remarked above. In ver. 18 it is again rendered “troop.” In the parallel narrative. Chronicles (xi. 15), the word TII719, a “ cam) substituted. | b The Vatican and Alex. MSS, read eis @npia as if the Philistines had come on a hunting e tion. ¢ See also Catafago’s Arabic Dictionary, Ps wre adas. oe : LENTILES weary hunter, faint with hunger, they would lite a dainty” (Bibl. Res. i. 246). Dr. Kitto ays that he has often partaken of red pottage, ed by seething the lentiles in water, and adding a little suet, to give them a flavor; that he found it better food than a stranger d imagine; “the mess,” he adds, ‘had the eg which gained for it the name of adom” t. Bib., Gen. xxv. 30, 84). From Sonnini we » Lentile (Ervum lens). ¢ A n that lentile bread is still eaten by the poor of pt, even as it was in the time of Ezekiel; ed, that towards the cataracts of the Nile there caree any. other bread in use, because corn is *rare; the people generally add a little barley naking their bread of lentiles, which “is by means bad, though heavy’’ (Sonnini’s Travels, ater’s transl. iii. 288). Shaw and Russell bear ilar testimony. : a _ Bestia cooking Lentiles (Wilkinson.) ‘he Arabs have a tradition that Hebron is the where Esau sold his birthright, and in memory | ‘us event the dervises distribute from the kitchen | ‘Mosque there a daily supply of lentile soup to | LEOPARD 1629 travellers and poor inhabitants (D’Arvieux, Mem. ii. 237). The lentile, Ervum lens, is much used with other pulse in Roman Catholic countries during Lent; and some say that from hence the season derives its name. It is occasionally cultivated in England, but only as fodder for cattle; it is also imported from Alexandria. From the quantity of gluten the ripe seeds contain they must be highly nutritious, though they have the character of being heating if taken in large quantities. In Egypt the haulm is used for packing. The lentile belongs to the natural order Leguminose. Wyle * Esau’s pottage may be supposed to have been the original of the dish, so common at this day -“ = w= among the Arabs, called 8) Qh=s° (majaddarah), It is composed of lentiles boiled with onions and rice, with the addition of oil, and seasoned to the taste. It is one of the commonest dishes of the laboring classes in Syria, and is used more par- ticularly during the season of fasting, when it takes the place of rice cooked with butter, and meat stews. It is very palatable to those who like oil in cookery. Ce a ee LEOPARD (79), ndmer : mdpdadus: pardus) is invariably given by the A. V. as the translation of the Hebrew word, which occurs in the seven following passages, —Is. xi. 6; Jer. v. 6, xiii. 23; Dan. vii. 6; Hos. xiii. 7; Cant. iv. 8; Hab. i. 8. Leopard occurs also in Ecclus. xxviii. 23, and in Rey. xiii. 2. The swiftness of this animal, to which “Habakkuk compares the Chaldaean horses, and to which Daniel alludes in the winged leopard, the emblem in his vision of Alexander’s rapid conquests, is well known: so great is the flexibility of its body, that it is able to take surprising leaps, to climb trees, or to crawl snake-like upon the ground. Jeremiah and Hosea allude to the insid- ious habit of this animal, which is abundantly The word “ND means “ spotted” (see the deri- ms of Fiirst and Gesenius). The same word for , Pard” occurs in all the cognate languages. The ' i , a Lp eis ~~ (namir), xe (nimr), with which the ‘i oA Cc confirmed by the observations of travellers; the leopard will take up its position in some spot near a village, and watch for some fayorable opportunity From the passage of Canticles, quoted above, we learn that the hilly ranges of Lebanon were in ancient times frequented by these animals, and it is now not uncommonly seen in and about Lebanon, and the southern maritime mountains of for plunder. Syria? (Kitto, note on Cant. iv. 8). Burckhardt modern Arabic is identical, though this name is also applied to the tiger; but perhaps “ tiger ” and “ leop- ard” are synonymous in those countries where the former animal is not found. b Beth-nimrah, Nimrah, the waters of Nimrim, pos sibly derive their names from Namer (Bochart, Hirroz ii. 107, ed. Rosenmiill.). 168 LEPER, LEPROSY mentions that leopards have sometimes been killed in ‘the low and rocky chain of the Richel moun- tain,”’ but he calls them ounces (Burck. Syria, p. 132). In another passage (p. 835) he says, “in the wooded parts of Mount Tabor are wild boars and ounces.’’ Mariti says that the “grottoes at Kedron cannot be entered at all seasons without danger, for in the middle of summer it is fre- quented by tigers, who retire hither to shun the heat’ (Mariti, 7’rar. (translated), iii. 58). By tigers he undoubtedly means leopards, for the tiger does not occur in Palestine. Under the name namer,* which means “spotted,” it is not improb- able that another animal, namely, the cheetah (Gueparda jubata), may be included; which is tamed by the Mohammedans of Syna, who employ it in hunting the gazelle. These animals are represented on the Egyptian monuments; they were chased as an amusement for the sake of their skins, which were worn by the priests during their ceremonies, or they were hunted as enemies of the farmyard (Wilkinson, Anc. Hgypt. ch. viii. 20). Sir G. Wilkinson also draws attention to the fact that there is no appearance of the leopard (cheetah) having been employed for the purpose of the chase, on the monuments of Egypt; nor is it now used by any of the African races for hunting. The natives of Africa seem in some way to connect the leopard skin with the idea of royalty, and to look upon it as part of the insignia of majesty (Wood’s Nat. Hist.i. 160). The leopard (Leopardus varius) belongs to the family Melide, sub-order Digiti- grade, order Carnivora. The panther is now considered to be only a variety of the same animal. W. H. * The leopard is still found in Syria. I have seen a fine specimen from near Jezzin. One was killed near Abeih during the winter of 1866-67, after it had killed about 60 goats. A young one was taken near Bano in Akkar the same winter. ‘They are not rare in the neighborhood of the castle of esh- Shukeef, opposite Deir Mimas. They work much mischief by their sanguinary attacks on the herds of goats and sheep which pasture in that vicinity. The shepherds invariably keep up a loud shouting to drive them off, when their flocks are ascending the mountain side from the Valley of the Litany toward evening, returning from the water. Native authorities profess to find a difference between the vies and the KA2S, the former standing for the e opard, and the latter for the panther. It is more probable that the trifling difference in color, and the arrangement of the spots, are only such as mark varieties, not distinct species. Gok..-. LEPER, LEPROSY. The Egyptian and Syr- ian climates, but especially the rainless atmosphere of the former, are very prolific in skin-diseases; in- cluding, in an exaggerated form, some which are common in the cooler regions of western Europe. The heat and drought acting for long periods upon the’skin, and the exposure of a large surface of the latter to their influence, combine to predispose it to such affections. Eyen the modified forms known a The leopard is called by the natives of India lakree-haug, “ tree-tiger.”” In Africa also “ tiger” is applied to the “ leopard,” the former animal not exist- ing there. 5 The lion was always employed by the Egyptians for the purpose of the chase. See Diodor. i. 48; and Wilkinson, Anc. Egyp. ch. viii. 17. LEPER, LEPROSY to our western hospitals show a perplexing var) and at times a wide departure from the best-kn and recorded types; much more then may we, pect departure from any routine of sympt ’ amidst the fatal fecundity of the Levant in» class of disorders (Good's Study of Medicine, | iy. p. 445, &e., 4th ed.). It seems likely that 3 eases also tend to exhaust their old types, an} reappear under new modifications. [Mrpicn| This special region, however, exhibiting in 1 variety that class of maladies which disfigures | person and makes the presence horrible to the» holder, it is no wonder that notice was early dr | to their more popular symptoms. ‘The Greek \. agination dwelt on them as the proper scourg an offended deity, and perhaps foreign forms of ease may be implied by the expressions used (,|. chyl. Choéph. 271, &c.), or such as an interco) with Persia and Egypt would introduce to_ Greeks. But, whatever the variety of form, tl seems strong general testimony to the cause of| alike, as being to be sought in hard labor if heated atmosphere, amongst dry or powdery s stances, rendering the proper care of the skin f ficult or impossible. This would be aggravatec unwholesome or innutritious diet, want of pers¢ cleanliness, of clean garments, etc. Thus a “1, ker’s ’’ and a “ brickiayer’s itch,” are recorde¢) the faculty (Bateman, On Skin Diseases, Psoria, Good’s Study of Med., ib. pp. 459 and 484).¢ | The predominant and characteristic form of | rosy in Scripture is a white variety, covering eit) the entire body or a large tract of its surf which has obtained the name of lepra Mosat Such were the cases of Moses, Miriam, el and Gehazi (Ex. iv. 6; Num. xii. 10; 2K. y 27; comp. Lev. xiii. 13). But, remarkably enott in the Mosaic ritual-diagnosis of the disease (I). xili., xiv.), this kind, when overspreading the wii surface, appears to be regarded as “clean” (i 12,13, 16, 17). The first question which occur's we read the entire passage is, have we any me ( assume one disease as spoken of throughout ?1 rather — for the point of view in the whole pass is ceremonial, not medical — is not a register certain symptoms, marking the afflicted perso under a Divine judgment, all that is meant, wi out raising the question of a plurality of diseas: But beyond this preliminary question, and sup} ing the symptoms ascertained, there are circ: stances which, duly weighed, will prevent our : pecting the identity of these with modern sy) toms in the same class of maladies. The Egyp bondage, with its studied degradations and a tions, and especially the work of the kiln under Egyptian sun, must have had a frightful tende to generate this class of disorders; hence Mane (Joseph. cont. Ap. i. 26) asserts that the Egyptit drove out the Israelites as infected with leprosy a strange reflex, perhaps, of the Mosaic narra‘ of the “plagues” of Egypt, yet probably also ¢:- taining a germ of truth. The sudden and t change of food, air, dwelling, and mode of * caused by the Exodus, to this nation of ney: .-—7y ¢ The use of the word Y}) in association 1 the proper term, 7, marks the outward pearance as the chief test of the malady. For means a “blow” or “touch,” and is etymologi¢ represented by plaga, our “ plague.” e LEPER, LEPROSY jert-moving camp to secure the public health, or ‘allay the panic of infection. Hence it is possible jt many, perhaps most, of this repertory of symp- ‘ns may have disappeared with the period of the jodus, and the snow-white form, which had pre- sted, may alone have ordinarily continued in a ar age But it is observable that, amongst these witical symptoms, the scaling, or peeling off of y surface, is nowhere mentioned, nor is there any pression in the Hebrew text which points to ex- lation of the cuticle. The principal morbid fea- es are a rising or swelling,’ a scab or baldness,° jd a bright or white spot (xiii. 2). [BALb- s8.] But especially a white swelling in the skin, th a change of the hair of the part from the nat- il black to white or yellow (3, 10, 4, 20, 25, 30), ‘an appearance of a taint going “deeper than the \n,”’ or again, ‘ raw flesh ” appearing in the swell- ¢ (10, 14. 15), were critical signs of pollution. e mere swelling, or scab, or bright spot, was re- nded for a week as doubtful (4, 21, 26, 31), and oa second such period, if it had not yet pro- junced (5). If it then spread (7, 22, 27, 35), it ‘s decided as polluting. But if after the second viod of quarantine the trace died away®¢ and dwed no symptom of spreading, it was a mere ib, and he was adjudged clean (6, 23, 34). This udency to spread seems especially to have been ‘ied on. A spot most innocent in all other re- sets, if it “spread much abroad,” was unclean ; jereas, as before remarked, the man so wholly vrspread with the evil that it could find no far- ‘Tr range, was on the contrary “clean” (12, 13). lese two opposite criteria seem to show, that iilst the disease manifested activity, the Mosaic v imputed pollution to and imposed segregation the sufferer, but that the point at which it ght be viewed as having run its course was the ‘nal for his readmission to communion. The ques- ym then arises, supposing contagion were dreaded, d the sufferer on that account suspended from man society, would not one who offered the whole va of his body as a means of propagating the pest ‘more shunned than the partially afflicted? This ds us to regard the disease in its sacred charac- . The Hebrew was reminded on every side, even ‘that of disease, that he was of God’s peculiar ple. His time, his food and raiment, his hair d beard, his field and fruit-tree, all were touched | the finger of ceremonial; nor was his bodily dition exempt. Disease itself had its sacred re- ons arbitrarily imposed. Certainly contagion “ad not be the basis of our views in tracing these vations. In the contact of a dead body there was ‘Notion of contagion, for the body the moment >was extinct was as much ceremonially unclean as fae raw flesh of xiii. 10 might be discovered in (Sway, or by the skin merely cracking, an abscess ‘Ming, or the like. Or— what is more probable — “aw flesh ” means granulations forming on patches vere the surface had become excoriated. These a LEPER, LEPROSY 1631 iancipated slaves, may possibly have had a further | in a state of decay. Many of the unclean of beasts, deney to skin-disorders, and novel and severe | etc., are as wholesome as the clean. Why then in wessive measures may have been required in the | leprosy must we have recourse to a theory of con- tagion? ‘To cherish an undefined horror in the mind was perhaps the primary object; such horror, however, always tends to some definite dread, in this case most naturally to the dread of contagion. Thus religious awe would ally itself with and rest upon a lower motive, and there would thus be a motive to weigh with carnal and spiritual natures alike. It would perhaps be nearer the truth to say, that uncleanness was imputed, rather to inspire the dread of contagion, than in order to check contam- ination as an actual process. Thus this disease was a living plague set in the man by the finger of God whilst it showed its life by activity — by ‘spread- ing;’’ but when no more showing signs of life, it lost its character as a curse from Him. Such as dreaded contagion — and the immense majority in every country have an exaggerated alarm of it — would feel on the safe side through the Levitical ordinance; if any did not fear, the loathsomeness of the aspect of the malady would prevent them from wishing to infringe the ordinance. It is not our purpose to enter into the question whether the contagion existed, nor is there perhaps any more vexed question in pathology than how to fix a rule of contagiousness; but whatever was cur- rently believed, unless opposed to morals or human- ity, would have been a sufficient basis for the law- giver on this subject. The panic of infection is often as distressing, or rather far more so, in pro- portion as it is far more widely diffused, than actual disease. Nor need we exclude popular notions, so far as they do not conflict with higher views of the Mosaic economy. 340), on the brothers rather than the father, just as in the case of Rebekah, it belonged to the brother to conduct the negotiations for the marriage. We are left to conjecture why Reuben, as the first-born, was not foremost in the work, but the sin of which he was afterwards guilty, makes it possible that. his zeal for his sister’s purity was net so sensitive as theirs, The same explanation may perhaps apply to the non-appearance of Judah in the history. Simeon and Levi, as the next in succession to the first-born, take the task upon themselves. Though not named in the Hebrew text of the O. T. till xxxiv. 25, there can be little doubt that they were “the sons of Jacob”? who heard from their father the wrong over which he had brooded in silence, and who planned their revenge accordingly. The LXX. version does introduce their names in ver. 14. The history that follows is that of a cowardly and repulsive crime. The two brothers exhibit, in its breadest contrasts, that union of the neble and the base, of characteristics above and below the level of the heathen tribes around them, which marks the whole histery of Israel They have learned to loathe and scorn the impurity in the midst of which they lived, to regard themselves as a peculiar people, to glory in the sign of the covenant. They have learnt only teo well from Jacob and from Laban the lessons of treachery and falsehood. They lie to the men of Shechem as the Druses and the Maronites lie to each other in the prosecution of their bleod-feuds. For the offense of one man, they destroy and plunder a whole city. They cover their murderous schemes with fair words and professions of friendship. They make the very token of their religion the instrument of their per- fidy and revenge.© ‘Their father, timid and anxious as ever, utters a feeble lamentation (Blunt’s Script. Coincidences, Part i. § 8), “Ye have made me to stink among the inhabitants of the land... I being few in number, they shall gather themselves against me.’’ With a zeal that, though mixed with baser elements, foreshadows the zeal of Phine- has, they glory in their deed, and meet all remon- strance with the question, ‘Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot? ’”’ Of other facts in the life of Levi, there are none in which he takes, as in this, a prominent and distinct part. He shares in the hatred which his brothers bear to Joseph, and joins in the plots against him (Gen. xxxvii. 4). Reuben and Judah interfere severally to prevent the consummation of the crime (Gen. xxxvii. 21, 26). Simeon appears, as being made afterwards the sub- ject ofa sharper discipline than the others, to have been foremost — as his position among the sons of Leah made it likely that he would be — in this attack on the favored son of Rachel; and it is at least. probable that in this, as in their former guilt, Simeon and Levi were brethren. ‘The rivalry of the mothers was perpetuated in the jealousies of their children; and the two who had shown them- selves so keenly sensitive when their sister had been wronged, make themselves the instruments and ac- c Josephus (Anté. 1. c.) characteristically glosses over all that connects the attack with the circumcision of the Shechemites, and represents it as made in a time of feasting and rejoicing. 1636 LEVI LEVIATHAN himself. [If there are “abgeschmackten et gischen Mihrchen”’ (Redslob, p., 82) con with the name of ‘Levi, they are hardly th meet with in the narrative of Genesis. KE. ] 2. (Aevel; Rec. Text, Aevt: Levi.) § Melchi, one of the near ancestors of our L fact the great-grandfather of Joseph (Luke it This name is omitted in the list given b canus. . 3. A more remote ancestor of Christ, | Simeon (Luke iii. 29). Lord A. Hervey co that the name of Levi reappears in his dese Lebbeeus (Geneal. of Christ, p. 182, and | 46). 4. (Aevels; Rew Aevts.) Mark ii. 14; y. 27,29. [MATTrHEW. ] LEVI'ATHAN (J02)?, liv’ydthan: Kjros, Spdkwv ; Complut. Job ii. 8, Aef leviathan, draco) occurs five times in the 1 the A. V., and once in the margin of Jol where the text has “mourning.” In the ] Bible the word liv’ yathan,> which is, wi foregoing exception, always left untranslated A. V., is found only in the following pa Job iii. 8, xl. 25. (ali. 1, A. V.)3 ecm civ. 26; Is. xxvii. 1. In the margin of Jol and text of Job xli. 1,¢ the crocodile is most the animal denoted by the Hebrew wor Ixxiv. 14 also clearly points to this same « The context of Ps. civ. 26, “There go the there is that leviathan, whom thou hast n play therein,” seems to show that in this | the name represents some animal of the tribe; but it is somewhat uncertain what is denoted in Is. xxvii. 1. It would be out. here to attempt. any detailed explanation passages quoted above, but the following 1 are offered. The passage in Job iii. 8 is be difficulties, and it is evident from the tw« different readings of the text and margin t translators were at a loss. There can how little doubt that the margin is the correct) ing, and this is supported by the LXX., Theodotion, Symmachus, the Vulgate a Syriac. There appears to be some refer) those who practiced enchantments. Job 1s ing the day on which he was born, and | ‘Let them curse it that curse the day, } ready to raise up a leviathan: ”’ 2. e. “ Let hired to imprecate evil on my natal day ) they are able by their incantations to ren: propitious or unpropitious, yea, let suc skillful enough to raise up even leviath crocodile) from his watery bed, be sumn} curse that day;” or, as Mason Good has ti} the passage, “O! that night! let it be : rock! let no sprightliness enter into it! sorcerers of the day curse it! the expertes! them that can conjure up leviathan!” The detailed description of leviathan {{ Job xli. indisputably belongs to the croco' it is astonishing that it should ever have P derstood to apply to a whale or a dolphin; (Comm. on Job xli.), following Haseeus |! Lev. Jobi et Ceto Jone,” Brem. 1723), hat hard, though unsuccessfully, to prove that) complices of the hatred which originated, we are told, with the baser-born sons of the concubines (Gen. xxxvii. 2). Then comes for him, as for the others, the discipline of suffering and danger, the special education by which the brother whom they had wronged leads them back to faithfulness and natural affection. The detention of Simeon in Egypt may have been designed at once to be the punishment for the large share which he had taken in the common crime, and to separate the two broth- ers who had hitherto been such close companions in evil. The discipline does its work. Those who had been relentless to Joseph become self-sacrificing for Benjamin. After this we trace Levi as joining in the migra- tion of the tribe that owned Jacob as its patriarch. He, with his three sons, Ge; ..n, Kohath, Merari, went down into Egypt (Gen. /1). As one of the four eldest sons we may wusinw vf him as among the five (Gen. xlvii. 2) that were specially presented before Pharaoh. Then comes the last scene in which his name appears. When his father’s death draws near, and the sons are gathered round him, he hears the old crime brought up again to receive its sentence from the lips that are no longer feeble and hesitating. They, no less than the incestuous first-born, had forfeited the privileges of their birth- right. ‘In their anger they slew men, and in their wantonness they maimed oxen’’ (marg. read- ing OLA Nice comp. LW: éveupokdmnoay Tavpoy): And therefore the sentence on those who had been united for evil was, that they were to be “ divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel.’’ How that con- demnation was at once fulfilled and turned into a benediction, how the zeal of the patriarch reap- peared purified and strengthened in his descendants ; how the very name came to have anew significance, will be found elsewhere. [LEvITes. ] The history of Levi has been dealt with here in what seems the only true and natural way of treat- ing it, as a history of an individual person. Of the theory that sees in the sons of Jacob the myth- ical Eponymi of the tribes that claimed descent from them — which finds in the crimes and chances of their lives the outlines of a national or tribal chronicle — which refuses to recognize that Jacob had twelve sons, and insists that the history of Dinah records an attempt on the part of the Cana- anites to enslave and degrade a Hebrew tribe (Ewald, Geschichte, i. 466-496) — of this one may be content to say, as the author says of other hy- potheses hardly more extravagant, “die Wissen- schaft verscheucht alle solche Gespenster’’ (iad. i. 466). The book of Genesis tells us of the lives of men and women, not of ethnological phantoms. A yet wilder conjecture has been hazarded by another German critic. P. Redslob (Die alttesta- mentl. Namen, Hamb. 1846, pp. 24, 25), recognizing the meaning of the name of Levi as given above, finds in it evidence of the existence of a confederacy or synod of the priests that had been connected with the several local worships of Canaan, and who, in the time of Samuel and David, were gathered to- gether, joined, ‘round the Central Pantheon in Jerusalem.’ Here alsa we may borrow the terms of our judgment from the language of the writer a The Jewish tradition (Targ. Pseudojon.) states the five to have beep Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. b yay, from m7, an animal wrea’4 TT: : i e¢ Whirlpool, i. e. some sea-monster: vid. Select Glossary, p. 226. LEVIATHAN an of this passage is some species of whale, bably, he says, the Delphinus orca, or common mpus. That it can be said to be the pride of - cetacean that his “scales shut up together as ha close seal,’ is an assertion that no one can ept, since every member of this group has a ly almost bald and smooth. qi < 2 <== ze os SS The Egyptian crocodile also is certainly the ani- I denoted by leviathan in Ps. Ixxiv. 14:4 “Thou, at crocodile or ‘dragon that lieth in the midst his rivers’ (Ez. xxix. 3) in the Red Sea, and st give their bodies to be food for the wild beasts the desert.” The leviathan of Ps. civ. 26 ms clearly enough to allude to some great ceta- n. The “great and wide sea” must surely be Mediterranean, “ the great sea,” as it is usually ed in Scripture; it would certainly be stretch- | the point too far to understand the expression represent any part of the Nile. The crocodile, is well known, is a fresh-water, not a marine mal:¢ it is very probable therefore that some we is signified by the term leviathan in this sage, and it is quite an error to assert, as Dr. tris (Dict. Nat. Hist. Bib.), Mason Good (Book Job translated), Michaelis (Supp. 1297), and senmiuller (quoting Michaelis in not. ad Bocharti 2r0z. iii. 738) have done, that the whale is not nd in the Mediterranean. The Orea gladiator say) — the grampus mentioned above by Lee — | Physalus antiquorum (Gray), or the Rorqual la Méditerrance (Cuvier), are not uncommon ‘the Mediterranean (Fischer, Synops. Mam. 525, | Laeépéde, H. N. des Cétac. 115), and in tient times the species may have been more ‘nerous. There is some uncertainty about the leviathan r t ! The modern Arabic name of crocodile is timsth. 2 word is derived from the Coptic, emsah, amsah, with the aspirate xdéupac (Herod. ii. 69). however (de L. Copt. p. 101), contends that | Word is of Arabic origin, See Jablonsk. Opera i. |, 287, ed. Te Water, 1904. ' “The people inhabiting the wilderness ? — a ‘tical expression to denote the wild beasts; comp. ae ants are a people not strong,” ‘ the conies are i & feeble folk” (Prov. xxx. 25, 26). For other -rpretations of this passage see Rosenmiill. Schol., t Bochart, Phaleg, p. 818. | According to Warburton (Cresc. § Cr. 85), the ‘fodile is never now seen below Minyeh, but it uld be stated that Pliny (N. H. viii. 25), not He- ‘otus, as Mr. Warburton asserts, speaks of croco- ‘s being attacked by dolphins at the mouth of the B (Nat. Quest. iv. 2) gives an account anee ‘kins, LEVITES 1637 of Is. xxvii. 1. Rosenmiiller (Schol. in I. c.) thinks that the word nachash, here rendered serpent, is to be taken in a wide sense as applicable to any great monster; and that the prophet, under the term “leviathan that crooked serpent,’ is speaking of Kgypt, typified by the crocodile, the usual emblem of the prince of that kingdom. The Chaldee para- phrase understands the “leviathan that piercing serpent’ to refer to Pharaoh, and “leviathan that crooked serpent ’’ to refer to Sennacherib. As the term leviathan is evidently used in no limited sense, it is not improbable that the “levi athan the piercing serpent,’ or “leviathan the crooked serpent,” may denote some species of the great rock-snakes (Botde) which are cctumon in South and West Africa, perhaps the Hortulia Sebe, which Schnei >r (Amph. ii. 266), under the synonym Boa hb ..lyphica, appears to identify with the huge represented on the Egyptian monuments. ‘this python, as well as the crocodile, was worshipped by the Egyptians, and may well therefore be understood in this passage to typify the Egyptian power. Perhaps the English word monster may be considered to be as good a transla- tion of Liv’ydthan as any other that can be found; and though the crocodile seems to be the animal God, didst destroy the princes of Pharaoh, the | ™0re particularly denoted by the Hebrew term, yet, as has been shown, the whale, and perhaps the rock-snake also, may be signified under this name.4 [WHALE.] Bochart (iii. 769, ed. Rosenmiiller) says that the Talmudists use the word liv’yithan to denote the crocodile; this however is denied by Lewysohn (Zoél. des Talm. pp. 155, 355), who says that in the Talmud it always denotes a whale, and never a crocodile. For the Talmudical fables about the leviathan, see Lewysohn (Zod. des Talm.), in passages referred to above, and Buxtorf, Lex. Chal. Talm. s. v. rTebales W. #. LE’VIS (Aeuis; [ Vat. Aeveis:] Levis), im- properly given as a proper name in 1 Esdr. ix. 14. It is simply a corruption of ‘the Levite’’ in Ezr. x. 15. LEVITES (C9127: Acvira: [Vat. -e-]: Levite : also > S32: vfod Aevt [ Vat. Aevec]: Sjili Levi). The analogy of the names of the other tribes of Israel would lead us to include under these titles the whole tribe that traced its descent from Levi. The existence of another division, however, within the tribe itself, in the higher office of the priesthood as limited to the “‘sons of Aaron,” gave to the common form, in this instance, a peculiar meaning. Most frequently the Levites of a contest between these animals. Cuvier thinks that a species of dog-fish is meant (Acanthias vul- garis), on account of the dorsal spines of which Pliny speaks, and which no species of dolphin possesses. d The Heb. word wri occurs about thirty times in the O. T., and it seems clear enough that in every case its use is limited to the serpent tribe. If the LXX. interpretation of TJD be taken, the fleeing and not piercing serpent is the rendering: the Heb. wnpy, tortuosus, is more applicable to a serpent than to any other animal. The expression, ‘ He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea,” refers also to the Egyptian power, and is merely expletive — the dragon being the crocodile, which is in this part of the verse an emblem of Pharaoh, as the serpent is in the former part of the verse. 1638 LEVITES are distinguished, as such, from the priests (1 K. vili. 4; Ezr. ii. 70; John i. 19, &c.), and this is the meaning which has perpetuated itself. Sometimes the word extends to the whole tribe, the priest included (Num. xxxy. 2; Josh. xxi. 3, 41; Ex. vi. 25; Lev. xxv. 32, &c.). Sometimes again it is added as an epithet of the smaller portion of the tribe, and we read of “the priests the Levites’’ (Josh. iii. 3; Ez. xliv. 15). The history of the tribe, and of the functions attached to its several orders, is obviously essential to any right appre- hension of the history of Israel as a people. They are the representatives of its faith, the ministers of its worship. They play at least as prominent a part in the growth of its institutions, in fostering or repressing the higher life of the nation, as the clergy of the Christian Church have played in the history of any European kingdom. It will be the object of this article to trace the outlines of that history, marking out the functions which at differ- ent periods were assigned to the tribe, and the influence which its members exercised. This is, it is believed, a truer method than that which would attempt to give a more complete picture by com- bining into one whole the fragmentary notices which are separated from each other by wide inter- vals of time, or treating them as if they represented the permanent characteristics of the order. In the history of all priestly or quasi-priestly bodies, func- tions vary with the changes of time and cireum- stances, and to ignore those changes is a sufficient proof of incompetency for dealing with the history. As a matter of convenience, whatever belongs ex- clusively to the functions and influence of the priest- hood, will be found under that head [Priest]; but it is proposed to treat here of all that is common to the priests and Levites, as being together the sacer- dotal tribe, the clerisy of Israel. The history will fall naturally into four great periods I. The time of the Exodus. Il. The period of the Judges. II. That of the Monarchy. 1V. That from the Captivity to the destruction of Jerusalem. I. The absence of all reference to the consecrated character of the Levites in the book of Genesis is noticeable enough. The prophecy ascribed to Jacob (Gen. xlix. 5-7) was indeed fulfilled with singular precision; but the terms of the prophecy are hardly such as would have been framed by a later writer,¢ after the tribe had gained its subsequent preémi- nence; and unless we frame some hypothesis to account for this omission as deliberate, it takes its @ Ewald ( Gesch. ii. 454) refers the language of Gen. xlix. 7 not to the distribution of the Levites in their 48 cities, but to the time when they had fallen into disrepute, and become, as in Judg. xvii., a wander- ing, half-mendicant order. But see Kalisch, Genesis, ad loc. 6 The later genealogies, it should be noticed, repro- duce the same order. This was natural enough ; but a genealogy originating in a later age, and reflecting its feelings, would probably have changed the order. (Comp. Ex. vi. 16, Num. iii. 17, 1 Chr. vi. 16.) ¢ As the names of the lesser houses recur, some of them frequently, it may be well to give them here. Libni Gershon . { Shimét Lal LEVITES place, so far as it goes, among the evidences 9 antiquity of that section of Genesis in which prophecies are found. The only oceasion on y the patriarch of the tribe appears — the massac the Shechemites — may indeed have contribut, influence the history of his descendants, by fost in them the same fierce wild zeal against all threatened to violate the purity of their race; generally what strikes us is the absence of all 7 nition of the later character. In the genealog Gen. xlyi. 11, in like manner, the list does no lower down than the three sons of Levi, and are given in the order of their birth, not in which would have corresponded to the official s riority of the Kohathites.2 There are no again, that the tribe of Levi had any special eminence over the others during the Egyptian dage. As tracing its descent from Leah, it y take its place among the six chief tribes sprung. the wives of Jacob, and share with them a re nized superiority over those that bore the nam the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. Within the: itself there are some slight tokens that the hathites are gaining the first place. The elassi tion of Ex. vi. 16-25 gives to that section of tribe four clans or houses, while those of Ger: and Merari have but.two each.c To it belo the house of Amram; and “Aaron the Ley (Ix. iv. 14) is spoken of as one to whom the ple will be sure to listen. He marries the daup of the chief of the tribe of Judah (Ex. vi. The work accomplished by him, and by his greater brother, would tend naturally to give px inence to the family and the tribe to whieh — belonged; but as yet there are no traces of a ¢: character, no signs of any intention to establis! hereditary priesthood. Up to this time the Is ites had worshipped the God of their fathers : their fathers’ manner. The first-born of the ple were the priests of the people. The eldest of each house inherited the priestly office. youth made him, in his father’s lifetime, the re sentative of the purity which was connected { the beginning with the thought of worship (Ew Alterthiim. p. 273, and comp. Priest). It apparently with this as their ancestral worship | the Israelites came up out of Egypt. The “yo men” of the sons of Israel offer sacrifices xxiv. 5). They, we may infer, are the priests’ remain with the people while Moses ascends heights of Sinai (xix. 22-24). They represer the truth that the whole people were “a king of priests’ (xix. 6). Neither they, nor the “ cers and judges”? appointed to assist Moses ( Moses ee Aaron... { Eleazar Ithamal ° Korah Renate) oe } Nenheg Zithri Hebron Mishael Uzziel. . Elzaphan Zithri. Mahali Merari { Mushi. d This is expressly stated m the Zarg. Pseudo; on this verse: ‘ And he sent the first-born of the of Isr., for even to that time the worship was by first-born, because the Tabernacle was not yet mi Bed the priesthood given to Aaron,” ete, bl LEVITES ninistering justice (xviii. 25) are connected in ; special manner with the tribe of Levi. The t step towards a change was made in the insti- ion of an hereditary priesthood in the family of ron, during the first withdrawal of Moses to the tude of Sinai (xxviii. 1). This, however, was :thing: it was quite another to set apart a whole ye of Israel as a priestly caste. The directions en for the construction of the tabernacle im- “no preéminence of the Levites. The chief kers in it are from the tribes of Judah and of a (Ex. xxxi. 2-6). The next extension of the 1 of the priesthood grew out of the terrible crisis Ex. xxxii. If the Levites had been sharers in sin of the golden calf, they were at any rate the most to rally round their leader when he called them to help him in stemming the progress of evil. And then came that terrible consecration themselves, when every man was against his and against his brother, and the offering with ch they filled their hands (O27). IND, j vee ° -xxxil. 29, comp. Ex. xxviii. 41) was the blood their nearest of kin. The tribe stood forth, wate and apart, recognizing even in this stern k the spiritual as higher than the natural, and refore counted worthy to be the representative the ideal life of the people, «an Israel within an el” (Ewald, Alterthiim. p. 279), chosen in its ner representatives to offer incense and burnt- jifice before the Lord (Deut. xxxiii. 9, 10), not jout a share in the glory of the Urim and tmmim that were worn by the prince and chief- of the tribe. From this time accordingly they ipied a distinct position. Experience had shown ‘easily the people might fall back into idolatry low necessary it was that there should be a y of men, an order, numerically large, and when people were in their promised home, equally ised throughout the country, as witnesses and tdians of the truth. Without this the indi- lalism of the older worship would have been tful in an ever-multiplying idolatry. The tribe evi was therefore to take the place of that ier priesthood of the first-born as representatives he holiness of the people. The minds of the jle were to be drawn to the fact of the substi- om by the close numerical correspondence of the ecrated tribe with that of those whom they aced. The first-born males were numbered, and id to be 22,273; the census of the Levites gave 100, reckoning in each case from children of one ith upwards @ (Num. iii.). The fixed price for redemption of a victim vowed in sacrifice (comp. xxvii. 6; Num. xviii. 16) was to be paid for : of the odd number by which the first-born » in excess of the Levites (Num. iii. 47). In | way the latter obtained a sacrificial as well as f | le separate numbers in Num. iii. (Gershon, 7,500 ; ath, 8,600; Merari, 6,200) give a total of 23,300. Yeceived solution of the discrepancy is that 300 | the first-born of the Levites, who as such were dy consecrated, and therefore could not take the |) of others. ‘'almudic traditions (Gemar. Bab, | Sanhedrim, quoted by Patrick) add that the ques- which of the Israelites should be redeemed by a fe, or which should pay the five shekels, was d by lot. The number of the first-born appears ‘oportionately small, as compared with the popu- 4. It must be remembered, however, that the itions to be fulfilled were that they should be at Q) the first child of the father, (2) the first child LEVITES 1639 a priestly character. They for the first-born of men, and their cattle for the firstlings of beasts, fulfilled the idea that had been asserted at the time of the destruction of the first-born of Egypt (Ex. xiii. 12, 13). The commencement of the march from Sinai gave a prominence to their new char- acter. As the Tabernacle was the sign of the presence among the people of their unseen King so the Levites were, among the other tribes of Israel, as the royal guard that waited exclusively on Him. The warlike title of « host’ is specially applied to them (comp. use of S22, in Num. iy. 3, 80; and of FTI, in 1 Chr. ix.19). As such they were not ineluded in the number of the armies of Israel (Num. i. 47, ii. 33, xxvi. 62), but reck- oned separately by themselves. When the people were at rest they encamped as guardians round the sacred tent; no one else might come near it under pain of death (Num. i. 51, xviii. 22). They were to occupy a middle position in that ascending scale of consecration, which, starting from the idea of the whole nation as a priestly people, reached its culminating point in the high-priest who, alone of all the people, might enter “within the veil.” The Levites might come nearer than the other tribes; but they might not sacrifice, nor burn incense, nor see the “holy things” of the sanctuary till they were covered (Num. iv. 15). When on the march, no hands but’theirs might strike the tent at the commencement of the day’s journey, or carry the parts of its structure during it, or pitch the tent once again when they halted (Num. i. 51). It was obviously essential for such a work that there should be a fixed assignment of duties; and now accord- ingly we meet with the first outlines of the organ- ization which afterwards became permanent. The division of the tribe into the three sections that traced their descent from the sons of Levi, formed the groundwork of it. The work which they all had to do required a man’s full strength, and therefore, though twenty was the starting-point for military service (Num. i.) they were not to enter on their active service till they were thirty ¢ (Num. iv. 23, 30, 35). At fifty they were to be free from all duties but those of superintendence (Nun. viii. 25, 26). The result of this limitation gave to the Kohathites 2,750 on active service out of 8,600; to the sons of Gershon 2,630 out of 7,500; to those of Merari 3,200 out of 6,200 (Num. iy.). Of these the Kohathites, as nearest of kin to the priests, held from the first the highest offices. They were to bear all the vessels of the sanctuary, the ark itself included 4 (Num. iii. 31, iv. 15; Deut. xxxi. 25), after the priests had covered them with the dark-blue cloth which was to hide them from all profane gaze; and thus they became also the guar- of the mother, (8) males. (Comp. on this question, and on that of the difference of numbers, Kurtz, His- tory of the Old Covenant. iii. 201.) b Comp. the recurrence of the same thought in the exxAyoia mpwrtoroxwy of Heb. xii. 23. ¢ The mention of twenty-five in Num. viii. 24, as the age of entrance, must be understood either of a probationary period during which they were trained for their duties, or of the lighter work of keeping the gates of the tabernacle. d On more solemn occasions the priests themselves appear as the bearers of the ark (Josh. iii. 3, 15, vi- 6; 1 K. viii. 6). 1640 LEVITES dians of all the sacred treasures which the people had so freely offered. The Gershonites, in their turn, had to carry the tent-hangings and curtains (Num. iv. 22-26). The heavier burden of the boards, bars, and pillars of the Tabernacle fell on the sons of Merari. The two latter companies were allowed, however, to use the oxen and the wagons which were offered by the congregation, Merari, in consideration of its heavier work, having two-thirds of the number (Num. vii. 1-9). The more sacred vessels of the Kohathites were to be borne by them on their own shoulders (Num. vii. 9). The Ko- hathites in this arrangement were placed under the command of Kleazar, Gershon and Merari under Ithamar (Num. iv. 28, 33). Before the march began, the whole tribe was once again solemnly set apart. The rites (some of them at least) were such as the people might have witnessed in Egypt, and all would understand their meaning. Their clothes were to be washed. ‘They themselves, as if they were, prior to their separation, polluted and un- clean, like the leper, or those that had touched the dead, were to be sprinkled with “ water of purify- ing’’ (Num. viii. 7, comp. with xix. 13; Lev. xiv. 8,9), and to shave all their flesh.¢ The people were then to lay their hands upon the heads of the con- secrated tribe and offer them up as their representa- tives (Num. viii..10). Aaron, as bigh-priest, was then to present them as a wave-offering (turning them, z. e. this way and that, while they bowed themselves to the four points of the compass; comp. Abarbanel on Num. viii. 11, and Kurtz, iii. 208), in token that all their powers of mind and body were henceforth to be devoted to that service.? They, in their turn, were to lay their hands on the two bullocks which were to be slain as a sin-offering and burnt-offering for an atonement (W9D, Num. viii. 12). Then they entered on their work; from one point of view given by the people to Jehovah, from another given by Jehovah to Aaron and his sons (Num. iii. 9, viii. 19, xviii. 6). Their very name is turned into an omen that they will cleave to the service of the Lord (comp. the play on nbs and *)” in Num. xviii. 2, 4). The new institution was, however, to receive a severe shock from those who were most interested in it. The section of the Levites whose position brought them into contact with the tribe of Reuben ¢ conspired with it to reassert the old patriarchal system of a household priesthood. The leader of that revolt may have been impelled by a desire to gain the same height as that which Aaron had attained ; but the ostensible pretext, that the “* whole congregation were holy ’’ (Num. xvi. 3\, was one which would have cut away all the distinctive priv- @ Comp. the analogous practice (differing, however, in being constantly repeated) of the Egyptian priests (Herod. ii. 87 ; comp. Spencer, De Leg. Heb. b. iii.c. 5). b Solemn as this dedication is, it fell short of the consecration of the priests, and was expressed by a different word. [Prizst.] The Levites were purified, not consecrated (comp. Gesen. s. v. TTTTQ and wp, a au. and Oehler, s. v. “ Levi,” in Herzog’s Real-Encykl.). ¢ In the encampment in the wilderness, the sons of Aaron occupied the foremost place of honor on the east. The Kohathites were at their right, on the south, the Gershonites on the west, the sons of Merari on the north of the tabernacle. On the south were also Reuben, Simeon, and Gad (Num. ii. and iii.), LEVITES ileges of the tribe of which he was a mem When their self-willed ambition had been punis when all danger of the sons of Levi “taking much upon them’ was for the time checkec was time also to provide more definitely for th and so to give them more reason to be satisfied what they actually had: and this involved a per nent organization for the future as well as for present. If they were to have, like other tribe distinct territory assigned to them, their influ over the people at large would be diminis and they themselves would be likely to forgel labors common to them with others, their. peculiar calling. Jehovah therefore was to bet inheritance (Num. xviii. 20; Deut. x. 9, xviii. They were to have no territorial possessions. place of them they were to receive from the ot the tithes of the produce of the land, from wl they, in their turn, offered a tithe to the priest a recognition of their higher consecration (N xvill. 21, 24, 26; Neh. x. 37). As if to provide the contingency of failing crops or the like, the consequent inadequacy of the tithes thus assig to them, the Levite, not less than the widow and orphan, was commended to the special kindnes: the people (Deut. xii. 19, xiv. 27,29). When wanderings of the people should be over and tabernacle have a settled place, great part of labor that had fallen on them would come an end, and they too would need a fixed ab Concentration round the Tabernacle would | to evils nearly as great, though of a diffe kind, as an assignment of special territory. T ministerial character might thus be intensified, their pervading influence as witnesses and teacl would be sacrificed to it. Distinctness and diffu: were both to be secured by the assignment to whole tribe (the priests included) of forty-ei cities, with an outlying suburb” (wr) mpodoreta; Num. xxxy. 2) of meadow-land for pasturage of their flocks and herds.4 The revere of the people for them was to be heightened by selection of six of these as cities of refuge, in wl the Levites were to present themselves as the | tectors of the fugitives who, though they had incurred the guilt, were yet liable to the pun: ment of murder.¢ How rapidly the feeling reverence gained strength, we may judge from share assigned to them out of the flocks and he and women of the conquered Midianites (N xxxi. 27, &.). The same victory led to the ded tion of gold and silver vessels of great value, : thus increased the importance of the tribe as gt dians of the national treasures (Num. xxxi. 30-! The book of Deuteronomy is interesting as dicating more clearly than had been done be @ Heliopolis (Strabo, xvii. 1), Thebes aud Mem} in Egypt, and Benares in Hindostan, have been refet to as parallels. The aggregation of priests roun great national sanctuary, so as to make it as it ¥ the centre of a collegiate life, was however differen’ its object and results from that of the polity of Isr (Comp. Ewald, Geseh. ii. 402.) e The importance of giving a sacred character such an asylum is sufficient to account for the ass! ment of the cities of refuge to the Levites. Ph however, with his characteristic love of an inner me ing, sees in it the truth that the Levites themsel were, according to the idea of their lives, fugit from the world of sense, who had found their place refuge in God. LEVITES her functions, over and above their ministra- in the Tabernacle, which were to be allotted tribe of Levi. Through the whole land they 0 take the place of the old household priests et, of course, to the special rights of the ie priesthood), sharing in all festivals and ngs (Deut. xii. 19, xiv. 26, 27, xxvi. 11). “third year they were to have an additional in the produce of the land (Deut. xiv. 28, 12). The people were charged never to for- them. To “the priests the Levites’’* was ong the office of preserving, transcribing, and reting the Law (Deut. xvii. 9-12; xxxi. 26). were solemnly to read it every seventh year at ast of ‘Tabernacles (Deut. xxxi. 9-13). They to pronounce the curses from Mount Ebal . xxvii. 14). +h, if one may so speak, was the ideal of the us organization which was present to the of the lawgiver. Details were left to be de- das the altered circumstances of the people require.” The great principle was, that the r-caste who had guarded the tent of the cap- f the hosts of Israel, should be throughout ind as witnesses that the people still owed nee to Him. It deserves notice that, as yet, he exception of the few passages that refer to iests, no traces appear of their character as a d caste, and of the work which afterwards red to them as hymn-writers and musicians. ymns of this period were probably occasional, curring (comp. Ex. xv.; Num. xxi. 17; Deut. ). Women bore a large share in singing them xv. 20; Ps. Ixviii. 25). It is not unlikely the wives and daughters of the Levites, who have been with them in all their encamp- , as afterwards in their cities, took the fore- part among the “damsels playing with their ls,"¢ or among the “ wise-hearted,’’ who hangings for the decoration of the Tabernacle. are at any rate signs of their presence there, mention of the ‘‘ women that assembled ”’ at jor (Ex. xxxviii. 8, and comp. Ewald, Al- im. p. 297). The successor of Moses, though belonging to er tribe, did faithfully all that could be done wert this idea intoa reality. The submission Gibeonites, after they had obtained a promise heir lives should be spared, enabled him to re- the tribe-divisions of Gershon and Merari of nost burdensome of their duties. ‘The con- 1 Hivites became “ hewers of wood and draw- water’ for the house of Jehovah and for the egation (Josh. ix. 27).¢ As soon as the con- rs had advanced far enough to proceed to a ion of the country, the forty-eight cities were led to them. Whether they were to be the his phraseology, characteristic of Deuteronomy joshua, appears to indicate that the functions 1 of belonged to them as the chief members of cred tribe, as a clerisy rather than as priests in rower sense of the word. 0 this there is one remarkable exception. Deut. 6 provides for a permanent dedication as the re- f personal zeal going beyond the fixed period of ¢ that came in rotation, and entitled accordingly reward. omp., as indicating their presence and functions ater date, 1 Chr. xxv. 5, 6. ‘he Nethinim (Deo dati) of 1 Chr. ix. 2, Ezr. Were prohably sprung from captives taken by LEVITES 1641 sole occupiers of the cities thus allotted, or whether —as the rule for the redemption of their houses in Ley. xxv. 32 might seem to indicate — others were allowed to reside when they had been provided for. must remain uncertain. ‘The principle of a widely diffused influence was maintained by allotting, as a rule, four cities from the district of each tribe; but it is interesting to notice how, in the details of the distribution, the divisions of the Levites in the order of their precedence coincided with the relative im- portance of the tribes with which they were con- nected. The following table will help the reader to form a judgment on this point, and to trace the influence of the tribe in the subsequent events of Jewish history.¢ I. KowaruirEs : a Dvioate Judah and Simeon . Benjamin B. Not Priests Half Manasseh CED ig II. GERSHONITES . Ma . Asher ars Naphtali ... Zebulun Reuben Gadi ae. SPARS Possess Ephraim Danza ais Half Manasseh (West) . III. MERARITES ; | Sea see Eee el The scanty memorials that are left us in the book of Judges fail to show how far, for any length of time, the reality answered to the idea. ‘The ravages of invasion, and the pressure of an alien rule, marred the working of the organization which seemed so perfect. Levitical cities, such as Aijalon (Josh. xxi. 24; Judg. i. 35) and Gezer (Josh. xxi. 21; 1 Chr. vi. 67), fall into the hands of their enemies. Sometimes, as in the case of Nob, others apparently took their place. The wandering, un- settled habits of the Levites who are mentioned in the later chapters of Judges, are probably to be traced to this loss of a fixed abode, and the con- sequent necessity of taking refuge in other cities, even though their tribe as such had no portion in them. The tendency of the people to fall into the idolatry of the neighboring nations, showed either that the Levites failed to bear their witness to the truth or had no power to enforce it. Even in the lifetime of Phinehas, when the high-priest was still consulted as an oracle, the reverence which the people felt for the tribe of Levi becomes the occa- sion of a rival worship (Judg. xvii.). The old household priesthood revives,‘ and there is the risk of the national worship breaking up into individ- ualism. Micah first consecrates one of his own sons, and then tempts a homeless Levite to dwell with him as “a father and a priest *’ for little more David in later wars, who were assigned to the service of the Tabernacle, replacing possibly the Gibeonites who had been slain by Saul (2 Sam. xxi. 1). e * For the local position of the forty-eight Levitica] cities, as distributed among the different tribes, see es- pecially Plate iv. No. 9(p. 27) in Clark’s Bible Atlas of Maps and Plans (Lond. 1868). For convenience of ref erence small capitals are employed to distinguish the Priests’ cities, the letter R to distinguish the cities of refuge, and an asterisk to denote those which are not identified. Twenty out of the forty-cight belong to this third class. H Ff Compare, on the extent of this relapse into an earlier system, Kalisch, On Genesis, xlix. 7. 1642 LEVITES than his food and raiment. The Levite, though probably the grandson of Moses himself, repeats the sin of Korah. [JONATHAN.] First in the house of Micah, and then for the emigrants of Dan, he exercises the office of a priest with ‘an ephod, and a teraphim, and a graven image.” With this ex- ception the whole tribe appears to have fallen into a condition analogous to that of the clergy in the darkest period and in the most outlying districts of the Medieval Church, going through a, ritual routine, but exercising no influence for good, at once corrupted and corrupting. The shameless license of the song of Eli may be looked upon as the result of a long period of decay, affecting the whole order. When the priests were such as Hophni and Phine- has, we may fairly assume that the Levites were not doing much to sustain the moral life of the people. The work of Samuel was the starting-point of a better time. Himself a Levite, and, though not a priest, belonging to that section of the Levites which was nearest to the priesthood (1 Chr. vi. 28), adopted, as it were, by a special dedication, into the priestly line and trained for its offices (1 Sam. ii. 18), he appears as infusing a fresh life, the author of a new organization. ‘There is no reason to think, indeed, that the companies or schools of the sons of the prophets which appear in his time (1 Sam. x. 5), and are traditionally said to have been founded by him, consisted exclusively of Levites; but there are many signs that the members of that tribe formed a large element in the new order, and re- ceived new strength from it. It exhibited, indeed, the ideal of the Levite life as one of praise, devotion, teaching, standing in the same relation to the priests and Levites generally as the monastic institutions of the fifth century, or the mendicant orders of the thirteenth, did to the secular clergy of Western Europe. ‘The fact that the Levites were thus brought under the influence of a system which ad- dressed itself to the mind and heart in a greater de- gree than the sacrificial functions of the priesthood, may possibly have led them on to apprehend the higher truths as to the nature of worship which begin to be asserted from this period, and which are nowhere proclaimed more clearly than in the great hymn that bears the name of Asaph (Ps. 1. 7-15). ‘The man who raises the name of prophet to a new significance is himself a Levite (1 Sam. ix. 9). It is among them that we find the first signs of the musical skill which is afterwards so conspic- uous in the Levites (1 Sam. x. 5). The order in which the Temple services were arranged is ascribed to two of the prophets, Nathan and Gad (2 Chr. xxix. 25), who must have grown up under Samuel’s superintendence, and in part to Samuel himself (1 Chr. ix. 22). Asaph and Heman, the Psalmists, bear the same title as Samuel the Seer (1 Chr. xxv. 5; 2 Chr. xxix. 30). The very word “ prophesy- ing ”’ is applied not only to sudden bursts of song, but to the organized psalmody of the Temple (1 Chr. xxv. 2,3). Even of those who bore the name of a prophet in a higher sense, a large number are traceably of this tribe.@ III. The capture of the Ark by the Philistines did not entirely interrupt the worship of the Is- raelites, and the ministrations of the Levites went LEVITES on, first at Shiloh (1 Sam. xiv. 3), then for a at Nob (1 Sam. xxii. 11), afterwards at Gil (1 K. iii. 4; 1 Chr. xvi. 39). The history of return of the ark to Beth-shemesh after its cap by the Philistines, and its subsequent remoy, Kirjath-jearim, points apparently to some str; complications, rising out of the anomalies of period, and affecting, in some measure, the posi of the tribe of Levi. Beth-shemesh was, by original assignment of the conquered country, of the cities of the priests (Josh. xxi. 16). 7 however, do not appear in the narrative, unles assume, against all probability, that the mer Beth-shemesh who were guilty of the act of fanation were themselves of the priestly a Levites indeed are mentioned as doing their pointed work (1 Sam. vi. 15), but the sacri and burnt-offerings are offered by the men of city, as though the special function of the pr hood had been usurped by others; and on this, position it is easier to understand how those had set aside the Law of Moses by one off should defy it also by another. The singular r ing of the LXX. in 1 Sam. vi. 19 (kad odk he vioav oi viol lexovtou év Tois &vdpact Baibac ott eldoy KiBwrdy Kuplov), indicates, if we ass that it rests upon some corresponding Hebrewt a struggle between two opposed parties, one gu of the profanation, the other — possibly the Le who had been before mentioned — zealous in t remonstrances against it. ‘Then comes, eithe the result of this collision, or by direct supernat infliction, the great slaughter of the Beth-shem and they shrink from retaining the ark any lo: among them. The great Eben (stone) becomes a slight paronomastic change in its form, the “¢ Abel’? (lamentation), and the name remains , memorial of the sin and of its punishment. [Bi SHEMESH.] We are left entirely in the dark: the reasons which led them, after this, to send ark of Jehovah, not to Hebron or some other pr ly city, but to Kirjath jearim, round which, sc us we know, there gathered legitimately no sa associations. It has been commonly assumet deed that Abinadab, under whose guardiansh remained for twenty years, must necessarily . been of the tribe of Levi. [ABrnapAB.] Of however, there is not the slightest direct evid and against it there is the language of David Chr. xv. 2, None ought to carry the ark of | but the Levites, for them hath Jehovah chos: which would lose half its force if it were not m asa protest against a recent innovation, and ground of a return to the more ancient order. | far as one can see one’s way through these per] ities of a dark period, the most probable expl tion — already suggested under KirJATH-JEA seems to be the following. The old name Baaleh (Josh. xv. 9) and Kirjath-baal (Josh 60) suggest there had been of old some sp sanctity attached to the place as the centre | Canaanite local worship. The fact that the was taken to the house of Abinadab in the /i Sam. vii. 1), the Gibeah of 2 Sam. vi. 3, cont itself with that old Canaanitish reverence for : places, which through the whole history of ee E a It may be worth while to indicate the extent of this connection. As prophets, who are also priests, we have Jeremiah (Jer. i. 1), Ezekiel (Ez. i. 3), Azariah the son of Oded (2 Chr. xy. 1), Zechariah (2 Chr. xxiv. 20). Internal evidence tends to the same conclusion as to Joel, Micah, Habakkuk, Haggai, 2 ariah, and even Isaiah himself. Jahaziel (2 Chr 14) appears as at once a prophet and a Levite. 1 is a balance of probability on the same side as to J Hanani, the second Oded, and Ahijah of Shiloh. i LEVITES elites, continued to have such strong attractions them. ‘These may have seemed to the panic- sken inhabitants of that district, mingling old ws and new, the worship of Jehovah with the ering superstitions of the conquered people, cient grounds to determine their choice of a lity. ‘Ihe consecration (the word used is the ial sacerdotal term) of Eleazar as the guardian he ark is, on this hypothesis, analogous in its to the other irregular assumptions which char- rize this period, though here the offense was flagrant, and did not involve apparently the ormance of any sacrificial acts. While, however, aspect of the religious condition of the people gs the Levitical and priestly orders before us aving lost the position they had previously oc- ed, there were other influences at work tending ainstate them. , he rule of Samuel and his sons, and the pro- ical character now connected with the tribe, led to give them the position of a ruling caste. he strong desire of the people for a king, we may aps trace a protest against the assumption by Levites of a higher position than that originally med. ‘The reign of Saul, in its later period, at any rate the assertion of a self-willed power nst the priestly order. The assumption of the ificial office, the massacre of the priests at Nob, slaughter of the Gibeonites who were attached leir service, were parts of the same policy, and narrative of the condemnation of Saul for the former sins, no less than of the expiation re- ed for the latter (2 Sam. xxi.), shows by what ig measures the truth, of which that policy was bversion, had to be impressed on the minds of sraelites. The reign of David, however, brought shange from persecution to honor. The Levites ‘ready to welcome a king who, though not of ‘tribe, had been brought up under their train- was skilled in their arts, prepared to share even mie of their ministrations, and to array him- in their apparel (2 Sam. vi. 14), and 4,600 of ‘number with 3,700 priests waited upon David ebron — itself, it should be remembered, one of riestly cities — to tender their allegiance (1 Chr. 26). When his kingdom was established, there 2a fuller organization of the whole tribe. Its ion in relation to the priesthood was once again uitely recognized. When the ark was carried up $ new resting-place in Jerusalem, their claim >the bearers of it was publicly acknowledged ‘hr. xv. 2). When the sin of Uzzah stopped the ession, it was placed for a time under the care bed-Edom of Gath — probably Gath-rimmon 3 one of the chiefs of the Kohathites (1 Chr. ‘18; Josh. xxi. 24; 1 Chr. xv. 18). 1 the procession which attended the ultimate eyauce of the ark to its new resting-place, the tes were conspicuous, wearing their linen eph- and appearing in their new character as min- ‘There are 24 courses of the priests, 24,000 Levites \¢ general business of the Temple (1 Chr. xxiii. 4). ‘Dumber of singers is 288 =12 x 24 (1 Chr. xxv. There is, however, a curious Jewish tradition that schoolmasters of Israel were of the tribe of Sim- Solom. Jarchi on Gen. xlix. 7, in Godwyn’s Moses Aaron). In1 Chr. ij. 6 the four names of 1 K. iv. $1 ap- 48 belonging to the tribe of Judah, and in the | generation after Jacob. On the other hand, the LEVITES 164% strels (1 Chr. xv. 27, 28).’ In the worship of the Tabernacle under David, as afterwards in that of the Temple, we may trace a development of the simpler arrangements of the wilderness and of Shi- loh. The Levites were the gatekeepers, vergers, sac- ristans, choristers of the central sanctuary of the nation. They were, in the language of 1 Chr. xxiii. 24-32, to which we may refer as almost the locus classicus on this subject, ‘to wait on the sens of Aaron for the service of the house of Jehovah, in the courts, and the chambers, and the purifying of all holy things.” This included the duty of pro- viding “ for the shew-bread, and the fine flour for meat-offering, and for the unleavened bread.”” They were, besides this, “ to stand every morning to thank and praise Jehovah, and likewise at even.” They were lastly “ to offer’? — 7. e. to assist the priests in offering — “ all burnt-sacrifices to Jehovah in the sabbaths and on the set feasts.’’ They lived for the greater part of the year in their own cities, and came up at fixed periods to take their turn of work (1 Chr. xxv., xxvi.). How long it lasted we have no sufficient data for determining. The predominance of the number twelve as the basis of classification 4 might seem to indicate monthly periods, and the festivals of the new moon would naturally suggest such an arrangement. The analogous order in the civil and military administration (1 Chr. xxvii. 1) would tend to the same conclusion. It appears, in- deed, that there was a change of some kind every week (1 Chr. ix. 25; 2 Chr. xxiii. 4, 8); but this is of course compatible with a system of rotation, which would give to each a longer period of resi- dence, or with the permanent residence of the leader of each division within the precincts of the sanctu- ary. Whatever may have been the system, we must bear in mind that the duties now imposed upon the Levites were such as to require almost continuous practice. ‘They would need, when their turn came, to be able to bear their parts in the great choral hymns of the Temple, and to take each his ap- pointed share in the complex structure of a sacri- ficial liturgy, and for this a special study would be required. ‘he education which the Levites received for their peculiar duties, no less than their connec- tion, more or less intimate, with the schools of the prophets (see above), would tend to make them, so far as there was any education at all, the teachers of others, the transcribers and interpreters of the Law, the chroniclers of the times in which they lived. We have some striking instances of their appearance in this new character. One of them, Ethan the Ezrahite,¢ takes his place among the old Hebrew sages who were worthy to be ecmpared with Solomon, and (Ps. Ixxxix. title) his name appears as the writer of the 89th Psalm (1 K. iv. 31; 1 Chr. xv. 17). One of the first to bear the title of ‘‘ Seribe ” is a Levite (1 Chr. xxiv. 6), and this is mentioned as one of their special offices under Jo- siah (2 Chr. xxxiv. 13). They are described as names of Heman and Ethan are prominent among the Levites under Solomon (infra); and two psalms, one of which belongs manifestly to a later date, are as- cribed to them, with this title of Ezrahite attached (Ps. Ixxxviii. and lxxxix). The difficulty arises prob- ably out of some confusion of the later and the earlier names. Ewald’s conjecture, that conspicuous minstrels of other tribes were received into the choir of the Temple, and then reckoned as Levites, would give a new aspect to the influence of the tribe. (Comp Poet. Biich. i. 2138; De Wette, Psalmen, Einleit. § iti. 1644 LEVITES officers and judges ’’ under David (1 Chr. xxvi. 29), and as such are employed ‘in all the business of Jehovah, and in the service of the king.” They are the ageuts of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah in their work of reformation, and are sent forth to proclaim and enforce the law (2 Chr. xvii. 8, xxx. 22). Un- der Josiah the function has passed into a title, and they are “the Levites that taught all Israel” (2 Chr. xxxy. 3). The two books of Chronicles bear unmistakable marks of having been written by men whose interests were all gathered round the services of the Temple, and who were familiar with its rec- ords. The materials from which they compiled their narratives, and to which they refer as the works of seers and prophets, were written by men who were probably Levites themselves, or, if not, were associated with them. The former subdivisions of the tribe were recog- nized in the assignment of the new duties, and the Kohathites retained their old preéminence. They have four “ princes ’’ (1 Chr. xv. 5-10), while Me- rari and Gershon have but one each. They sup- plied, from the families of the Izharites and He- bronites, the “ officers and judges” of 1 Chr. xxvi. 30. To them belonged the sons of Korah, with Heman at their head (1 Chr. ix. 19), playing upon psalteries and harps. ‘They were *“ over the work of the service, keepers of the gates of the taber- nacle’’ (/. c.). It was their work to prepare the shew-bread every Sabbath (1 Chr. ix. 32), The Gershonites were represented in like manner in the Temple-choir by the sons of Asaph (1 Chr. vi. 39, xv. 17); Merari by the sons of Ethan or Jeduthun (1 Chr. vi. 44, xvi. 42, xxv. 1-7). Now that the heavier work of conveying the tabernacle and its equipments from place to place was no longer re- quired of them, and that psalmody had become the most prominent of their duties, they were to enter on their work at the earlier age of twenty (1 Chr. xxiii. 24-27). As in the old days of the Exodus, so in the organization under David, the Levites were not in- cluded in the general census of the people (1 Chr. xxi. 6), and formed accordingly no portion of its military strength. A separate census, made appar- ently before the change of age just mentioned (1 Chr. xxiii. 3), gives — 24,000 over the work of the Temple. 6,000 officers and judges. 4,000 porters, 2. e. gate-keepers,° and, as such, bearing arms (1 Chr. ix. 19; 2 Chr. XXx1.'9). 4,000 praising Jehovah with instruments. The latter number, however, must have included the full choruses of the Temple. The more skilled musicians among the sons of Heman, Asaph, and Jeduthun are numbered at 288, in 24 sections of 12 each. Here again the Kohathites are promi- nent, having 14 out of the 24 sections; while Ger- shon has 4 and Merari 8 (1 Chr. xxv. 2-4). To these 288 were assigned apparently a more perma- nent residence in the Temple (1 Chr. ix. 33), and in the villages of the Netophathites near Bethle- hem (1 Chr. ix. 16), mentioned long afterwards as inhabited by the “ sons of the singers’’ (Neh. xii. 28). The revolt of the ten tribes, and the policy pur- a The change is indicated in what are described as the “ last words of David.” ‘The king feels, in his old age, that a time of rest has come for himself and for the people, and that the Levites have a right to share LEVITES sued by Jeroboam, led to a great change in position of the Levites. They were the witn of an appointed order and of a central wor; He wished to make the priests the creatures instruments of the king, and to establish a pre cial and divided worship. The natural result that they left the cities assigned to them in territory of Israel, and gathered round the met olis of Judah (2 Chr. xi. 13, 14). Their influ over the people at large was thus diminished, the design of the Mosaic polity so far frustra but their power as a religious order was prob; increased by this concentration within narrc limits. In the kingdom of Judah they were, f this time forward, a powerful body, political well as ecclesiastically. They brought with t! the prophetic element of influence, in the wide well as in the higher meaning of the word. We cordingly find them prominent in the war of Ab against Jeroboam (2 Chr. xiii. 10-12). They as before noticed, sent out by Jehoshaphat to struct and judge the people (2 Chr. xix. 8- Prophets of their order encourage the king in war against Moab and Ammon, and go before army with their loud Hallelujahs (2 Chr. xx. and join afterwards in the triumph of his reti The apostasy that followed on the marriage of Ji ram and Athaliah exposed them for a time to dominance of a hostile system; but the service the ‘Temple appear to have gone on, and the Ley were again conspicuous in the counter-reyolu effected by Jehoiada (2 Chr. xxiii.), and in restoi the Temple to its former stateliness under Joas| Chr. xxiv. 5). They shared in the disasters of reign of Amaziah (2 Chr. xxv. 24), and in the p perity of Uzziah, and were ready, we may beli to support the priests, who, as representing t order, opposed the sacrilegious usurpation of latter king (2 Chr. xxvi. 17). The closing of Temple under Ahaz involved the cessation at of their work and of their privileges (2 Chr. xx 24). Under Hezekiah they again became pro nent, as consecrating themselves to the special ¥ of cleansing and repairing the Temple (2 Chr. x 12-15); and the hymns of David and of Asaph v again renewed. In this instance it was thou worthy of special record that those who were sit Levites were more “ upright in heart” and zea than the priests themselves (2 Chr. xxix. 34); thus, in that great Passover, they took the plac the unwilling or unprepared members of the pri hood. ‘Their old privileges were restored, they ' put forward as teachers (2 Chr. xxx. 22), and payment of tithes, which had probably veal dis tinued under Ahaz, was renewed (2 Chr. xxxl. : The genealogies of the tribe were revised (ver. and the old classification kept its ground. reign of Manasseh was for them, during the gre part of it, a period of depression. That of Jo witnessed a fresh revival and reorganization (2 ( xxxiv. 8-13). In the great passover of his eight year they took their place as teachers of the pec as well as leaders of their worship (2 Chr. xxxv. 3, | Then came the Egyptian and Chaldean invas! and the rule of cowardly and apostate kings. sacred tribe itself showed itself unfaithful. oe in it. They are now the ministers -~—not, as be the warrior-host — of the Unseen King. b Ps. exxxiv. acquires a fresh interest wher think of it as the song of the night-sentries of) Temple. ; LEVITES ted protests of the priest Ezekiel indicate that had shared in the idolatry of the people. The inence into which they had been brought in signs of the two reforming kings had appar- tempted them to think that they might en- h permanently on the special functions of the thood, and the sin of Korah was renewed (Ez. 10-14, xlviii. 11). They had, as the penalty cir sin, to witness the destruction of the ‘Tem- ind to taste the bitterness of exile. After the Captivity. The position taken e Levites in the first movements of the return Babylon indicates that they had cherished the tions and maintained the practices of their _ They, we may believe, were those who were ally called on to sing to their conquerors one e songs of Zion (De Wette, on Ps. cxxxvii.). noticeable, however, that in the first body of ning exiles they are present in a dispropor- tely small number (Hzr. ii. 36-42). Those do come take their old parts at the foundation dedication of the second Temple (Kzr. iii. 10, 3). In the next movement under Ezra their tance (whatever may have been its origin“) even more strongly marked. None of them nted themselves at the first great gathering viii. 15). ‘The special efforts of Ezra did not ed in bringing together more than 38, and place had to be filled by 220 of the Nethinim 10).6 Those who returned with him resumed functions at the Feast of Tabernacles as ers and interpreters (Neh. viii. 7), and those were most active in that work were foremost nm chanting the hymn-like prayer which appears eh. ix. as the last great effort of Jewish psalm- They are recognized in the great national cove- and the offerings and tithes which were their we once more solemnly secured to them (Neh. -39). ‘They take their old places in the Tem- ind in the villages near Jerusalem (Neh. xii. and are present in full array at the great feast i¢ Dedication of the Wall. The two prophets were active at the time of the Return, Haggai Zechariah, if they did not belong to the tribe, d it forward in the work of restoration. The gest measures are adopted by Nehemiah, as e by Ezra, to guard the purity of their blood the contamination of mixed marriages (zr. x. and they are made the special guardians of holiness of the Sabbath (Neh. xiii. 22). The prophet of the O. T. sees, as part of his vision 1e latter days, the time when the Lord “shall y the sons of Levi’’ (Mal. iii. 3). he guidance of the O. T. fails us at this point, the history of the Levites in relation to the mal life becomes consequently a matter of in- ce and conjecture. ‘The synagogue worship, Originated, or receiving a new development, organized irrespectively of them [SYNAGOGUE], thus throughout the whole of Palestine there _means of instruction in the Law with which 'Were not connected. This would tend nat- y to diminish their peculiar claim on the rence of the people; but where a priest or te Was present in the synagogue they were still 7 May we conjecture that the language of Ezekiel ed to some jealousy between the two orders ? There is a Jewish tradition (Surenhusius, Mishna, , ix. 10) to the effect that, as a punishment for oackwardness, Ezra deprived them of their tithes, ‘ransferred the right to the priests. - LEVITES 1645 entitled to some kind of precedence, and special sections in the lessons for the day were assigned te them (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Matt. iv. 23). During the period that followed the Captivity they contributed to the formation of the so-called Great Synagogue. They, with the priests, theoretically constituted and practically formed the majority of the permanent Sanhedrim (Maimonides in Light- foot, Hor. Heb. on Matt. xxvi. 3), and as such had a large share in the administration of justice even in capital cases. In the characteristic feature of this period, as an age of scribes succeeding to an age of prophets, they too were likely to be sharers. The training and previous history of the tribe would predispose them to attach themselves to the new system as they had done to the old. They accord- ingly may have been among the scribes and elders, who accumulated traditions. They may have at- tached themselves to the sects of Pharisees and Sadducees.¢ But in proportion as they thus ac- quired fame and reputation individually, their func- tions as Levites became subordinate, and they were known simply as the infericr ministers of the Temple. They take no prominent part in the Maccabeean struggles, though they must have been present at the great purification of the Temple. They appear but seldom in the history of the N. T. Where we meet with their names it is as the type of a formal heartless worship, without sympathy and without love (Luke x. 32). The same parable indicates Jericho as having become — what it had not been originally (see Josh. xxi., 1 Chr. vi.) — one of the great stations at which they and the priests resided (Lightfoot, Cent. Choro- graph. c. 47). In John i. 19 they appear as dele- gates of the Jews, that is of the Sanhedrim, coming to inquire into the credentials of the Baptist, and giving utterance to their own Messianic expecta- tions. The mention of a Levite of Cyprus in Acts iv. 36 shows that the changes of the previous century had carried that tribe also into “ the dis- persed among the Gentiles.” The conversion of Barnabas and Mark was probably no solitary in- stance of the reception by them of the new faith, which was the fulfillment of the old.. If ‘+a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith ”’ (Acts vi. 7), it is not too bold to believe that their influence may have led Levites to follow their exam- ple; and thus the old psalins, and possibly also the old chants of the Temple-service, might be trans- mitted through the agency of those who had been specially trained in them, to be the inheritance of the Christian Church. Later on in the history of the first century, when the Temple had received its final completion under the younger Agrippa, we find one section of the tribe engaged in a new movement. With that strange unconsciousness of a coming doom which so often marks the last stage of a decaying system, the singers of the Temple thought it a fitting time to apply for the right of wearing the same linen garment as the priests, and persuaded the king that the concession of this privilege would be the glory of his reign (Joseph. Ant. xx. 8, § 6). The other Levites at the same time asked for and obtained the privilege of joining ¢ The life of Josephus may be taken as an example of the education of the higher members of the order (Jos. Vita, c. i.) d * Levites, though not named, are referred *o as a Temple-police in Luke xxii. 52, Acts iv. 1, and v. 26 [CapTaln.] H. 1646 LEVITES in the Temple choruses, from which hitherto they had been excluded.¢ The destruction of the Tem- ple so soon after they had attained the object of their desires came as with a grim irony to sweep away their occupation, and so to deprive them of every vestige of that which had distinguished them from other Israelites. They were merged in the crowd of captives that were scattered over the Roman world, and disappear from the stage of history. The Rabbinic schools, that rose out of the ruins of the Jewish polity, fostered a studied and habitual depreciation of the Levite order as compared with their own teachers (M’Caul, Old Paths, p. 435). Individual families, it may be, cherished the tradition that their fathers, as priests or Levites, had taken part in the services of the Temple.? If their claims were recognized, they received the old marks of reverence in the worship of the synagogue (comp. the Regulations of the Great Synagogue of London, in Margoliouth’s History of Jews in Great Britain, iii. 270), took precedence in reading the lessons of the day (Light- foot, Hor. Heb. on Matt. iv. 23), and pronounced the blessing at the close (Basnage, Hist. des Juifs, vi. 790). Their existence was acknowledged in some of the laws of the Christian emperors (Basnage, i. c.). The tenacity with which the exiled race clung to these recollections is shown in the prey- alence of the names (Cohen, and Levita or Levy) which imply that those who bear them are of the sons of Aaron or the tribe of Levi; and in the custom which exempts the first-born of priestly or Levite families from the payments which are still offered, in the case of others, as the redemption of the first-born (Leo of Modena, in Picart’s Céré- monies Religieuses, i. 26; Allen’s Modern Judaism, p- 297). In the mean time the old name had ac- quired a new signification. The early writers of the Christian Church applied to the later hierarchy the language of the earlier, and gave to the bishops and presbyters the title (fepets) that had belonged to the sons of Aaron; while the deacons were habitually spoken of as Levites (Suicer, Thes. s. v. Aevirns).© The extinction or absorption of a tribe which had borne so prominent a part in the history of Israel, was, like other such changes, an instance of the order in which the shadow is succeeded by the substance — that which is decayed, is waxing old, and ready to vanish away. by a new and more living organization. It had done its work, and it had lost its life. It was bound up with a localized and exclusive worship, and had no place to occupy in that which was universal. In the Christian Church — supposing, by any effort of imagination, that it had had a recognized existence in it — it would have been simply an impediment. Looking at the long history of which the outline has been here traced, we find in it the light and darkness, the good and evil, which mingle in the character of most corporate or caste societies. On the one hand, the Levites, as a tribe, tended to fall into a formal worship, a narrow and exclusive exaltation @ The tone of Josephus is noticeable as being that of a man who looked on the change as a dangerous innovation. Asa priest, he saw in this movement of the Levites an intrusion on the privileges of his order ; and this was, in his judgment, one of the sins which brought on the destruction of the city and the Temple. LEVITICUS of themselves and of their country. On the hand, we must not forget that they were el together with the priesthood, to bear witne great truths which might otherwise have per from remembrance, and that they bore it through a long succession of centuries. To bers of this tribe we owe many separate boo the O. T., and probably also in great measu preservation of the whole. The hymns which sung, in part probably the music of which were the originators, have been perpetuated i worship of the Christian Church. In the con of prophets who have left behind them no yw records they appear conspicuous, united by con work and common interests with the prop order. ‘They did their work as a national el instruments in raising the people to a highe educating them in the knowledge on whie order and civilization rest. It is not often, ii history of the world, that a religious cast order has passed away with more claims tc respect and gratitude of mankind than the tril Levi. (On the subject generally may be consulte addition to the authorities already quoted, Car Appar. Crit. b. i. c. 5, and Annotat.; Saalse Archdol. der Hebr. e. 78; Michaelis, Comm Laws of Moses, i. art. 52.) E. ig LEVITICUS (S729), the first word i book; giving it its name: Aevirindy: Levit called also by the later Jews DYITD F° “‘ Law of the priests;’’ and Many ia “ Law of offerings.” Conrents. — The book consists of the fo ing principal sections: I. The laws touching sacrifices (cc. i.—vii.). If. An historical section containing, first, consecration of Aaron and his sons (eh. y next, his first offering for himself and the p (ch. ix.); and lastly, the destruction of N: and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, for their pres tuous offense (ch. x.). iy III. The laws concerning purity and impu and the appropriate sacrifices and ordinances putting away impurity (cc. xi—xvi.). IV. Laws chiefly intended to mark the sep tion between Israel and the heathen nations XVii.-xx. ) V. Laws concerning the priests (xxi., xxii.); certain holy days and festivals (xxiii., xxv.), gether with an episode (xxiy.). The section ext from ch. xxi. 1 to xxvi. 2. VI. Promises and threats (xxvi. 2-46). VII. An appendix containing the laws cone ing vows (xxvii.) I. The book of Exodus concludes with the count of the completion of the tabernacle. ‘ Moses finished the work,” we read (xl. 83) immediately there rests upon it a cloud, and 1 b Dr. Joseph Wolff, in his recent Travels and Ad tures (p. 2), claims his descent from this tribe. ¢ In the literature of a later period the same 2 meets us applied to the same or nearly the same 0 no longer, however, as the language of reverence, as that of a cynical contempt for the less worthy tion of the clergy of the English Church (Macau Hist. of England, iii. 827). LEVITICUS LEVITICUS 1647 with the glory of Jehovah. From the taber- |seems on the whole to be the best arrangement of thus rendered glorious by the Divine Pres-|the group, though we offer it with some hesita- issues the legislation contained in the book of | tion. cus. At first God spake to the people out of | (a.) Bertheau’s arrangement is different. He yunder and lightning of Sinai, and gave them | divides (1) vv. 1-4, thus including the meat-offer- ly commandments by the hand of a mediator. | ing baked in the oven with the uncooked offering ; enceforth his Presence is to dwell not on the | (2) vv. 5 and 6, the meat-offering when fried in the top of Sinai, but in the midst of his people, |pan; (3) vv. 7-18, the meat-offering when boiled ; in their wanderings through the wilderness, and | (4) vv. 14-16, the offering of the first-fruits. But yards in the Land of Promise. Hence the first | this is obviously open to many objections. For, first, ions which Moses receives after the work is |it is exceedingly arbitrary to connect v. 4 with vv. ed have reference to the offerings which were | 1-3, rather than with the verses which follow. Why brought to the door of the Tabernacle. As | should the meat-offering baked in the oven be classed ah draws near to the people in the Tabernacle, | with the uncooked meat-offering rather than with e people draw near to Jehovah in the offering. |the other two which were in different ways sup- out offerings none may approach Him. The posed to be dressed with fire? Next, two of the ations respecting the sacrifices fall into three | divisions of the chapter are clearly marked by the ys, and each of these groups again consists of | recurrence of the formula, ‘It is a thing most holy alogue of instructions. Bertheau has observed | of the offerings of Jehovah made by fire,’ vy. 3 and this principle runs through all the laws of |10. Lastly, the directions in vv. 11-13 apply to gs. They are all modeled after the pattern of | every form of meat-offering, not only to that im- en commandments, so that each distinct subject | mediately preceding. The Masoretic arrangement fislation is always treated of under ten several |is in five sections: vv. 1-3; 4; 5,6; 7-13; 14-16. tments or provisions. iii. The shelamim — “ peace-offering ”’ (A. V.), yumgarten in his Commentary on the Penta- |°° thank-offering”” (Ewald), (ch. iii.) in three }, has adopted the arrangement of Bertheau, as | Sections. Strictly speaking this falls under two rth in his Sieben Gruppen des Mos. Rechts. On heads: first, when it is of the herd ; and secondly, hole, his principle seems sound. We find Bun- when it is of the flock. But this last has again its cknowledging it in part, in his division of the subdivision ; for the offering when of the flock may ‘chapter (see below). And though we cannot be either a lanib or a goat. Accordingly the three ys agree with Bertheau, we have thought it sections are, vv. 1-5; 7-11; 12-16. Ver. 6 is merely : Gashi ‘vo | introducto nd class of sacrifices h while to give his arrangement as suggestive oductory to the second class of sacr fices, and ast of the main structure of the book. ver. 17 a general conclusion, as in the case of other “The first group of regulations (ce. i.~ iii.) laws. This concludes the first decalogue of the ; . aah e book. s with three kinds of offerings: the burnt-offer- | 9 qp, iv., v. The laws concerning the sin- (DY), the meat-offering “ (7107379), and offering and the trespass- (or guilt-) offering. thank-offering (oot T723). The sin-offering (chap. iv.) is treated of under The burnt-offering (ch. i.) in three sections. four specified cases, after a short introduction to the \ight be either (1) a male without blemish from whole in vv. 1,2: (1) the sin-offering for the priest, 3-12; (2) for the whole congregation, 13-21; (3) herds (227 173), vv. 3-9; or (2) a male out blemish from the flocks, or lesser cattle for a ruler, 22-26; (4) for one of the common peo- 377), vv. 10-13; or (3) it might be fowls, an ple, 27-35. After these four cases in which the offering is to ring of turtle-doves or young pigeons, vv. 14- The subdivisions are here marked clearly be made for four different classes, there follow pro- igh, not only by the three kinds of sacrifice, visions respecting three several kinds of transgres- also by the form in which the enactment is sion for which atonement must be made. It is not quite clear whether these should be ranked under _ Each begins with 1J27)*"** OS, «If his ing,’ etc., and each ends with my the head of the sin-offering or of the trespass-offer- ing (see Winer, Rwb.). We may, however, follow 9 TTD TT TDS «an offering made ire, of a sweet savor unto Jehovah.” Bertheau, Baumgarten, and Knobel, in regarding them as special instances in which a sin-offering The next group (ch. ii.) presents many more culties. Its parts are not so clearly marked was to be brought. The three cases are: first, when any one hears a curse and conceals what he hears (v. 1); secondly, when any one touches with- er by prominent features in the subject-matter, yy the more technical boundaries of certain ini- and final phrases. We have here — out knowing or intending it, any unclean thing . The meat-offering, or bloodless offering in four (vv. 2, 3); lastly, when any one takes an oath in- considerately (ver. 4). For each of these cases the ions: (1) in its uncooked form, consisting of flour with oil and frankincense, vv. 1-3; (2) same trespass-offering, “a female from the flock, a lamb or kid of the goats,” is appointed; but with ts cooked form, of which three different kinds that mercifulness. which characterizes the Mosaic law, express provision is made for a less costly offer- peated — baked in the oven, fried, or boiled, 4-10; (3) the prohibition of leaven, and the ing where the offerer is poor. The decalogue is then completed by the three ‘ction to use salt in all the meat-offerings, 11-13; the oblation of first fruits, 14-16. This at least regulations respecting the guilt-offering (or tres- pass-offering): first, when any one sins ‘“ through ignorance in the holy things of J ehovah ” (vv. 14- 16); next, when a person without knowing it «commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of Jehovah ” (17-19); lastly, when a man lies and swears falsely concerning that which was intrusted to him, ete. /“ Meat” is used by our translators in the sense fuod of any kind, whether flesh or farinaceous. AT.) he 1648 LEVITICUS LEVITICUS (vv. 20-26).¢ This decalogue, like the preceding one, has its characteristic words and expressions. The prominent word which introduces so many of the enactments, is W3, “soul” (see iv. 2, 27, wy. 1, 2,4, 15, 17, vi. 2); and the phrase, “if a soul shall sin ”’ (iv. 2), is, with occasional variations having an equivalent meaning, the distinctive phrase of the section. As in the former decalogue, the nature of the offerings, so in this the person and the nature of the offense are the chief features in the several stat- utes. 3. Ch. vi., vii. Naturally upon the law of sac- rifices follows the law of the priests’ duties when they offer the sacrifices. Hence we find Moses di- rected to address himself immediately to Aaron and his sons (vi. 2, 18 = vi. 9, 25, A. V.). In this group the different kinds of offerings are named in nearly the same order as in the two pre- ceding decalogues, except that the offering at the consecration of a priest follows, instead of the thank- offering, immediately after the meat-offering, which it resembles; and the thank-offering now appears after the trespass-offering. There are therefore, in all, six kinds of offering; and in the case of each of these the priest has his distinct duties. Bertheau has very ingeniously so distributed the enactments in which these duties are prescribed as to arrange them all in five decalogues. We will briefly indi- cate his arrangement. 3. (a.) “This is the law of the burnt-offering ” (vi. 9; A. V.),in five enactments, each verse (vy. 9-13) containing a separate enactment. (b.) « And this is the law of the meat-offering ” (ver. 14), again in five enactments, each of which is, as before, contained in a single verse (vy. 4-18). 4. The next decalogue is contained in vy. 19-30. (a.) Verse 19 is merely introductory; then fol- low, in five verses, five distinct directions with re- gard to the offering at the time of the consecration of the priests, the first in ver. 20, the next two in ver. 21, the fourth in the former part of ver. 22, and the last in the latter part of ver. 22 and ver. 23. (6.) “This is the law of the sin-offering ”’ (ver. 25). Then the five enactments, each in one verse, except that two verses (27, 28) are given to the third. 5. The third decalogue is contained in ch. vii. 1-10, the laws of the trespass-offering. But it is impossible to avoid a misgiving as to the soundness of Bertheau’s system when we find him making the words “It is most holy,” in ver. 1, the first of the ten enactments. This he is obliged to do, as vv. 3 and 4 evidently form but one. 6. The fourth decalogue, after an introductory verse (ver. 11), is contained in ten verses (12-21). 7. The last decalogue consists of certain general laws about the fat, the blood, the wave-breast, etc., and is comprised again in tem verses (23-33), the verses as before marking the divisions. The chapter closes with a brief historical notice of the fact that these several commands were given to Moses on Mount Sinai (vv. 35-38). II. Ch. viii., ix., x. This section is entirely historical. In ch. viii. we have the account of the consecration of Aaron and his sons by Moses before the whole congregation. They are washed; he is arrayed in the priestly vestments and anointed with the holy oil; his sons also are arrayed in garments, and the various offerings appointe offered. In ch ix. Aaron offers, eight days afle consecration, his first offering for himself anc people: this comprises for himself a sin- and b offering (1-14), for the people a sin-offeriy burnt-offering and a peace- (or thank-) offering blesses the people, and fire comes down from he and consumes the burnt-offering. Ch. x. tells Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, eagt enjoy the privileges of their new office, and per too much elated by its dignity, forgot or deg) the restrictions by which it was fenced round xxx., 7, etc.), and daring to ‘offer strange fin fore Jehovah,”’ perished because of their prest tion. With the house of Aaron began this wicked in the sanctuary; with them therefore began the divine punishment. Very touching is the s which follows. Aaron, though forbidden to m¢ his loss (vy. 6, 7), will not eat the sin-offerin, the holy place; and when rebuked by Moses, pl in his defense, « Such things have befallen me; if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, should it] been accepted in the sight of Jehovah ?.” Moses, the lawgiver and the judge, admits the and honors the natural feeling of the father’s h even when it leads to a violation of the letter of divine commandment. Ill. Ce. xi.xvi. The first seven decalogues reference to the putting away of guilt. By the pointed sacrifices the separation between man God was healed. The next seven concern themse with the putting away of impurity. That a xv. hang together so as to form one series of | there can be no doubt. Besides that they t: of kindred subjects, they have their characteri words, Nl, TIN, “unclean,” “unek ness,” “VT, WT, “clean,” which occur in most every verse. The only question is about xvi., which by its opening is connected immediat with the occurrence related in ch. x. Historic: it would seem therefore that ch. xvi. ought to h followed ch. x. And as this order is neglect it would lead us to suspect that some ot. principle of arrangement than that of histor sequence has been adopted. This we find in’ solemn significance of the Great Day of Atoneme The high-priest on that day made atonement, “ cause of the wncleanness of the children of Isr: and because of their transgressions in all th sins’? (xvi. 16), and he “ reconciled the holy pl: and the tabernacle of the congregation, and 1 altar ’’ (ver. 20). Delivered from their guilt a cleansed from their pollutions, from that day f ward the children of Israel entered upon a newa holy life. This was typified both by the ordinar that the bullock and the goat for the sin-offeri were burnt without the camp (ver. 27), and also the sending away of the goat laden with the iniqt ties of the people into the wilderness. Hence ¢ xvi. seems to stand most fitly at the end of this ond group of seven decalogues. . It has reference, we believe, not only (as Be theau supposes) to the putting away, as by 0 solemn act, of all those uncleannesses mentioned cc, xi.-xy., and for which the various expiatio @ In the English Version this is ch. vi. 1-7. This marvels at the perversity displayed in the division is only one of those instances in which the reader chapters. a LEVITICUS cleansings there appointed were temporary and ficient; but also to the making atonement, in nse of hiding sin or putting away its guilt. not only do we find the idea of cleansing as defilement, but far more prominently the idea conciliation. The often repeated word “1D, cover, to atone,’ is the great word of the on. The first decalogue in this group refers to -and unclean flesh. Five classes of animals ronounced unclean. ‘The first four enactments re what animals may and may not be eaten, her (1) beasts of the earth (2-8), or (2) fishes 2), or (3) birds (13-20), or (4) creeping things wings. The next four are intended to guard st pollution by contact with the carcase of of these animals; (5) vv. 24-26; (6) vv. 27, (7) vv. 29-38; (8) vv. 39,40. The ninth and 1 specify the last class of animals which are an for food, (9) vv. 41, 42, and forbid any ‘kind of pollution by means of them, (10) vv. ). Vv. 46 and 47 are merely a concluding nary. Ch. xii. Women’s purification in childbed. whole of this chapter, according to Bertheau, itutes the first law of this decalogue. The ining nine.are to be found in the next chapter, h treats of the signs of leprosy in man and in ents. (2) vv. 1-8; (3) vv. 9-17; (4) vv. 18-23; v. 24-28; (6) vv. 29-37; (7) vv. 38, 39; vy. 40-41; (9) vv. 42-46; (10) wy. 47-59. arrangement of the several sections is not alto- © free from objection; but it is certainly orted by the characteristic mode in which each m opens. ‘Thus, for instance, ch. xii. 2 s with YY YD TTS ; ch. xiii. 2, with Az DIN, ver. 9, AN Be YI ¥d3, 30 on, the same order "being always observed, ubst. being placed first, then 9D, and then the except only in ver. 42, where the subst. is d after the verb. Ch. xiv. 1-32. “The law of the leper in day of his cleansing,” 7. e. the law which the t is to observe in “purifying the leper. The t is mentioned in ten verses, each of which 18 One of the ten sections of this law: vv. 3, Ty, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20. In each instance vord 7 is preceded by 7 consecut. with erfect. It is true that in ver. 3, and also in 14, the word WT occurs twice; but in both s there is MS. authority, as well as that of Tulg. and Arab. versions for the absence of the d. Verses 21-32 may be regarded as a sup- ental provision in cases where the leper is too to bring the required offering. ‘Ch. xiv. 33-57. The leprosy in a house. not so easy here to trace the arrangement no- ‘nso many other Jaws. There are no charac- ‘ic words or phrases to guide us. Bertheau’s ‘on is as follows: (1) vv. 34, 35; (2) vv. 36, hy ver. 38; (4) ver. 39; (B) ver. 40; (6) vv. 257) vv. 43-45. Then as usual follows a ; aummary which closes the statute concerning 3Y, vy. 54-57, Ch. xv. 1-15. 6. Ch. xv. 16-31. The law icleanness by issue, ete., in two decalogues. division is clearly marked, as Bertheau ob- 3, by the form of cleansing, which i is so exactly 104 | ile LEVITICUS 1649 similar in the two principal cases, and which closes each series, (1) vv. 13-15; (2) vv. 28-30. We again give his arrangement, though we do not profess to regard it as in all respects satisfactory. 6. (1) vv. 2, 3; (2) ver. 4; (8) ver. 5; (4) ver. 6; (5) ver. 7; (6) ver. 8; (7) ver. 9; (8) ver. 10; (9) vv. 11, 12;——these Bertheau considers as one enactment, because it is another way of saying that either the man or thing which the unclean person touches is unclean; but on the same principle vy. 4 and 5 might just as well form one enactment — (10) vv. ¥8-15. 7. (1) ver. 16; (2) ver. 17; (3) ver. 18; (4) ver. 19; (5) ver. 20; (6) ver. 21; (7) ver. 22; (8) ver. 23; (9) ver. 24; (10) vv. 28-30. In order to complete this arrangement, he considers verses 25-27 as a kind of supplementary enactment pro- vided for an irregular uncleanness, leaving it as quite uncertain however whether this was a later addition or not. Verses 32 and 33 form merely the same general conclusion which: we have had before in xiv. 54-57. The last decalogue of the second group of seven decalogues is to be found in ch. xvi., which treats of the great Day of Atonement. The Law itself is contained in vy. 1-28. ‘The remaining verses, 29-34, consist of an exhortation to its careful ob< servance. In the act of atonement three persons are concerned. The high-priest —in this instance Aaron; the man who leads away the goat for Azazel into the wilderness; and he who burns the skin, flesh, and dung of the bullock and goat of the sin-offering without the camp. ‘The two last have special purifications assigned them; the first be- cause he has touched the goat laden with the guilt of Israel; the last because he has come in contact with the sin-offering. The 9th and 10th enactments prescribe what these purifications are, each of them concluding with the same formula: mammarT SY ND. 7D DTN, and hence distinguished from each other. ‘The duties of Aaron consequently ought, if the division into decads is correct, to be comprised in eight enactments. Now the name of Aaron is repeated eight times, and in six of these it is preceded by the perfect with 7 consecut. as we observed was the case before when ‘‘the priest’? was the prominent figure. Accord- ing to ee then the decalogue will “stand thus: — (1) ver. 2, Aaron not to enter the Holy Place at all ieee (2) vy. 3-5, With what sacrifices and in what dress Aaron is a enter the Holy Place; (3) vy. 6, 7, Aaron to offer the bullock for himself, and to set the two goats before Jehovah; (4) [ver. 8,] Aaron to east lots on the two goats; (5) vy. 9, 10, Aaron to offer the goat on which the lot falls for Jehovah, and to send away the goat for Azazel into the wilderness; (6) vy. 11-19, Aaron to sprinkle the blood both of the bullock and of the goat to make atonement for himself, for his house, and for the whole congregation, as also to purify the altar of incense with the blood; (7) vv. 20-22, Aaron to lay his hands on the living goat, and confess over it all the sins of the children of Israel ; (8) vy. 23-25, Aaron after this to take off his linen gar- ments, bathe himself and put on his priestly gar- ments, and then offer his burnt-offering and that of the congregation; (9) ver. 26, The man by whom the goat is sent into the wilderness to purify himself; (10) vv. 27, 28, What is to be done by him who burns the sin-offering without the camp. 1650 LEVITICUS We have now reached the great central point of the book. All going before was but a preparation for this. Two great truths have been established: first, that God can only be approached by means of appointed sacrifices; next, that man in nature and life is full of pollution, which must be cleansed. And now a third is taught, namely, that not by several cleansings for several sins and pollutions can guilt be put away. The several acts of sin are but so many manifestations of the sinful nature. For this, therefore, also must atonement be made; one solemn act, which shall cover all transgressions, and turn away God’s righteous displeasure from Israel. IV. Ce. xvii—xx. And now Israel is reminded that it is the holy nation. The great atonement offered, it is to enter upon a new life. It is a separate nation, sanctified and set apart for the service of God. It may not therefore do after the abominations of the heathen by whom it is surrounded. Here consequently we find those laws and ordinances which especially distinguish the nation of Israel from all other nations of the earth. Here again we may trace, as before, a group of seven decalogues. But the several decalogues are not so clearly marked; nor are the characteristic phrases and the introductions and conclusions so common. In ch. xviii. there are twenty enact- ments, and in ch. xix. thirty. In ch. xvii., on the other hand, there are only six, and in ch. xx. there are fourteen. As it is quite manifest that the enactments in ch. xviii. are entirely separated by a fresh introduction from those in ch. xvii., Ber- theau, in order to preserve the usual arrangement of the laws in decalogues, would transpose this chapter, and place it after ch. xix. He ob- serves, that the laws in ch. xvii., and those in ch. xx. 1-9, are akin to one another, and may very well constitute a single decalogue; and, what is of more importance, that the words in xviii. 1-5 form the natural introduction to this whole group of laws: “‘ And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am Jehovah your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances,”’ etc. There is, however, a point of connection be- tween cc. xvii. and xviii. which must not be over- looked, and which seems to indicate that their posi- tion in our present text is the right one. All the six enactments in ch. xvii. (vv. 3-5, vv. 6, 7, vv. 8, 9, vv. 10-12, vv. 13, 14, ver. 15) bear upon the nature and meaning of the sacrifice to Jehovah as compared with the sacrifices offered to false gods. It would seem too that it was necessary to guard against any license to idolatrous practices, which @ The interpretation of ver. 18 has of late been the subject of so much discussion, that we may perhaps be permitted to say a word upon it, even in a work which excludes all dogmatic controversy. The ren- dering of the English Version is supported by a whole catena of authorities of the first rank, as may be seen by reference to Dr. M’Caul’s pamphlet, The An- cient Interpretation of Leviticus XVIII. 18, &e. We may further remark, that the whole controversy, so far as the Scriptural question is concerned, might have been avoided if the Church had but acted in the spirit of Luther’s golden words: “ Ad rem veniamus et dicamus Mosem esse mortuum, vixisse autem pop- } LEVITICUS might possibly be drawn from the sending of goat for Azazel into the wilderness [ATONEME: Day oF], especially perhaps against the Egypt custom of appeasing the Evil Spirit of the wild ness and averting his malice (Hengstenberg, M u. Algypten, p. 178; Movers, Phénizier, i. 86 To this there may be an allusion in ver. 7. P haps however it is better and more simple regard the enactments in these two chapters (w Bunsen, Bibelwerk, 2te Abth., 1te Th. p. 245) directed against two prevalent heathen practi the eating of blood and fornication. It is rema able, as showing how intimately moral and rit observances were blended together in the Jew mind, that abstinence “from blood and thi strangled, and fornication,” was laid down by: Apostles as the only condition of communion to required of Gentile converts to Christianity. Bef we quit this chapter one observation may be ma The rendering of the A. Y. in ver. 11, “for it the blood that maketh an atonement for the sou should be “for it is the blood that maketh an ato: ment by means of the life.” This is importa It is not blood merely as such, but blood as hayi in it the principle of life that God accepts in sac fice. For by thus giving vicariously the lite of 1 dumb animal, the sinner confesses that his own | is forfeit. my In ch. xviii., after the introduction to whi we have already alluded, vv. 1-5, — and in whi God claims obedience on the double ground tl He is Israel’s God, and that to keep his co mandments is life (ver. 5),— there follow tywer enactments concerning unlawful marriages and v natural lusts. The first ten are contained one each verse, vy. 6-15. The next ten range themsel in like manner with the verses, except that vv. and 23 contain each two.¢ Of the twenty the fi fourteen are alike in form, as weli as in the repeat man 8 my. Ch. xix. Three decalogues, introduced by t words, “ Ye shall be holy, for I Jehovah your G am holy,’ and ending with, “ Ye shall observe my statutes, and all my judgments, and do the I am Jehovah.’”’ The laws here are of a Ye mixed character, and many of them a repetiti merely of previous laws. Of the three decalogu the first is comprised in vv. 8~13, and may be th distributed: (1) ver. 38, to honor father and moth¢ (2) ver. 8, to keep the Sabbath; (3) ver. 4, not turn to idols; (4) ver. 4, not to make molten go (these two enactments being separated on the sat principle as the first and second commandments the Great Decalogue or Two Tables); (5) vv. 0 of thank-offerings; (6) vv. 9, 10, of gleaning; | ver. 11, not to steal or lie; (8) ver. 12, nof to swé falsely; (9) ver. 15, not to defraud one’ s neighb¢ (10) ver. 13, the wages of him that is hired, ete. ulo Judaico, nec obligari nos legibus illius. I¢ quidquid ex Mose ut legislatore nisi idem ex legit nostris, e. g. naturalibus et politicis probetur, non é mittamus, nec confundamus totius orbis politias.” Briefe, De Wette’s edit. iv. 805. Bi b It is not a little remarkable that six of th enactments should only be repetitions, for the a part in a shorter form, of commandments contait in the Two Tables. This can only be accounted : by remembering the great object of this section, W4! is to remind Israel that it is a separate nation, laws being expressly framed to be a fence and @ bh about it, keeping it from profane contact with | = LEVITICUS LEVITICUS 1651 » next decalogue, vy. 14-25, Bertheau ar- vals when priests and people were to be gathered j thus: ver. 14, ver. 15, ver. 15a, ver. 164, together before Jehovah in holy convocation. 7, ver. 18, ver. 19, ver. 19d, vv. 20-22. Up to this point we trace system and purpose in }-25. We object, however, to making the|the order of the legislation. Thus, for instance, in 19a, « Ye shall keep my statutes,” ace. xi.-xvi. treats of external purity; cc. xvii.-xx., te enactment. There is no reason for this. |of moral purity; cc. xxi—xxiii. of the holiness ch better plan would be to consider ver. 17 {of the priests, and their duties with regard to sisting of two enactments, which is manifestly |holy things; the whole concluding with provis- se. ions for the solemn feasts on which all Israel ap- third decalogue may be thus distributed: — | peared before Jehovah. We will again briefly in- ja, ver. 260, ver. 27, ver. 28, ver. 29, ver. 30, dicate Bertheau’s groups, and then append some , ver. 32, ver. 33, ver. 34, vv. 35, 36. general observations on the section. have thus found five decalogues in this} 1- Ch. xxi. Ten laws, as follows: (1) ver. Bertheau completes the number seven by | 1-3; (2) ver. 4; (3) wv. 5,6; (4) vv. 7,8; (5) ver. gsing, as we have seen, ch. xvii., and placing 9; (6) wv. 10, 11; (7) ver. 12; (8) wv. 13, 14; (9) aediately before ch. xx. He also transfers |VV- 17-21; (10) wv. 22, 23. The first five laws of ch. xx. to what he considers its proper | Concern: all the priests, the sixth to the eighth the namely, after ver. 6. It must be confessed high-priest ; the ninth and tenth the effects of bod- e enactment in ver. 27 stands very awkwardly ily blemish i particular cases. end of the chapter, completely isolated as| 2+ Ch. xxii. 1-16. (1) ver. 2; (2) ver. 3; (3) om all other enactments; for vv. 22-26 are | Ver 4; (4) w. 4-7; (5) wv. 8,9; (6) ver. 103 (7) tural conclusion to this whole section. But |Ver- 11; (8) vee. 1 2; (9) ver. 13; (10) wv. 14-16. ing this, another difficulty remains, that ac-| 3 Ch. xxl, 17-33. (1) eye 18-20; (2) ver. g to him the 7th decalogue begins at ver. 21; (3) ver. 22; (4) ver. 23; (5) ver. 24; (6) ver. i another transposition is necessary, so that 255 (7) ver. 27; (8) ver. 28; (9) ver. 29; (10) ver. 3, may stand after ver. 9, and so conclude | 30; and a general conclusion in vy. 31-33. ceding series of ten enactments. It is better | 4: Ch. xxiii. (1) ver. 3; (2) vv. 5-7; (3) ver. s to abandon the search for complete sym- | 8: (4) vv. 9-14; (5) wv. 15-21; (6) ver. 22; (7) vv. than to adopt a method so violent in order | 24, 255 (8) vv. 27-82; (9) wv. 34, 35; (10) ver. 36: init. - vv. 37, 38 contain the conclusion or general sum- ould be observed that ch. xviii. 6-23 and |™ing up of the decalogue. On the remainder of . 10-21 stand in this relation to one an- | the chapter, as well as ch. xxiv., see below. that the latter declares the penalties attached | __ > Ch. xxv. 1-22. (1) ver. 2; (2) wv. 3, 4; transgression of many of the commandments | (3) ver. 5; (4) ver. 6; (5) wv. 8-10; (6) wy. 11, nthe former. But though we may not be | 125 (7) ver. 13; (8) ver. 14; (9) ver. 15; (10) trace seven decalogues, in accordance with | Ver: 16: with a concluding formula in’ vv. 18-22. cory of which we have been speaking, in| 9: Ch. xxv. 23-38. (1) wv. 23, 24; (2) ver. i=xx. there can be no doubt that they |253 (3) vv. 26, 27; (4) ver. 28; (5) ver. 24; (6) distinct section of themselves, of which xx. | Ver: 303 (7) ver. 31; (8) vv. 82, 83; (9) ver. 34; (10) s the proper conclusion. : vv. 85-37: the conclusion to the whole in ver. 38. the other sections it has some characteristic | Ce. xxv. d9-xxvi. 2. (1) ver. 39; (2) wv. lons: (a.) “Ye shall keep my judgments me ver. 43; Le - 44, di oa ree ey y statutes” OWT, YODW ID), occurs (10) vor. be, Ca cade eee fe 9, 26, xix. 37, xx. 8, 22, but is not met] It will be observed that the above arrangement ther in the preceding or the following chap- |is only completed by omitting the latter part of (b.) The constantly recurring phrases, “I|ch. xxiii. and the whole of ch. xxiv. But it is ovah;”? “T am Jehovah your God;” “Be|clear that ch. xxiii. 39-44 is a later addition, 7 for I am holy;” “I am Jehovah which | containing further instructions respecting the Feast you.” In the earlier sections this phrase-|of Tabernacles. Ver. 39, as compared with ver. only found in Lev. xi. 44, 45, and Ex. 34, shows that the same feast is referred to; whilst In the section which follows (xxi—xxv.) | yy, 37, 38, are no less manifestly the original uch more common, this section being in a|conclusion of the laws respecting the feasts which leasure a continuation of the preceding. are enumerated in the previous part of the chapter. Ve come now to the last group of decalogues |Ch. xxiv., again, has a peculiar character of its contained in ce. xxi.-xxvi. 2. The sub- | own. First, we have a command concerning the oil nprised in these enactments are — First, the | to be used in the lamps belonging to the Taber- . purity of the priests. They may not de-|nacle, which is only a repetition of an enactment aselves for the dead ; their wives and daugh- already given in Ex. xxvii. 20, 21, which seems to ist be pure, and they themselves must be | be its natural place. Then follow directions about a all personal blemish (ch. xxi.). Next, | the shew-bread. These do not occur previously. 1g of the holy things is permitted only to|In Ex. the shew-bread is spoken of always as a vho are free from all uncleanness; they and | matter of course, concerning which no regulations yusehold only may eat them (xxii. 1-16). | are necessary (comp. Ex. xxv. 80, xxxv. 13, xxxix. the offerings of Israel are to be pure and |36). Lastly, come certain enactments arising out |blemish (xxii. 17-33). The fourth series | of an historical occurrence. The son of an Egyp- for the due celebration of the great festi- | tian father by an Israelitish woman blasphemes the name of Jehovah, and Moses is commanded to stone him in consequence: and this circumstance is the occasion of the following laws being given: (1.) That a blasphemer, whether Israelite or stranger, is to be stoned (comp. Ex. xxii. 28). (2.) That he . Bunsen divides chapter xix. into two tables — each, and one of five. (See his rr i an 1652 LEVITICUS LEVITICUS phemy, murder, etc. (xxiv. 10-23); the direc respecting the Sabbatical year (xxv. 18-22), an promises and warnings contained in ch. xxvi. With regard to the section ec. xvii.—x does not consider the whole of it to have been rowed from the same sources. Ch. xvii. h lieves was introduced here by the Jehovist some ancient document, whilst he admits neve less that it contains certain Elohistic forms ¢ pression, as a pink ‘all flesh,” ver. 14; ¢t “soul” (in the sense of “ person ’’), vv. 10-12 rTTT, “beast,’’ ver. 13; 12/2, “offering,” 4; FIV TIN), « a sweet savor,’’ ver. 6 statute for ever,’ and “ after your generations, 7. But it cannot be from the Elohist, he ar because (a) he would haye placed it after ch or at least after ch. xv.; (0) he would not repeated the prohibition of blood, ete., whie had already given; (c) he would have taken a favorable view of his nation than that impli ver. 7; and lastly (d) the phraseology has § thing of the coloring of cc. xviii—xx. and which are certainly not Elohistic. Such re are too transparently unsatisfactory to need st discussion. He observes further, that the ¢h is not altogether Mosaic. The first enactmen 1-7) does indeed apply only to Israelites, and good therefore for the time of Moses. But # maining three contemplate the case of stra living amongst the people, and have a referet all time. Ce. xviii.-xx., though it has a Jehovistie | ing, cannot have been originally from the Jeh The following peculiarities of language, whic worthy of notice, according to Knobel (£200 Leviticus erklirt, in Kurzg. exeg. Handb. forbid such a supposition, the more s0 as occur nowhere else in the O. T.: YQ), down to’’ and “ gender,” xviii. 23, xix. 19, x3 Man, ‘¢confusion,” xviii. 23, xx. 12; al « gather,” xix. 9, xxiii. 22; YDS, grape, 10; oN, ‘near kinswomen,” xvili SYTPA, “scourged,”” xix. 20; nye ibid. ; nanz YPVN, “print marks,” xi NPT, “vomit,” in the metaphorical sense, © es : * that kills any man shall surely be put to death (comp. Ex. xxi. 12-27). (3.) That he that kills a beast shall make it good (not found where we might have expected it, in the series of laws Ex. xxi. 28- xxii. 16). (4.) That if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor he shall be requited in like manner (comp. Ex. xxi. 22-25). (5.) We have then a repe- tition in an inverse order of vv. 17, 18; and (6.) the injunction that there shall be one law for the stranger and the Israelite. Finally, a brief notice of the infliction of the punishment in the case of the son of Shelomith, who blasphemed. Not an- other instance is to be found in the whole collection in which any historical circumstance is made the occasion of enacting a law. Then again the laws (2), (3), (4), (5), are mostly repetitions of existing laws, and seem here to have no connection with the event to which they are referred. Either therefore some other circumstances took place at the same time with which we are not acquainted, or these isolated laws, detached from their proper connection, were grouped together here, in obedience perhaps to some traditional association. VI. The seven decalogues are now fitly closed by words of promise and threat — promise of larg- est, richest blessing to those that hearken unto and do these commandments; threats of utter destruc- tion to those that break the covenant of their God. Thus the second great division of the Law closes like the first, except that the first part, or Book of the Covenant, ends (Ex. xxiii. 20-33) with promises of blessing only. There nothing is said of the judgments which are to follow trangression, because as yet the Covenant had not beenmade. But when once the nation had freely entered into that cove- nant, they bound themselves to accept its sanctions, its penalties, as well as its rewards. And we cannot wonder if in these sanctions the punishment of transgression holds a larger place than the rewards of obedience. For already was it but too plain that «Israel would not obey.’ From the first they were a stiffnecked and rebellious race, and from the first the doom of disobedience hung like some fiery sword above their heads. VII. The legislation is evidently completed in the last words of the preceding chapter, ‘“ These are the statutes and judgments and laws which Je- hovah made between Him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.” Ch. xxvii. is a later appendix, again however closed by a similar formula, which at least shows that the transcriber considered it to be an integral part of the original Mosaic legislation, though he might be ata loss to assign it its place. Bertheau classes it with the other less regularly grouped laws at the beginning of the book of Numbers. He treats the section Lev. xxvii—Num. x. 10 as a series of sup- plements to the Sinaitic legislation. ’ Integrity.— This is very generally admitted. Those critics even who are in favor of different doc- uments in the Pentateuch assign nearly the whole of this book to one writer, the Elohist, or author of the original document. According to Knobel the only portions which are not to be referred to the Elohist are — Moses’ rebuke of Aaron because the goat of the sin-offering had been burnt (x. 16-20); the group of laws in cc. xvii.—xx.; certain addi- tional enactments respecting the Sabbath and the Feasts of Weeks and of Tabernacles (xxiii., part of ver. 2, from mar STW, and ver. 3, vv. 18, 19, 22, 39-44); the punishments ordained for blas- 25, 28, xx. 225 Tony, «“ uncircumcised,” a plied to fruit-trees, xix. 23; and nq, et xviii. 9, 11, as well as the Egyptian word (for it probably is) TIOVY", « garment of divers s which, however, does occur once beside mm xxii. 11. i According to Bunsen, ch. xix. is @ ge part of the Mosaic legislation, given however original form not on Sinai, but on the east 8 the Jordan; whilst the general arrangement ( Mosaic laws may perhaps be as late as the th the judges. He regards it as a very ancient ment, based on the Two Tables, of which, @ pecially of the first, it is in fact an extensi0! consisting of two decalogues and one pentad 0 Certain expressions in it he considers impl) the people were already settled in the land | 10, 18, 15), while on the other hand ver. 2 poses a future occupation of the land. He N | PSE LEVITICUS udes that the revision of this document by the eribers was incomplete: whereas all the pas- may fairly be interpreted as looking forward future settlement in Canaan. The great sim- y and lofty moral character of this section com- s, says Bunsen, to refer it at least to the earlier of the judges, if not to that of Joshua himself. e must not quit this book without a word on may be called its spiritual meaning. That iborate a ritual looked beyond itself we cannot t. It was a prophecy of things to come; a yw whereof the substance was Christ and _ his lom. We may not always be able to say what xact relation is between the type and the anti- Of many things we may be sure that they ged only to the nation to whom they were , containing no prophetic significance, but ag as witnesses and signs to them of God's ant of grace. We may hesitate to pronounce Jerome that “ every sacrifice, nay almost every jle—the garments of Aaron and the whole ical system — breathe of heavenly mysteries.’’ @ ve cannot read the Epistle to the Hebrews and cknowledge that the Levitical priests “ served attern and type of heavenly things ’’ — that acrifices of the Law pointed to and found their pretation in the Lamb of God — that the or- ices of outward purification signified the true ‘cleansing of the heart and conscience from works to serve the living God. One idea over penetrates the whole of this vast and bur- yme ceremonial, and gives it a real glory even ; from any prophetic significance. Holiness is ud. Holiness is its character. The tabernacle ly —the vessels are holy — the offerings ® are holy unto Jehovah — the garments of the ts are holy.c All who approach Him whose » is “ Holy,” whether priests“ who minister Him, or people who worship Him, must them- s be holy.e It would seem as if, amid the camp Iwellings of Israel, was ever to be heard an echo iat solemn strain which fills the courts above, e the seraphim cry one unto another, Holy, » Holy. 7 ' ther questions connected with this book, such 3 authorship, its probable age in its present and the relation of the laws contained in it 10se, either supplementary or apparently con- story, found in other parts of the Pentateuch, yest be discussed in another article, where op- inity will be given for a comprehensive view of Tosaic legislation as a whole. [PENTATEUCH. | Jerduts. Pe Recent exegetical commentaries: Cahen, La , traduct. nowv., etc. (vols. i—iii., Gen., Ex., » 1831-32); Baumgarten -Crusius, Theol. zum Pent., 1843; Bonar, Com. on the Book év., 1851; Bush, Notes on Lev., New York, 5 Knobel, Hx. u. Lev. erkldrt, 1857 (Exeget. 1b. xii.) ; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, 1ter Theil, das "%, 1858; Keil, Lev., Num., u. Deut., 1862 uu. Delitzsch, Bibl. Com. 2ter Band) ; ue, Lévitique, 1864 (Le Pentateuque, tom. “In promptu est Leviticus liber in quo singula \cia, immo Singulz pene syllabze et vestes Aaron Us ordo Leviticus spirant czlestia sacramenta ” m. Ep. ad Paulin.). 1.8, 10; vi. 17, 25, 29; vii.1, 6; x.12,17; xiv. ‘wi. 4. : d xxi. 6-8, 15. LEWDNESS 1653 iii.); Chr. Wordsworth, Five Books of Moses, % ed. 1865 (Holy Bible with Notes, vol. i.). Special treatises on subjects of the book: Hot tinger, Juris Heb. leges, 1655; Spencer, De legibus Heb. rit., 1685; Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen Mos. Gesetze, 1840. On Sacrifice: Outram, De Sacrificiis, 1677; Saubert, De Sacrificiis Veterum, 1699; Sykes, Nature, Design, and Origin of Sac- rifices, 1748; Davison, Inquiry into the Origin of Sacrifice, 1825; Faber, Origin of Sacrifices, 1827; Bahr, Symb. des Mos. Cultus, 1837-39; Scholl, Op- Serideen der Alten, insbes. der Juden (in the Stud. der evang. Geistl. Wiirtemb. Ba. i., ii., iv., v.); Tho- luck, Opfer- u. Priesterbegriff im A. u. N. Test. (App. to Com. on Epist. to Heb.); Kurtz, Das Mos. Opfer, 1842; Thalhofer, Die unblut. Opfer des Mos. Cultus, 1848; Hengstenberg, Die Opfer der heiligen Schrift, 1852; Neumann, Sacra V. 7. salutarta, 1854; Ueber Siindopfern u. Schuldop- Jern, Riehm, Theol. Stud. u. Kvit. 1854, Rinck (tbid.), 1855; Oehler, Opfercultus des A. T. (Herz- og’s Leal-Encykl.); Hofmann, Das Opfer (Schrift- bewers, ii. 1, p. se Das gesetzliche Opfer (ibid., p- 270); Kurtz, Alttest. Opfercultus, 1862, Eng. trans., Sacrificial Worship of the Old Test., Edin. 1863; Oehler, Versdhnungstag (Herzog’s Real- Encykl. Suppl. Bd. iii). On ceremonial purity: Liseo, Das Ceremontalgesetz des A. T., 1842; Sommer, fein u. Unrein, 1846 (Bibl. Ab- hand. i.); Leyrer, arts. Reinigungen and Speise- gesetze (Herzog’s Real-Encykl.). On sacred sea- sons: Wolde, De anno Hebr. jubileo, 1837; Hup- field, De primit. et vera temp. fest. et feriat. apud Heb. ratione, 1852; De anno Sab. et Jobelet ra- tione, 1858; Bachmann, Die Festgesetze des Pent., 1858; Oehler, Sabbath u. Jobeljahr (Herzog’s Real- Encykl.). On the scape-goat: Hengstenberg, Die Biicher Moses u. Lgypten, 1841 (translated by Robbins); Vaihinger, Azaze] (Herzog’s Real-En- cykl.). On tithes: Selden, De Decimis (Works, 1726); Hottinger, De Decimis Judeorum, 1713; Leyrer, Zehnten bet den Hebi. (Herzog’s Real-En- cykl.). On the marriage relation: Selden, Uzor Hebr. 1646 (Works, 1726) ; Michaelis, Von den Khegesetzen Mosis, 1755; Dwight, The Hebrew Wife, Boston, 1836; Riietschi, Khe bei den Hebr. (Herzog’s Real-Encykl.). On slavery: Mielziner, Die Verhdiltnisse der Sklaven ber den alten Hebr. 1859; Oehler, Sklaverez bei den Hebr. (Herzog’s Real-Encykl.). 4 Soe Be AS * LEWD, as used in Acts xvii. 5, signifies ‘ wicked,’’ “ unprincipled ”’ (zoynpot). The word is of Anglo-Saxon origin (ledde, people), and was employed to denote the common people, the laity, in distinction from the clergy. Though meaning at first no more than “lay ’”’ or “unlearned ”? (comp. John vii. 49), it came at length to signify “ sin- ful,’ ““wicked.’? See Trench’s Glossary of *English Words, p. 110 f. (Amer. ed.). Its present restricted meaning is later than the date of the A. V. ‘“ Lewd- ness ’’ (see Acts xviii. 14) has passed in like man- ner from a wider to a narrower sense. H. * LEWDNESS. [Lewp.] e vi. 18,27; vii. 21; x. 8,10; xi. 43, 45; xv. 31 (xviii.) 21; xix. 2; xx. 7, 26. Jf In ce. xviii.-xxv. observe the phrase, “I am Jehovah,” **I am Jehovah your God.” Latter part of xxv. and xxvi. somewhat changed, but recurring in xxvi. The reason given for this holiness, “J am holy,” xi. 44, &c., xix. 2, xx. 7, 26 1654 LIBANUS LIB’ANUS (6 AiBavos), the Greek form of! Acts vi. 9). the name LEBANON (1 Esdr. iv. 48, v. 55; 2 Esdr. xv. 20; Jud. i. 7; Ecclus. xxiv. 13, 1. 12). ANTI- LIBANUS (’Ay7iAlBavos) occurs only in Jud. i. 7. LIBERTINES (AtBeprivou: Libertini). This word occurs once only in the N. T. In Acts vi. 9, we find the opponents of Stephen’s preaching described as tives Tov ek THs cuvaywyhs THs Aeyouerns AiBeprivwy, kat Kupnvaiwy ral ’AActavipéwy ad tev amd KiAikias kal Agias. The question is, who were these ‘‘ Libertines,’’ and in what relation did they stand to the others who are mentioned with them? ‘The structure of the passage leaves it doubtful how many synagogues are implied in it. Some (Calvin, Beza, Bengel) have taken it as if there were but one synagogue, including men from all the different cities that arenamed. Winer (J. T. Gramm. p.179), on grammatical grounds, takes the repetition of the article as indicating a fresh group, and finds accordingly two synagogues, one including Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians; the other those of Cilicia and Asia. Meyer (ad loc.) thinks it unlikely that out of the 480 synagogues at Jerusalem (the number given by rabbinic writ- ers, Megill. f. 73, 4; Ketub. f. 105, 1), there should have been one, or eyen two only, for natives of cities and districts in which the Jewish popula- tion was so numerous, @ and on that ground assigns a separate synagogue to each of the proper names. Of the name itself there have been several expla- nations.o (1.) The other name being local, this also has been referred to a town of Libertum in the pro- consular province of Africa. This, it is said, would explain the close juxtaposition with Cyrene. Suidas recognizes AiBeptivot aS dvoua €bvous, and in the Council of Carthage in 411 (Mansi, vol. iv. p. 265- 274, quoted in Wiltsch, Handbuch der kirchlich. Geogr. § 96), we find an Episcopus Libertinensis (Simon. Onomast. N. T. p. 99; and Gerdes. de Synag. Libert. Groning. 1736, in Winer, Reahvb.). Against this hypothesis it has been urged (1), that the existence of a town Libertum, in the first cen- tury, is not established; and (2) that if it existed, it can hardly have been important enough either to have a synagogue at Jerusalem for the Jews be- longing to it, or to take precedence of Cyrene and Alexandria in a synagogue common to the three.¢ (2.) Conjectural readings have been proposed. AiBoorivwy (Gecumen., Beza, Clericus, Valckenaer), AiBbwr tev Kat& Kuphyny (Schulthess, de Char. Sp. S. p. 162, in Meyer, ad loc.). The difficulty is thus removed; but every rule of textual criticism _ is against the reception of a reading unsupported by a single MS. or version. (3.) Taking the word in its received meaning as = freedmen, Lightfoot finds in it a description of natives of Palestine, who, having fallen into slavery, had been manumitted by Jewish masters (/ac. on @ In Cyrene one fourth, in Alexandria two fifths of the whole (Jos. Ant. xiv. 7, § 2, xiv. 10, § 1, xix. 5, § 2; B. J. ii. 18, § 75 ©. Ap. 2, § 4). b * Wieseler regards xai before Kupyvaiwy as expli- cative (‘ namely, to wit’), and hence makes all those enumerated Libertines (/ibertint) and members of one and the same synagogue. He thus finds evidence here that Paul was a libertinus, or the descendant of one, and acquired his Roman citizenship in that way. (See his Chronologie des Apost. Zeitalters, p. 63.) This construc- tion is forced and untenable. The distribution of the several nationalities (as suggested above) has its anal- as, LIBNAH In this case, however, it is hat likely that a body of men so circumstanced wi have received a Roman name. =] (4.) Grotius and Vitringa explain the word describing Italian freedmen who had become ¢ verts to Judaism. In this case, however, the y “ proselytes ”’ would most probably have been us and it is at least unlikely that a body of cony would have had a synagogue to themselves, or { proselytes from Italy would have been united 4 Jews from Cyrene and Alexandria. | f (5.) The earliest explanation of the word (Cl sost.) is also that which has been adopted by | most recent authorities (Winer, Realwd. gs. Meyer, Comm. ad loc.). The Libertini are J who, having been taken prisoners by Pompey ; other Roman generals in the Syrian wars, had b reduced to slavery, and had afterwards been em cipated, and returned, permanently or for a ti) to the country of their fathers. Of the existence a large body of Jews in this position at Rome have abundant evidence. Under Tiberius, the § atus- Consultum for the suppression of Egyptian « Jewish mysteries led to the banishment of 4, “ libertini generis ”’ to Sardinia, under the prete of military or police duty, but really in the hi that the malaria of the island might be fatal them. Others were to leave Italy unless they ab doned their religion (Tacit. Annal. ii. 853; cor Suet. Tiber. c. 36). Josephus (Ant. xviii. 3, § narrating the same fact, speaks of the 4,000 ¥ were sent to Sardinia as Jews, and thus identi) them with the “libertinum genus”? of Tacit Philo (Legat. ad Caium, p. 1014, C) in like man, says, that the greater part of the Jews of Ro were in the position of freedmen (dmeAcubepwO res), and had been allowed by Augustus to set in the Trans-Tiberine part of the city, and to! low their own religious customs unmolested (con Horace, Sat. i. 4, 143, i. 9, 70). The expuls from Rome took place A. D. 19; and it is an_ genious conjecture of Mr. Humphry’s (Comm. Acts, ad loc.) that those who were thus banisl from Italy may have found their way to Jerusale and that, as having suffered for the sake of th religion, they were likely to be foremost in the op) sition to a teacher like Stephen, whom they lool on as impugning the sacredness of all that tl most revered. , E. H. 1 LIB’/NAH™ (7327 [whiteness, splendo [Rom.] AeBvd, Aenvd, Aouvd, [AoByd, Aopn Vat. also] Anuva, Sevva; Alex. [also] AcBu [AaBuva,] AoBeva, AoBeva; [Sin. in Is. xxx 8,] Aouva : Libna, Labana, Lebna, Lobna), a ¢ which lay in the southwest part of the Holy Lat It was taken by Joshua immediately after the of Beth-horon. That eventful day was ended the capture and destruction of MAKKEDAH (Jo ee ne ogy in modern Jewish customs in the East. At Je salem, for example, the Jews, who are mostly of fore origin, are divided into communities more or less ¢ tinct according to the countries from which they co! and they assemble for worship in different congre tions or synagogues. At Safed also, in Galilee, wh the Jews are somewhat numerous, they approp! four of their synagogues to the Spanish and Ara | Jews, and four to the German and Polish Jews. id ¢ Wiltsch gives no information beyond the fact J mentioned. Pa «4 vi LIBNAH LIBYA 1655 48); and then the host — « Joshua, and all Is-| immediate S. and E. of Beit-Jibrin. — The name | with him’’ — moved on to Libnah, which was | is also found in SHIHOR-LIBNATH. G. » totally destroyed, its king and all its inhabi- ; ts isi. x. 99° 30, 32, 39, ail, 15). The next| LIB/NAH (722: Sam. “25: and s0 7@ taken was Lachish. the LXX. [Vat.] Acuwvas [Rom.] Alex. AcBwva: Abnah belonged to the district of the Shefelah, | Lebna), one of the stations at which the Israelites maritime lowland of Judah, among the cities | encamped, on their journey between the wilderness of Sinai and Kadesh. It was the fifth in the which district it is enumerated (Josh. xv. 42), in close connection with either Makkedah or | series, and lay between Rimmon-parez and Rissah hish, but in an independent group of nine| (Num. xxxiii. 20,21.) If el-Hudherah be Haze ns, among which are Keilah, Mareshah, and | roth, then Libnah would be situated somewhere on ‘ib.¢ Libnah was appropriated with its “ sub-| the western border of the Alanitic arm of the Red 3” to the priests (Josh. xxi. 13; 1 Chr. vi.57).| Sea. But no trace of the name has yet been dis- the reign of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat | covered; and the only conjecture which appears to ‘revolted’ from Judah at the same time with | have been made concerning it is that it was iden- tical with Laban, mentioned in Deut. i. 1. The m (2 K. viii. 22; 2 Chr. xxi. 10); but, beyond fact of their simultaneous occurrence, there is | word in Hebrew signifies « white,” and in that case apparent connection between the two events. | may point either to the color of the spot or to the completing or relinquishing the siege of Lachish | presence of white poplar (Stanley, S. g P. App. vhich of the two is not quite certain — Sen-|§ 77). Count Bertou in his recent Etude, le Mont herib laid siege to Libnah (2 K. xix. 8; Is. | Hor, etc., 1860, endeavors to identify Libnah with vii. 8), While there he was joined by Rab-| the city of Judah noticed in the foregoing article. seh and the part of the army which had visited | But there is little in his arguments to support this theory, while the position assigned to Libnah of salem (2 K. xix. 8; Is. xxxvii. 8), and received Judah —in the Shefelah or maritime district, not intelligence of Tirhakah’s approach; and it ld appear that at Libnah the destruction of the | amongst the towns of “the South,’ which latter form a distinct division of the territory of the yrian army took place, though the statements rm | ) derodotus (ii. 141) and of Josephus (Ant. x. 1, | tribe, in proximity to Edom — seems of itself to be fatal to it. place it at Pelusium.? (See Rawlinson, Herod. The reading of the Samaritan Codex and Ver- 0. ; . the native place of Hamutal, or Hamital, | sion, Lebonah, is supported by the LXX., but not queen of Josiah, and mother of Jehoahaz (2 K. | appareutly by any other authority. The T: argum Pseudojonathan on the passage plays with the . 81) and Zedekiah (xxiv. 18; Jer. lii. 1). It ‘this connection that its name appears for the | name, according to the custom of the later Jewish writings: ‘ Libnah, a place, the boundary of which time in the Bible. : 4.) og Ih ; tbnah is described by Eusebius and Jerome in|!8 2 building of brickwork,” as if the name were PII, Ledénah, a brick. G. Jnomasticon (s. v. Ageva and ‘Lebna’’) merely village of the district. of Eleutheropolis. Its has hitherto escaped not only discovery, but, lately, even conjecture. Professor Stanley f P. 207 note, 258 note), on the ground of the ‘dance of the name Libnah (white) with the inchegarde ” of the Crusaders, and of both with Wpearance of the place, would locate it at \es-Sajieh, “a white-faced hill. .. which forms aspicuous object in the eastern part of the » and is situated 5 miles N.W. of Beit- m But Tell es-Safich has claims to be iden- ‘with GATH, which are considered under that un this work. Van de Velde places it with ence at Arak el-Menshiyeh, a hill about es W. of Beit-Jibrin, on the ground of its “the only site between Swmezl (Makkedah) Jm Lakhis (Lachish) showing an ancient for- position’ (Memoir, 330; in his Syria and ‘time it is not named). But as neither Um 7s nor Sumeil, especially the latter, are iden- with certainty, the conjecture must be left: for or exploration. One thing must not be over- 1, that although Libnah is in the lists of Josh. ecified as being in the lowland, yet 3 of the ns which form its group have been actually fied as situated among the mountains to the Mee: Qo oe bk ‘he sites of these have all been discovered, not lowland, as they are specified, but in the moun- Mmediately to the south and east of Beit-Jibrin. he account of Berosus, quoted by Josephus (Ant. 5), is that the destruction took place when Sen- rib had reached Jerusalem, after his Egyptian tion, on the first night of the siege. His words | moorpéipas r+ 0s US TH TepoTOAUMG ++ ++» KATE LIB/NI (>) [white]: AoBevt; [Vat. M. -ve., exc. Ex. vi. 17:] Lobni, and once, Num. iii. 18, Lebni). 1. The eldest son of Gershom, the son of Levi (Ex. vi. 17; Num. iii. 18; 1 Chr. vi. 17, 20), and ancestor of the family of the Lis. NITES. 2. [Vat. AoBeve:.] The son of Mahli, or Ma- hali, son of Merari (1 Chr. vi. 29), as the text at present stands. It is probable, however, that he is the same with the preceding, and that something has been omitted (comp. vv. 29 with 29, 42). [Mannr, 1.] LIBNITES, THE, O37}. {patr!’ ses above]: 6 AoBevt; [ Vat. AoBevet:| Lobni, Leb- nitica, se. familia), the descendants of Libni, eldest son of Gershom, who formed one of the chief branches of the great Levitical family of Gershon- ites (Num. iii. 21, xxvi. 58). LIB’YA (AiBdn, ArBda: [Libya]) occurs only in Acts ii. 10,¢ in the periphrasis “the parts of Libya about Cyrene” (74 Méepn THs AtBins Ths kata Kuphyny), which obviously means the Cyre- naica. Similar expressions are used by Dion Cas- sius (AvBin 7 ep) Kuphvny, liii. 12) and Josephus TY mpwTHY THs moALOpKias VIKTA dtapdeipovrar, ete. Professor Stanley, on the other hand, inclines to agree with the Jewish tradition, which places the event in the pass of Beth-horon, and therefore on the road be tween Libnah and Jerusalem (S. § P..207 note). ¢* The A. V. has “Libya” for (MD in Ezek, xxx, 5, and xxxviii. 5. H. 1656 LIBYANS (4 mpds Kuphynv AcBin, Ant. xvi. 6, § 1), as noticed in the article CyrRENE. The name Libya is applied by the Greek and Roman writers to the African continent, generally however excluding Egypt. The consideration of this and its more restricted uses has no place in this work. The Hebrews, whose geography deals with nations rather than countries, and, in accordance with the genius of Shemites, never generalizes, had no names for continents or other large tracts comprising several countries ethnologically or otherwise distinct: the single mention is therefore of Greek origin. Some account of the Lubim, or primitive Libyans, as well as of the Jews in the Cyrenaica, is given in other articles. [LuBim; CYRENE. |] Rov S. PF. * LIB/YANS (D°D9: Alves: Lybia), A. V. Dan. xi. 43, should be Lupin. H. LICE (035, D2, EID, chinnim, chinndm: oxvipes, cxvimes: sciniphes, cinifes). This word occurs in the A. V. only in Ex. viii. 16, 17, 18, and in Ps. ey. 381: both of which passages have reference to the third great plague of Egypt. In Exodus the miracle is recorded, while in the Psalm grateful remembrance of it is made. The Hebrew word 4¢— which, with some slight variation, occurs only in Ex. viii. 16, 17, 18, and in Ps. cv. 81—has given occasion to whole pages of discussion; some commentators — amongst whom may be cited Mi- chaelis (Suppl. s. yv.), Oedmann (in Vermisch. Sami. i. vi. p. 80), Rosenmiiller (Schol. in Ex. viii. 12), Harenberg (Obs. Crit..de BXAD, in Miscell. Lips. Nov. vol. ii. pt. iv. p. 617), Dr. Geddes ( Crit. Rem. Ex. viii. 17), Dr. Harris (Nat. Hist. of Bible), to which is to be added the authority of Philo (De Vit. Mos. ii. 97, ed. Mangey) and Origen (Hom. Tert. in Eaod.), and indeed modern writers generally — suppose that gnats are the animals intended by the original word; while, on the other hand, the Jewish Rabbis, Josephus (Ant. ii. 14, § 3), Bochart (ieroz. iii. 457, ed. Rosenm.), Mon- tanus, Miinster (Crit. Sac. in Ex. viii. 12), Bryant (Plagues of Egypt, p. 56), and Dr. Adam Clarke are in favor of the translation of the A. V. The old versions, the Chaldee paraphrase, the Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos, the Syriac, the Samari- tan Pentateuch, the Arabic, are claimed by Bochart as supporting the opinion that lice are here in- tended. Another writer believes he can identify the chinnim with some worm-like creatures (per- haps some kind of Scolopendride) called tarrentes, mentioned in Vinisauf's account of the expedition a Considerable doubt has been entertained by some scholars as to the origin of the word. See the remarks of Gesenius and First. b JAD. But see Ges. Thes. s. v. 12s ¢ De Subb. cap. 14, fol. 107, db. d oxvis. Goov xAwpov Te Kai TeTpdmrTepov' and KviE (vi). Sov mrnvdv, Suovov KaVvwTt. (Hesych. Lez. s. v.) Kviy, Cwihtov, h yevixy TOD KVuTs. KU(irEs, Omara Td TepiBeBpwpeva, Kat Cwiidra TOV Evdobaywv. oxviy, CHov xAwpdv Te Kal TeTpdrTepov’ Cov KwYw- mades* CBov uKpoy EvdAdHayov. (Phavorin. s. v.) H oKvi év xapa. Phryn, (Lob.) p. 400. Plut. ii. 636, D. b LICE ‘of Richard I. into the Holy Land, and whiel their bites during the night-time occasioned ext pain (Harmer’s Odservat. Clarke's ed. iii. 5 With regard to this last theory it may fairl said that, as it has not a word of proof or authe to support it, it may at once be rejected as fanc Those who believe that the plague was one of g or mosquitoes appear to ground their opinion g on the authority of the LXX., or rather on interpretation of the Greek word cxvides, as g by Philo (De Vit. Mos. ii. 97) and Origen (£ ITI. in Exodum). The advocates of the o theory, that dice are the animals meant by chin and not gnats, base their arguments upon ¢ facts: (1) because the chinnim sprang from dust, whereas gnats come from the waters; because ynats, though they may greatly irritate. and beasts, cannot properly be said to be & them; (3) because their name is derived fro root © which signifies “to establish,” or “to { which cannot be said of gnats; (4) because if g are intended, then the fourth plague of flies wi be unduly anticipated; (5) because the Talmu use the word chinnah in the singular numbe mean a louse; as it is said in the 7'reatise on Sabbath, “ As is the man who slays a camel the Sabbath, so is he who slays a douse on Sabbath.” ¢ Let us examine these arguments as briefly possible. First, the LXX, has been quoted : direct proof that chinnim means gnats; and tainly in such a matter as the one before us almost impossible to exaggerate the authority the translators, who dwelt in Egypt, and there must be considered good authorities on this sub) But is it quite clear that the Greek word 1 made use of has so limited a signification? 1] the Greek oxviy or xviy mean a gnat?4¢ Let reader, however, read carefully the passages qu in the foot-notes, and he will see at once tha any rate there is very considerable doubt whe any one particular animal is denoted by the Gi word. In the few passages where it occurs Greek authors the word seems to point in § instances clearly enough to the well-known pest field and garden, the plant-lice or aphides. By oKvly év xépa, the proverb referred to in the n is very likely meant one of those small ac jumping insects, common under leaves and ut the bark of trees, known to entomologists by name of spring-tails (Poduride). The Greek icographers, having the derivation of the wort view, generally define it to be some small wo like creature that eats away wood; if they used Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. ii. cap. ult.) speaks oxvires, and calls them worms. Dioscorides (iii Ulmo) speaks of the well-known viscid secretion on leaves of plants and trees, and says that when moisture is dried up, animalcules like gnats ap (Onpidia Kwvwrwerdy). In another place (y. 181 calls them oxwAnkes. No doubt plant-lice are me Aétius (ii. 9) speaks of «vides, by which word clearly means plant-lice, or aphides. Aristopht associates the xvimes (aphides) with yyves (gall-f and speaks of them as injuring the young shoot the vines (Aves, p. 427). Aristotle (Hist. An. Wi § 9) speaks of a bird, woodpecker, which he t KvurroAdyos, Gnats are for the most part taken on wing; but the xvimes here alluded to are doub the various kinds of ants, larva, aphides, lepism coccing, oniscide, ete. etc., which are found on leaves and under the bark of trees / LICE winged the winged aphis is most likely in- ed, and perhaps vermiculus may sometimes to the wingless individual. Because, however, exicons occasionally say that the grviy is like at (the “green and four-winged insect’? of rchius), many commentators have come to the y conclusion that some species of gnat is de- 1 by the Greek term; but resemblance by no 1s constitutes identity, and it will be seen that insect, the aphis, even though it be winged, is jore closely allied to the wingless louse ( pedic- ‘than it is to the gnat, or to any species of amily Culicide; for the term lice, as applied e various kinds of aphides (Phytophthiria, as eir appropriate scientific name), is by no means ly one of analogy. The wingless aphis is in awrance somewhat similar to the pediculus ; indeed a great authority, Burmeister, arranges Anoplura, the order to which the pediculus gs, with the Ahyncota, which contains the rder Homoptera, to which the aphides belong. , by an appropriate transfer, the same word h in Arabic means pediculus is applied in one $ significations to the ‘thistle black with -lice.”’ very one who has observed the this- f this country black with the peculiar species infests them can see the force of the meaning ned to it in the Arabic language.¢ vain, almost all the passages where the Greek occurs speak of the animal, be it what it may, sing injurious to plants or trees; it cannot fore be applied in a restricted sense to any (culex or simulium), for the Culicide are emi- y blood-suckers, not vegetable-feeders.? dmann (Vermisch. Sammlung. i. ch. vi.) is of on that the species of mosquito denoted by hinnim is probably some minute kind allied 1e Culex reptans, s. pulicaris of Linneus. such an insect might have been the instru- God made use of in the third plague with 1 He visited the Egyptians is readily granted, ‘as the irritating powers of the creature are med, for the members of the genus Simelium -Hly) are a terrible pest in those localities where abound. But no proof at all can be brought rd in support of this theory. yant, in illustrating the propriety of the plague one of lice, has the following very just ‘ks: “ The Egyptians affected great external j, and were very nice both in their persons lothing. . . . Uncommon care was taken not wbhor any vermin. They were particularly us on this head; thinking it would be a profanation of the temple which they entered Y animalcule of this sort were concealed in garments.” And we learn from Herodotus 80 scrupulous were the priests on this point ’ a! Jus. *‘Nigricans et quasi pediculis obsitus - ait carduus ” (Gol. Arab. Lez. s. v.). ‘he mosquito and gnat belong to the family of de. The Simulium, to which genus the Culex is (Lin.) belongs, is comprised under the family 'd@. This is a northern species, and probably und in Egypt. The Simulia, or sand-flies, are inveterate blood-suckers, whose bites often give ‘very painful swellings. Aough Origen and Philo both understand by the “gxviy some minute winged insect that stings, eir testimony by no means proves that a similar LIEUTENANTS 1657 that they used to shave the hair off their heads and bodies every third day for fear of harboring any louse while occupied in their sacred duties (Herod. ii. 37). We may hence see what an abhorrence the Egyptians showed towards this sort of vermin, and that the judgments inflicted by the hand of Moses were adapted to their prejudices” (Bryant’s Observations, etc., p. 56). The evidence of the old versions, adduced by Bochart in support of his opinion, has been called in question by Rosenmiiller and Geddes, who will not allow that the words used by the Syriac, the Chaldee, and the Arabic versions, as the representa- tives of the Hebrew word chinnim, can properly be translated dice ; but the interpretations which they themselves allow to these words apply better to lice than to gnats; and it is almost certain that the normal meaning of the words in all these three versions, and indisputably in the Arabic, applies to lice. It is readily granted that some of the argu- ments brought forward by Bochart (Hieroz. iii. 457, ed. Rosenm.) and his consentients are unsatisfactory. As the plague was certainly miraculous, nothing can be deduced from the assertion made that the chinnim sprang from the dust; neither is Bochart’s derivation of the Hebrew word accepted by scholars generally. Much force however is contained in the Talmudical use of the word chinnah, to express a louse, though Gesenius asserts that nothing can be adduced thence. On the whole, therefore, this much appears cer- tain, that those commentators who assert that chin- nim means gnats have arrived at this conclusion without sufficient authority; they have based their arguments solely on the evidence of the LXX., though it is by no means proved that the Greek word used by these translators has any reference to gnats ; © the Greek word, which probably originally denoted any small irritating creature, being derived from a root which means to bite, to gnaw, was used in this general sense, and selected by the LXX. translators to express the original word, which has an origin kindred to that of the Greek word, but the precise meaning of which they did not know. ‘They had in view the derivation of the Hebrew term chinnah, from chdndh, “to gnaw,” and most appropriately rendered it by the Greek word xvi, from kvaw, “to gnaw.” It appears therefore that there is not sufficient authority for departing from the translation of the A. V., which renders the Hebrew word by lice; and as it is sup- ported by the evidence of many of the old versions, it is best to rest contented with it. At any rate the point is still open, and no hasty conclusion can be adopted concerning it. Wraethy LIEUTENANTS (D°IS77WMN). The use of the term was restricted to it by the LXX. translators. It has been shown, from the quotations given above, that the Greek word has a wide significa- tion: it is an aphis, a worm, a flea, or a spring-tail — in fact any small insect-like animal that bites ; and all therefore that should legitimately be deduced from the words of these two writers is that they applied in this instance to some irritating winged insect a term which, from its derivation, so appropriately describes its irritating properties. Their insect seems to refer to some species of midge ( Ceratopogon). ec If the LXX. understood gnats by the Hebrew term, why did not these translators use some weil- known Greek name for gnat, as Kove or éumis? 1658 LIGN ALOES Hebrew achashdrapan was the official title of the satraps @ or viceroys who governed the provinces of the Persian empire; it is rendered ‘lieutenant ’’ in Esth. iii. 12, viii. 9, ix. 38; Ezr. viii. 36, and “ prince ’’ in Dan. iii. 2, vi. 1, &e. W. L. B. LIGN ALOKS. [Atoss.] LIGURE (ows, leshem: Avydpiov; Ald. dpyvpiov; Alex. dadxivOos: ligurius). A precious stone mentioned in Ex. xxviii. 19, xxxix. 12, as the first in the third row of the high-priest’s breast- plate. ‘+ And the third row, a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst.” It is impossible to say, with any certainty, what stone is denoted by the Hebrew term. ‘The LXX. version generally, the Vulgate and Josephus (B. J. v. 5. § 7), understand the lyn- curium or ligurvum ; but it is a matter of consid- erable difficulty to identify the igurium of the an- cients with any known precious stone. Dr. Wood- ward and some old commentators have supposed that it was some kind of belemmnite, because, as these fos- sils contain bituminous particles, they have thought that they have been able to detect, upon heating or rubbing pieces of them, the absurd origin which Theophrastus (Frag. ii. 28, 31, xv. 2, ed. Schnei- der) and Pliny (H. N. xxxvii. iii.) ascribe to the lyncurium. Others have imagined that amber is denoted by this word; but Theophrastus, in the passage cited above, has given a detailed descrip- tion of the stone, and clearly distinguishes it from electron, or amber. Amber, moreover, is too soft for engraving upon; while the lyncuriwm was a hard stone, out of which seals were made. Anoth- er interpretation seeks the origin of the word in the country of Liguria (Genoa), where the stone was found, but makes no attempt at identification. Others again, without reason, suppose the opal to be meant (Rosenmiill. Sch. in Ha. xxviii. 19). Dr. Watson (Phil. Trans. vol. li. p. 394) identi- fies it with the towrmaline. Beckmann (fist. /n- vent. i. 87, Bohn) believes, with Braun, Epiphanius, and J. de Laet, that the description of the /yncu- rium agrees well with the hyacinth stone of modern mineralogists.o With this supposition Hill (Votes on Theophrastus on Stones, § 50, p. 166) and Ros- enmiiller (.Wineral. of Bible, p. 36, Bib. Cab.) agree. It must be confessed, however, that this opinion is far from satisfactory, for there is the following diffi- culty in the identification of the /yncurium with the hyacinth. .Theophrastus, speaking of the properties of the lyncurium, says that it attracts not only light particles of wood, but fragments of iron and brass. Now there is no peculiar attractive power in the hyacinth; nor is Beckmann’s explanation of this point sufficient. He says: “If we consider its (the lyncurium’s) attracting of small bodies in the same light which our hyacinth has in common with all stones of the glassy species, I cannot see anything to controvert this opinion, and to induce us to believe the /yncuriwm and the tourmaline to be the same.”’ But surely the /yncuriuwm, what- @ The LXX. gives carpdmys, otpatnyds, and vrraros; the Vulgate satvapes and princeps. Both the Hebrew and the Greek words are modifications of the same Sanskrit root: but philologists are not agreed as to the form or meaning of the word. Gesenius (Thes. p. 74) adopts the opinion of Von Bohlen that it comes from kshatriya-pati, meaning “ warrior of the host.” Pott (Etym. Forsch, Pref. p. 68) suggests other derivations more in consonance with the position of the satraps as civél rather than military rulers. LILY ever it be, had in a marked tanner magnetiz erties; indeed, the term was applied to the on this very account, for the Greek name lig appears to be derived from Aefyeiy, “ to lick, attract; ’? and doubtless was selected by the translators for this reason to express the H word, which has a similar derivation.¢ More able, though still inconclusive, appears the oj of those who identify the lyncurzwm with the maline, or more definitely with the red y known as rubellite, which is a hard stone anc as a gem, and sometimes sold for red sap Tourmaline becomes, as is well known, electi polar when heated. BGeckmann’s objection ‘‘had Theophrastus been acquainted with tourmaline, he would have remarked that it d acquire its attractive power till it was heate answered by his own admission on the pa quoted from the Histoire de ? Académie for p- 7 (see Beckmann, i. 91). Tourmaline is a mineral found in many pa the world. ‘The Duke de Noya purchased t these stones in Holland, which are there aschentrikker. Linnzeus, in his preface t Flora Zeylandica, mentions the stone und name of lapis electricus from Ceylon. The n call it towrnamal (vid. Phil. Trans. in loe. Many of the precious stones which were in th session of the Israelites during their wand were no doubt obtained from the Egyptians might have procured from the Tyrian merc specimens from even India and Ceylon, ete. fine specimen of rubedlite now in the British - um belonged formerly to the King of Ava. The word ligure is unknown in modern - ralogy. Phillips (A/ineral. 87) mentions fig the fragments of which are uneven and transp with a vitreous lustre. It occurs in a sort of t rock in the banks of a river in the Apennines The claim of rubellite to be the leshem of | ture is very uncertain, but it is perhaps bette that of the other minerals which writers have time to time endeavored to identify with it. LIK’/HI (192, [learned]: Aantus Aareeiu;] Alex. Aaxera: Leci), a Manassit of Shemida, the son of Manasseh (1 Chr. vii. * LIKING (A. V.), as a noun, means tion,” Job xxxix. 14: “Their young ones good liking;” and as a participle (DY ‘conditioned ’? (Dan. i. 10): “ Why should your faces worse liking than the children whi of your sort?” LILY (JA, shdshdn, TDW W, she nah: rptvov, Matt. vi. 28,29). The Hebrew is rendered “ rose”’ in the Chaldee Targum, a Maimonides and other rabbinical writers, wit exception of Kimchi and Ben Melech, who in vii. 19 translated it by “violet.” In the J1 b) b Biisching, p. 842, from Dutens, Des Pierre cieuses, p. 61, says, “ the hyacinth is not found Fast.”” This is incorrect, for it occurs in Egypt lon, and the East Indies (v. Mineral. and Cr) Orr’s Circle of Sciences, p. 515). c Thes. 8. v. nw. Fiirst says of pw, nos fugit origo. Targ. vertit, YVD2j2, be Kéyxpos, de quo Smiris (Shamir) genere v. xxxiv. 4.” LILY vish version of the Canticles, shishdn and shé- nah are always translated by rosa ; but in Hos. 5 the latter is rendered lirio. But xptvoy, or 7,” is the uniform rendering of the LXX., and all probability the true one, as it is supported he analogy of the Arabic and Persian susan, h has the same meaning to this day, and by xxistence of the same word in Syriac and Cop- The Spanish azucena, a “white lily,’’ is ly a modification of the Arabic. ut although there is little doubt that the word tes some plant of the lily species, it is by no ns certain what individual of this class it espe- y designates. lather Souciet (Jecueil de diss. 1715) labored to prove that the lily of Scrip- is the “ crown-imperial,”’ the Persian tus, the ov BactArkdy Of the Greeks, and the Fritillaria wialis of Linneus. So common was this plant ersia, that it is supposed to have given its name susa, the capital (Athen. xii. 1; Bochart, leg, ii. 14). But there is no proof that it was iy time common in Palestine, and “ the lily ”’ excellence of Persia would not of necessity be » lily’ of the Holy Land. Dioscorides (i. 62) 3 witness to the beauty of the lilies of Syria Pisidia, from which the best perfume was made. ays (iii. 106 [116]) of the kpivoy BaciArkdy the Syrians call it caca (= shushan), and the sans a&8tBAaBov, which Bochart renders in rew characters y2 AN, “white shoot.” in, in his note on the passage, identifies the t in question with the Lilium candidum of weus. It is probably the same as that called ie Mishna “king’s lily’ (Kilaim, vy. 8). Pliny 5) defines kpivoy as “rubens lilium;’’ and corides, in another passage, mentions the fact there are lilies with purple flowers; but whether his he intended the Lilium Martagon or Chal- nicum, Kiihn leaves undecided. Now in the age of Athenzeus above quoted it is said, o0- yap civat TH ‘EAAHYwv pwr) Td Kpivov. But ae Ltymologicum Magnum (s. v. Sovca) we Ta yap Acipia b4d TAY PowlKwy codca A€y- | As the shushan is thus identified both with oy, the red or purple lily, and with Aefpioy, the é lily, it is evidently impossible from the word ‘ to ascertain exactly the kind of lily which is ed to. If the shushan or shoshannah of the . and the xpivoy of the Sermon on the Mount entical, which there seems no reason to doubt, dlant designated by these terms must have '@ conspicuous object on the shores of the Lake mnesaret (Matt. vi. 28; Luke xii. 27); it must flourished in the deep broad valleys of Pales- (Cant. ii. 1), among the thorny shrubs (¢id. ii. nd pastures of the desert (2. ii. 16, iv. 5, vi. ind must haye been remarkable for its rapid uxuriant growth (Hos. xiv. 5; Keclus. xxxix. That its flowers were brilliant in color would to be indicated in Matt. vi. 28, where it is jared with the gorgeous robes of Solomon; and ithis color was scarlet or purple is implied in -y. 13.4 There appears to be no species of lily 5 ——— According to another opinion, the allusion in this | is to the fragrance and not the color of the lily, Lif 80, the passage is favorable to the claims of the ndidum, which is highly fragrant, while the L. edonicum is almost destitute of odor. The lily of . T. may still be the latter. ‘But Strand (Flor. Palest.) mentions it as growing ‘Joppa, and Kitto (Fhys. Hist. of Pal. 219) makes | LInY 1659 which so completely answers all these requirements as the Lilium Chalcedonicum, or Scarlet Martagon, which grows in profusion in the Levant. But direct evidence on the point is still to be desired from the observation of travellers. We have, how- ever, a letter from Dr. Bowring, referred to (Gard. Chron. ii. 854), in which, under the name of Lilia Syriaca, Lindley identifies with the L. Chalcedon- zcuma flower which is “‘ abundant in the district of Galilee’ in the months of April and May. Sprengel (Ant. Bot. Spec. i. p. 9) identifies the Greek xpivoy with the L. Martagon. Lilium Chalcedonicum. With regard to the other plants which have been identified with the shushan, the difficulties are many and great. Gesenius derives the word from a root signifying ‘‘to be white,’’ and it has hence been inferred that the shushan is the white lily. But it is by no means certain that the Lilium candidum grows wild in Palestine, though a specimen was found by Forskal at Zambak in Arabia Felix.? Dr. Royle (Kitto’s Cyclop. art. “« Shushan ’’) iden- tified the ‘lily’ of the Canticles with the dotus of Egypt, in spite of the many allusions to “ feeding among the lilies.’’ The purple flowers of the khod, or wild artichoke, which abounds in the plain north of Tabor and in the Valley of Esdraélon, have been thought by some to be the “lilies of the field”’ alluded to in Matt. vi. 28 (Wilson, Lands of the Bible, ii. 110). A recent traveller mentions a plant, with lilac flowers like the hyacinth, and called by the Arabs wseeth, which he considered to be of the species denominated lily in Scripture (Bonar, Desert of Sinai, p. 329). Lynch enumerates the “lily as among the plants seen by him on the shores of the Dead Sea, but gives no details which could lead to its identification (Haped. to Jordan, p. 286). He had previously observed the water- lily on the Jordan (p. 173), but omits to mention whether it was the yellow (Nuphar lutea) or the especial mention of the L. candidum growing in Pal- estine; and in connection with the habitat given by Strand it is worth observing that the lily is mentioned (Cant. ii. 1) with the rose of Sharon. Now let this be compared with Jerome’s Comment. ad Is. xxxiii. 9: Saron omnis juxta Joppen Lyddamque appellatur regio in qua latissimi campi fertilesque tenduntur ” W. A. 1660 " LIDY white (Nymphea alba). ‘ The only ‘lilies’ which [ saw in Palestine,’ says Prof. Stanley, “in the months of March and April, were large yellow water-lilies, in the clear spring of ’Ain Mellahah, near the Lake of Merom”’ (S. ¢ P. p. 429). He suggests that the name “ lily’? “ray include the numerous flowers of the tulip or amaryllis kind, which appear in the early summer, or the autumn of Palestine.’’ The following description of the Hileh-lily by Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, i. 894), were it more precise, would perhaps have enabled botanists to identify it: “ This Hileh- lily is very large, and the three inner petals meet above and form a gorgeous canopy, such as art never approached, and’ king never sat under, even in his utmost glory...... We call it Hileh- lily, because it was here that it was first discovered. Lilium candidum. Its botanical name, if it have one, I am unac- quainted with..... Our flower delights most in the valleys, but is also found on the mountains. It grows among thorns, and I have sadly lacerated my hands in extricating it from them. Nothing can be in higher contrast than the luxuriant vel- vety softness of this lily, and the crabbed tangled hedge of thorns about it. Gazelles still delight to feed among them; and you can scarcely ride through the woods north of Tabor, where these lilies abound, without frightening them from their flowery pas- ture.’ If some future traveller would give a de- scription of the Hfileh-lily somewhat less vague than the above, the question might be at once resolved. [PALESTINE — Botany. | The Pheenician architects of Solomon’s temple decorated the capitals of the columns with “lily- work,’’ that is, with leaves and flowers of the lily (1 K. vii.), corresponding to the lotus-headed capi- tals of Egyptian architecture. The rim of the ‘‘ brazen sea ’’ was possibly wrought in the form of the recurved margin of a lily flower (1 K. vii. 26). Whether the shdéshannim and shushan mentioned in the titles of Ps. xlv., Ix., lxix., and Ixxx. were musical instruments in the form of lilies, or wheth- er the word denote a musical air, will be discussed under the article SHOSHANNIM. Wis AGE * The description in Matt. vi. 28-30 implies that this plant was familiar to Christ’s hearers. This LILY consideration would at once exclude Lilium ¢ dum, which, if found at all in Syria and Pales must be extremely rare, and probably only a caped from cultivation. It is impossible also that any of the water- could be intended, as the lilies mentioned gre the field. The requirements of the text are the follow (1.) A plant of the order Liliaceew or one o allied orders of /ridacew, or Amaryllidacea, plant which would be vulgarly called a lily ¥ suit the case, inasmuch as we are not to ima language used here in the accurate style « botanist. (2.) It must be a plant growing in the fi with a stem of sufficient size and solidity tot element of the fuel of the tannoor or oriental ¢ It is customary in the East to gather out the 1 and various flowering plants from among the wl before the time of harvest, and to bind ther bundles, and either to feed them to the ca or burn them in the oven. ‘The lily menti must be of this character, in order to suit the rative. (3.) It must be a plant of rich colored flo probably purple, inasmuch as this color would ter suit the comparison with the colors of 1 garments. ; There are several plants which haye been posed to represent the lily, which we can elimi by the above tests. Lzliwm candidum has already excluded. Anemone coronaria, with its varieties of red and purple flowers, has been scribed as the plant in question. But in the place it is the most distant possible from the | being of the family of the Ranunculacew. In second place it is a low herbaceous plant, not oc ring so much among wheat as in open grassy pl: by roadsides. It has no stem, and is not gath for the ovens. It is common enough, but for two reasons mentioned is quite inadmissible. The remaining hypotheses may all be grot into one class. They consist in assuming on the plants of the above-named orders to be plant here designated. Some have supposed Lilium Chalcedonicum. Others have supposed great Iris of the Hiileh, which Dr. Thomson « the Hileh lily. Others still have endeayorec prove the claims of others of’ these natural order My own opinion is, that the term ‘lily’ her general, and that it does not refer to any spé exclusively. There are several fine plants of t. orders which are found more or less diffused thro Palestine, as Tulipa oculis-solis, Lilium Cha donicum, Iris reticulosa, and others of that ge and last, but not least likely to have been be the eyes and in the minds of the hearers of the. mon on the Mount, Gladiolus Illyricus. Indi if any one species more than another be designa I incline to think that this is the one. | This plant is a showy species, growing t height of two or three feet, among the wheat barley. It has a reedy stem, and a large rac of purple flowers, an inch and a half broad open, and it is a sufficiently striking and sh flower to have been the subject of the compari Moreover, it is one of those wild plants which constantly plucked up with the other weeds, fed to cattle, or burned in the fire. | Still I incline to think that the Saviour, in sp’ ing of the lilies, used the term in the same gev way that an inhabitant of the Middle States w : LIME k ot wild lilies, in allusion to their bright colors, ticularly designating, or perhaps not being e of the specific differences of the individuals of nus. He might have seen a lily, and been +k with its beauty, and used that quality to illus- : his speech, without knowing whether he had Lilium Philadelphicum, or L. Canadense, or L. roum. Nay, he might have seen an Liythro- 1, or a Gladiolus, and called them lilies. Or he it have drawn his illustration from the combined ‘ession produced on his mind by all the species general names. I conceive the latter to have ‘the case in the Sermon on the Mount. Gok P. IME (WW: xovia: calx). This substance sticed only three times in the Bible, namely, in {. xxvii. 2, 4, where it is ordered to be laid on yreat stones whereon the law was to be written V. “thou shalt plaister them with plaister ’’); is. xxxiii. 12, where the “burnings of lime”’ iguratively used to express complete destruc- ; and in Am. ii. 1, where the prophet de- ses the outrage committed on the memory of the of Edom by the Moabites, when they took yones and burned them into lime, i. e. calcined 1—an indignity of which we have another in- vein 2 K. xxiii. 16. ‘That the Jews were ac- nted with the use of the lime-kiln, has been dy noticed. [I URNACE.] WW. .1 3B: “LINE. Several Hebrew words are so ren- 1, which in some passages admit of a closer mination. In addition to the ordinary appli- ins it often denotes a line or cord used for meas- z purposes, as V2 and 172, 1K. vii. 23; 2K. 13, &c.; ‘PAT, Ps. Ixxviii. 55 (56); Am. vii Ts. xliv. 13, where the A. V. has “rule *’; but his last passage TW is probably “ graver,”” lus” (not ‘line’ as in A. V.). A peculiar use of measuring line occurs in 2 Sam. viii. 2 (where vord is S29). David, after a signal victory \ the Moabites, who appear to have given him ‘al provocation, put to death two thirds of his 4ives and spared one third. He required them to own on the ground, and then with a line meas- ‘them off after that: proportion. The line as oyed for measuring, by a frequent metonomy tls often for lot, possession, or inheritance (as : a in Jos. xvii. 14, xix. 9; Ps. xvi. 5 (6); Ezek. 1 13 ff.). The sense of “their line” (2), of the heavens in Ps. xix. 4 (5), is uncertain. this highly poetic passage it may well enough te the expanse or circuit which the heavens hiiure off as they bend over all the earth, through- which is to be heard the proclamation which bh make of God's existence and attributes. So Afeld (Die Psalmen, i. 410), who agrees here Ni Hengstenberg (Die Psalmen, i. 440 f.). Paul’s ion of the passage (Rom. x. 18) follows the ‘ <. which has podsyyos, asound” (A. V.), as 4} the strings of a lyre. By “plumb-line” =— 8, only Am. vii. 7, twice) is usually under- U1 a line with lead attached to it for determining Hyerpendicularity of objects. Jehovah, as repre- id there by the prophet, stands on a straight- Uv wall with a line in his hand, as a symbol Hie strict justice with which He will call his Mele to account for their sins (see Baur, Der LINEN 1661 Prophet Amos, p. 407, and Keil, Die 12 kletnen Propheten, p. 221). The proper rendering of Ww), Gen. xxxviii. 18, is line or cord (in the A. V. “ bracelets ’’), by which the signet-ring was attached to the neck. See Conant, Genests, etc. p. 160. The literal and metaphorical senses blend themselves in Paul’s expression (éy dAAoTplw kavévi), 2 Cor. x. 16, %. e. another’s line or sphere of labor allotted to him by God’s providence. H. LINEN. Five different Hebrew words are thus rendered, and it is dificult to assign to each its precise significance. With regard to the Greek words so translated in the N. T. there is less am- biguity. 1. As Egypt was the great centre of the linen manufacture of antiquity, it is in connection with that country that we find the first allusion to it in the Bible. Joseph, when promoted to the dignity of ruler of the land of Egypt, was arrayed “in vestures of fine linen”? (shésh,“ marg. ‘silk,’ Gen. xli. 42), and among the offerings for the tabernacle of the things which the Israelites had brought out of Egypt were “blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen” (Ex. xxv. 4, xxxv. 6). Of twisted threads of this material were composed the ten embroidered hangings of the tabernacle (Ex. xxvi. 1), the vail which separated the holy place from the holy of holies (Ex. xxvi. 31), and the curtain for the entrance (ver. 36), wrought with needle- work. The ephod of the high-priest, with its curious,’’ or embroidered girdle, and the breast- plate of judgment, were of “jine twined linen” (x. xxviii. 6, 8, 15). Of fine linen woven in checker-work were made the high-priest’s tunic and mitre (Ex. xxviii. 39). The tunics, turbans, and drawers of the inferior priests (IEx. xxxix. 27, 28) are simply described as of woven work of fine linen. 2. But in Ex. xxviii. 42, and Lev. vi. 10, the drawers of the priests and their flowing robes are said to be of linen (bad >), and the tunic of the high-priest, his girdle, and mitre, which he wore on the day of atonement, were made of the same material (Lev. xvi. 4). Cuneus (De Sep. Hebr. ii. c. i.) maintained that the robes worn by the high-priest throughout the year, which are called by the Talmudists the golden vestments,” were thus named because they were made of 2 more val- uable kind of linen (shésk) than that of which ‘ the white vestments,’ worn only on the day of atone- ment, were composed (bad). But in the Mishna (Cod. Joma, iii. 7) it is said that the dress worn by the high-priest on the morning of the day of atonement was of linen of Pelusium, that is, of the finest description. In the evening of the same day he wore garments of Indian linen, whicl: was less costly than the Egyptian. From a comparison of Ex. xxviii. 42 with xxxix. 28, it seems clear that bad and shésh were synonymous, or, if there be any difference between them, the latter probably de- notes the spun threads, while the former is the linen woven from them. Maimonides (Cele ham- mikdash, c. 8) considered them as identical with regard to the material of which they were com- posed, for he says, ‘‘ wherever in the Law bad or shésh are mentioned, they signify flax, that is, byssus.” And Abarbanel (on Ex. xxv.) defines shésh to be Egyptian flax, and distinguishes it as ee ee a wy), or feteee asin Es. xvi.18. > T2. 1662 LINEN composed of six (Heb. shésh, * six’’) threads twisted together, from bad, which was single. But in opposition to this may be quoted Ex. xxxix. 28, where the drawers of the priests are said to be linen (bad) or fine twined linen (shésh). The wise- hearted among the women of the congregation spun the flax which was used by Bezaleel and Aholiab for the hangings of the tabernacle (Ex. xxxv. 25), and the making of linen was one of the occupations of women, of whose dress it formed a conspicuous part (Prov. xxxi. 22, A. V. “silk;’’ Ez. xvi. 10, 18; comp. Rey. xviii. 16). In Ez. xxvii. 7 shésh is enumerated among the products of Egypt, which the Tyrians imported and used for the sails of their ships; and the vessel constructed for Ptolemy Philo- pator is said by Athenseus to have had a sail of byssus (Buacwov exw iortov, Deipn. i. 27 F). Hermippus (quoted by Athenzeus) describes Egypt as the great emporium for sails: — "Ex & Aiy’mrov 7a KpemacrTa *Ioria Kat BUBAovs. Cleopatra’s galley at the battle of Actium had a sail of purple canvas (Plin. xix. 5). The ephods worn by the priests (1 Sam. xxii. 18), by Samuel, though he was a Levite (1 Sam. ii. 18), and by David when he danced before the ark (2 Sam. vi. 14; 1 Chr. xv. 27), were all of linen (bad). The man whom L)aniel saw in vision by the river Hid- dekel was clothed in linen (dad, Dan. x. 5, xii. 6, 7; comp. Matt. xxviii. 3). In no case is bad used for other than a dress worn in religious ceremonies, though .the other terms rendered “linen ”’ are ap- plied to the ordinary dress of women and persons in high rank. 3. Bits, * always translated “fine linen’ ex- cept 2 Chr. y. 12, is apparently a late word, and probably the same with the Greek Biaoos, by which it is represented by the LXX. It was used for the dresses of the Levite choir in the temple (2 Chr. v. 12), for the loose upper garment worn by kings over the close-fitting tunic (1 Chr. xv. 27), and for the vail of the Temple, embroidered by the skill of the Tyrian artificers (2 Chr. iii. 14). Mordecai was arrayed in robes of fine linen (bits) and purple (Esth. viii. 15) when honored by the Persian king, and the dress of the rich man in the parable was purple and fine linen (Biaoos, Luke xvi. 19). The Tyrians were celebrated for their skill in linen-em- broidery (2 Chr. ii. 14), and the house of Ashbea, a family of the descendants of Shelah the son of Judah, were workers in fine linen, probably in the lowland country (1 Chr. iv. 21). Tradition adds that they wove the robes of the kings and priests (Targ. Joseph), and, according to Jarchi, the hang- ings of the sanctuary. The cords of the canopy over the garden-court of the palace at Shushan were of fine linen (ddits, Esth. i.6). ‘Purple and broidered work and fine linen” were brought by the Syrians to the market of Tyre (Ez. xxvii. 16), the dtits of Syria being distinguished from the shésh of Egypt, mentioned in ver. 7, as being in all prob- ability an Aramaic word, while shésh is referred ‘o an Egyptian original.? “Fine linen” (Gveqos), @ VID, Biccos, byssus. b In Gen. xli. 42, the Targum of Onkelos gives ‘ 2 as the equivalent of wre, See also Ex. xxv. 4, xxxv. 35. c FCS. d PCR, Veneto-Gr. gxotvos. LINEN with purple and silk are enumerated in Rey. x 12 as among the merchandise of the mystical B; lon; and to the Lamb’s wife (xix. 8) it granted that she should be arrayed in ine /; (Bicowvov) clean and white: the symbolical nificance of this vesture being immediately plained, ‘‘ for the fine linen is the righteousnes: saints.’ And probably with the same intent armies in heaven, who rode upon white ho and followed the “ Faithful and True,’ were — in ‘ fine linen, white and clean,” as they went f to battle with the beast and his army (Rey. 14). 4. Etéine occurs but once (Prov. vii. 16), there in connection with Egypt. Schultens « nects it with the Greek 66dvn, 6@déviov, whicl supposes were derived from it. The Talmuc translate it by Dan, chebel, a cord or rope consequence of its identity in form with di which oceurs in the Targ. on Josh. ii. 16, Esth. i. 6. R. Parchon interprets it “a girdl Egyptian work.’’ But in what way these e were applied to the ‘decoration of beds is clear. Probably étim was a kind of thread m of fine Egyptian flax, and used for ornamenting coverings of beds with tapestry-work. In sup of this may be quoted the dugirdmon of the LX and the picte tapetes of the Vulgate, which re] sent the JIS MDE] of the Hebrew. Celsius renders the word “linen,” and appeal the Greek 6@dviov, 60dvn, as decisive upon point. See Jablonski, Opusc. i. 72,73. Schultens (Prov. vii. 16) suggests that the G1 cwdev is derived from the Hebrew sadin,e wh is used of the thirty linen garments which Sam promised to his companions (Judg. xiv. 12, 13 his wedding, and which he stripped from the bo of the Philistines whom he slew at Ashkelon (} 19). It was made by women (Prov. xxxi. 24), used for girdles and under-garments (Is. til. comp. Mark xiv. 51). The LXX. in Judg. : Prov. render it oivdév, but in Judg. xiv. 66dvia is used synonymously; just as gwder Matt. xxvii. 59, Mark xv. 46, and Luke xxiii. is the same as 6@dyra, in Luke xxiv. 12; John xx 6, xix. 40. In these passages it is seen that li was used for the winding-sheets of the dead by Hebrews as well as by the Greeks (Hom. Ji. x1 353, xxiii. 254; comp. Eur. Bacch. 819). Tov were made of it (Aévyriov, John xiii. 4, 5); ¢ napkins (covddpia, John xi. 44), like the coa linen of the Egyptians. The dress of the p (Ecclus. xl. 4) was probably unbleached flax (a, Awvov), such as was used for barbers’ towels (P De Garvrul.). The general term which included all those alre: mentioned was pishteh,/ corresponding to the Gr Alvoy, which was employed — like our “cotton ” to denote not only the flax (Judg. xv. 14) or 1 material from which the linen was made, but : the plant itself (Josh. ii. 6), and the manufact from it. It is generally opposed to wool, as a ¥ etable product to an animal (Lev. xiii. 47, 48, a ee e JNTD. Jablonski (Opuse. i. 297, &e-) claims the word ‘an Egyptian origin. The Coptic shenti the representative of cwSwv in the N. T f TIEN. 7 > LINEN LINTEL 1663 Herodotus as to the mummy-cloths with the resulta of microscopic examination, it seems clear that byssus was linen, and not cotton; and moreover, that the dresses of the Jewish priests were made of the same, the purest of all materials. For further information see Dr. Kalisch’s Comm. on Exodus, pp. 487-489; also article WooLEN. W. A.W. LINTEL. The beam which forms the upper part of the framework of a door. In the A. V. ‘lintel’? is the rendering of three Hebrew words. iE Dy, ayil (1 K. vi. 31); translated “ post” throughout Ez. xl., xli. The true meaning of this word is extremely doubtful. In the LXX. it is left. untranslated (a%A, aided, aiAdu); and in the Chaldee version it is represented by a modification of itself. Throughout the passages of Ezekiel in which it occurs the Vulg. uniformly renders it by jrons ; which Gesenius quotes as favorable to his own view, provided that by fvons be under- stood the projections in front of the building. The A. V. of 1 K. vi. 31, “ lintel,’ is supported by the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and The- odotion of Ez. xl. 21; while Kimchi explains it generally by ‘“ post.’ The Peshito-Syriac uni- formly renders the word by a modification of the Greek TapacTades, “pillars.” Jarchi understands by ayil a round column like a large tree; Aquila (Ez. xl. 14) having in view the meaning “ram,”’ which the word elsewhere bears, renders it kplaua, apparently intending thereby to denote the volutes of columns, curved like rams’ horns. J. D. Michaelis (Supp. ad Lex. s. y.) considers it to be the tympanum or triangular area of the pediment above a gate, supported by columns. Gesenius himself, after reviewing the passages in which the word occurs, arrives at the conclusion that in the singular it denotes the whole projecting framework of a door or gateway, including the jambs on either side, the threshold, and the lintel or architrave, with frieze and cornice. In the plural it is applied to denote the projections along the front of an edifice ornamented with columns or palm-trees, and with recesses or intercolumniations between them sometimes filled up by windows. Under the former head he places 1 K. vi. 31; Ez. xl. 9, 21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 86-38, 48, 49, xli. 3; while to the latter he refers xl. 10, 14, 16, xli. 1. Another explanation still is that of Boettcher (quoted by Winer, Realw. ii. 575), who says that ayil is the projecting entrance and passage wall— which might appropriately be divided into compartments by paneling; and this view is adopted by First (Handw. s. v.). 2. “WDD, caphtdr (Amos ix. 1; Zeph. ii. 14). The marginal rendering, “chapiter or knop,” of both these passages is undoubtedly the more cor- rect, and in all other cases where the word occurs it is translated “«knop.”” [Knop.] 3. FYYPWI, mashkdph (Ex. xii. 22, 23); also rendered “upper door-post””? in Ex. xii. 7. That this is the true rendering is admitted by all modern philologists, who connect it with a root which in Arabic and the cognate dialects signifies “ to over- lay with beams.” The LXX. and Vulgate coin- cide in assigning to it the same meaning. Rabbi Sol. Jarchi derives it from a Chaldee root signifying “to beat,’” because the door in being shut beats against it. The signification ‘to look’? or “‘ peep,” which was acquired by the Hebrew root, induced Deut. xxii. 11; Proy. xxxi. 18; Hos. ii. 5, 9), was used for nets (Is. xix. 9), girdles (Jer. xiii. nd measuring-lines (Ez. xl, 3), as well as for ress of the priests (Ez. xliv. 17, 18). Froma parison of the last-quoted passages with Ex. ii. 42, and Lev. vi. 10 (3), xvi. 4, 23, it is evi- that bad and pishteh denote the same material, Jatter being the more general term. It is lly apparent, from a comparison of Rev. xv. 6 xix. 8, 14, that Aivoy and Bicouvoy are essen- y the same. Mr. Yates (T'extrinum is yusly explained. In the LXX. of 1 Kings it ams as a proper name, @exové, and in the ‘vate Coa, a place in Arabia Felix. By the ‘ac (2 Chr.) and Arabic translators it was also rded as the name of a place. Bochart once red it to Troglodyte Egypt, anciently called hoe, according to Pliny (vi. 34), but afterwards te that it signified “a tax”? (Hieroz. pt. 1, -¢. 9). To these Michaelis adds a conjecture E own, that Kw in the interior of Africa, S. of Egypt, might be the place referred to, as ‘country whence Egypt procured its horses ‘vs of Moses, trans. Smith, ii. 493). In trans- ig the word “linen yarn”? the A. V. followed jus and Tremeilius, who are supported by Se- tian Schmid, De Dieu, and Clericus. Gesenius ‘recourse to a very unnatural construction, and ering the word “troop,” refers it in the first xe to the king’s merchants, and in the second 1e horses which they brought. tom time immemorial Egypt was celebrated for - (Ez. xxvii. 7). It was the dress of the Votian priests (Her. ii. 37, 81), and was worn. hem, according to Plutarch (Js. e¢ Osir. 4), «use the color of the flax-blossom resembled ! of the cireumambient ether (comp. Juv. vi. t of the priests of Isis). Panopolis or Chemmis { modern Akhmim) was anciently inhabited by ‘gw (Strabo, xvii. 41, p. 813). According Olerodotus (ii. 86) the mummy-cloths were of is; and Josephus (Ant. iii. 6, § 1).mentions ag the contributions of the Israelites for the mnacle, “ byssus of flax;’’ the hangings of the “hacle were “sindon of byssus’? (§ 2), of which Mrial the tunics of the priests were also made ‘I lil. 7, § 2), the drawers being of byssus (§ 1). dalso says that the high-priest wore a garment 1e finest byssus. Combining the testimony of ) mm, 1 Kings b S17, 2 Chron. 1664 LINUS Aben Ezra to translate mashképh by “ window,” such as the Arabs have over the doors of their houses; and in assenting to this rendering, Bochart Observes “that it was so called on account of the grates and railings over the tops of the doors, through which those who desire entrance into the house could be seen before they were admitted ” (Kalisch, Exodus). An illustration of one of these windows is given in the art. Housr, vol. ii. p. 1103. Wk We LYNUS (Aitvos [linen, linen-cloth]), a Chris- tian at Rome, known to St. Paul and to Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 21). That the first’ bishop of Rome after the Apostles was named Linus is a statement in which all ancient writers agree (e. g. Jerome, De Viris Illustr. c.15; August. Zp. liii. 2). The early and unequivocal assertion of Irenzeus (iii. 3, § 3), corroborated by Eusebius (H. /. iii. 2) and Theodoret, (2 2 Tim. iv. 21), is sufficient to prove the identity of the bishop with St. Paul’s friend. The date of his appointment, the duration of his episcopate, and the limits to which his episcopal authority extended, are points which cannot be regarded as absolutely settled, although they have been discussed at great length. Eusebius and Theodoret, followed by Baronius and Tillemont (Hist. Kecl. ii. 165 and 591), state that he became bishop of Rome after the death of St. Peter. On the other hand, the words of Ireneeus — “ [Peter and Paul] when they founded and built up the church [of Rome] committed the office of its epis- copate to Linus ’’ — certainly admit, or rather iuply the meaning, that he held that office before the death of St. Peter: as if the two great Apostles, having, in the discharge of their own peculiar office, completed the organization of the church at Rome, left it under the government of Linus, and passed on to preach and teach in some new region. This proceeding would be in accordance with the practice of the Apostles in other places. And the earlier appointment of Linus is asserted as a fact by Ruffinus (Pref. in Clem. Recogn.), and by the author of ch. xlvi. bk. vii. of the Apostolic Con- stitutions. It is accepted as the true statement of the case by Bishop Pearson (De Serie et Succes- stone Privrum Rome Episcoporum, ii. 5, § 1) and by Fleury (//ist. /ccl. ii. 26). Some persons have objected that the undistinguished mention of the name of Linus between the names of two other Roman Christians in 2 Tim. iv. 21 is a proof that he was not at that time bishop of Rome. But even Tillemont admits that such a way of intro- ducing the bishop’s name is in accordance with the simplicity of that early age. No lofty preémi- nence was attributed to the episcopal office in the apostolic times. The arguments by which the exact years of his episcopate are laid down are too long and minute to be recited here. Its duration is given by Euse- bius (whose H. L. iii. 16 and Chronicon give in- @ Ruffinus’s statement ought, doubtless, to be inter- preted in accordance with that of his contemporary Epiphanius (Adv. Her. xxvii. 6, p. 107), to the effect that Linus and Cletus were bishops of Rome in suc- cession, not contemporaneously. The facts were, how- ever, differently viewed: (1) by an interpolater of the Gesta Pontificum Damasi, quoted by J. Voss in his second epistle to A. Rivet (App. to Pearson’s Vindicie Ignatiane)}; (2) by Bede (Vita S. Benedicti § 7, p. 146, ed. Stevenson) when he was seeking a precedent LION consistent evidence) as A. D. 68-80; by Tille who however reproaches Pearson with dep from the chronology of Eusebius, as 66-75 Baronius as 67-78; and by Pearson as 5 Pearson, in the treatise already quoted (i. gives weighty reasons for distrusting’ the chron of Eusebius as regards the years of the early bi of Rome; and he derives his own opinion certain very ancient (but interpolated) lists of bishops (see i. 13 and ii. 5). This point has subsequently considered by Baraterius (De cessione Antiquissimd Episce. Rom. 1740), gives A. D. 56-67 as the date of the episcopa Linus. The statement of Ruffinus, that Linus and © were bishops in Rome whilst St. Peter was al has been quoted in support of a theory y sprang up in the 17th century, received the s tion even of Hammond in his controversy Blondel (Works, ed. 1684, iv. 825; Episco, Jura, v. 1, § 11), was held with some slight n fication by Baraterius, and has been recenth vived. It is supposed that Linus was bisho Rome only of the Christians of Gentile or while at the same time another bishop exer the same authority over the Jewish Christians #] Tertullian’s assertion (De Prescr. Heret, § that Clement [the third bishop] of Rome wag secrated by St. Peter, has been quoted als corroborating this theory. But it does not fo from the words of Tertullian that Clement’s” secration took place immediately before he bec bishop of Rome: and the statement of Ruff so far as it lends any support to the aboye-na theory, is shown to be without foundation by P son (ii. 38, 4). Tillemont’s observations (p. 59( reply to Pearson only show that the establishn of two contemporary bishops in one city was templated in ancient times as a possible provisi arrangement to meet certain temporary difficul The actual limitation of the authority of Li to a section of the church in Rome remains t proved. Linus is reckoned by Pseudo-Hippolytus, an the Greek Mena, among the seventy disci Various days are stated by different authoritie the Western Church, and by the Eastern Chu as the day of his death. A narrative of the n tyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, printed in Bibliotheca Patrum, and certain pontifical dect are incorrectly ascribed to Linus. He is said have written an account of the dispute between Peter and Simon Magus. W. TeB LION. Rabbinical writers discover in the 0 seven names of the lion, which they assign to animal at seven periods of its life. 1. a, g or 13, gor, a cub (Gen. xlix. 9; Deut. xxxiii. Jer. li. 388; Nah. ii. 12). 2. VDD, cephir, a you lion (Judg. xiv. 5; Job iv. 10; Ez. xix. 2, & for two contemporaneous abbots presiding in monastery ; and (3) by Rabanus Maurus (de Chorepi pis: Opp. ed. Migne, tom. iy. col. 1197), who ingeniot claims primitive authority for the institution of cht piscopi on the supposition that Linus and Cletus ¥ never bishops with full powers, but were contem raneous chorepiscopi employed by St. Peter in absence from Rome, and at his request, to ord clergymen for the church at Rome. | « LION WS ari, or TITS, arych, a full-grown lion 1. xlix. 9; Judg. xiv. 5, 8, &e.). 4. On, hal, a lion more advanced in age and strength viv. 10; Ps. xci. 13, &c.). 5. Vw, shachats, mn in full vigor (Job xxviii. 8). 6. SYD, or N22), lebiyyd, an old lion (Gen. xlix. 9; iy. 11, &ec.). 7. wird, laish, a lion decrepit ,age (Job iv. 11; Is. xxx, 6, &c.). Well might hart (Hieroz. pt. i. b. iii, 1) say, ** Hic gram- ici videntur mire sibi indulgere.” He differs ) this arrangement in every point but the nd. In the first place, gis is applied to the ng of other animals besides the lion; for in- ce, the sea-monsters in Lam. iv. 8. Secondly, ir differs from gir, as juvencus from vitulus. or «yeh is a generic term, applied to all lions jout regard to age. In Judg. xiv. the * young ” (cephir drdyéth) of ver. 5 is in ver. 8 called lion” (aryéh). Bochart -is palpably wrong endering shachal ‘a black lion” of the kind sh, according to Pliny (viii. 17), was found in ia. The word is only used in the poetical books, most probably expresses some attribute of the . It is connected with an Arabic root, which ifies “to bray’’ like an ass, and is therefore jly “the brayer.’”’ Shachats does not denote a at all. Ladi is properly a “lioness,” and is rected with the Coptic /abai, which has the @ signification. Laish (comp. Ais, Hom. Ji. 275) is another poetic name. So far from being ied to a lion weak with age, it denotes one in vigor (Job iv. 11; Prov. xxx. 30). It has 1 derived from an Arabic root, which signifies _be strong,’’ and, if this etymology be true, word would be an epithet of the lion, ‘“ the ag one.” t present lions do not exist in Palestine, though are said to be found in the desert on the to Egypt (Schwarz, Desc. of Pal.: see Is. 6). They abound on the banks of the Eu- les between Bussorah and Bagdad (Russell, Guy \) Bae V7 iy po, p. 61), and in the marshes and jungles the rivers of Babylonia (Layard, Nin. g Bab. (66). This species, according to Layard, is Vout the dark and shaggy mane of the African (id. p. 487), though he adds in a note that he 105 LION 1665 had seen lions on the river Karoon with a long black mane. But, though lions haye now disappeared from Palestine, they must in ancient times have been numerous. The names Lebaoth (Josh. xv. 32), Beth-Lebaoth (Josh. xix. 6), Arieh (2 K. xv. 25), and Laish (Judg. xviii. 7; 1 Sam. xxv. 44) were probably derived from the presence of or connection with lions, and point to the fact that they were at one time common. ‘They had their lairs in the forests which have vanished with them (Jer. v. 6, xii. 8; Am. iii. 4), in the tangled brushwood (Jer. iv. 7, xxv. 38; Job xxxviii. 40), and in the cave. of the mountains (Cant. iv. 8; Ez. xix. 9; Nah. ii. 12). The cane-brake on the banks of the Jor- dan, the “ pride’’ of the river, was their favorite haunt (Jer. xlix. 19, 1. 44; Zech. xi. 3), and in this reedy covert (Lam. iii. 10) they were to be found at a comparatively recent period; as we learn from a passage of Johannes Phocas, who travelled in Palestine towards the end of the 12th century (Reland, Pal. i. 274). They abounded in the jungles which skirt the rivers of Mesopotamia (Ammian. Mare. xviii. 7, § 5), and in the time of Xenophon (de Venat. xi.) were found in Nysa. (From specimen in Zodlogical Gardens.) Persian Lion. The lion of Palestine was in all probability the Asiatic variety, described by Aristotle (7. A. ix. 44) and Pliny (viii. 18) as distinguished by its short curly mane, and by being shorter and rounder in shape, like the sculptured lion found at Arban (Layard, Nin. g: Bab. p. 278). It was less daring than the longer maned species, but when driven by hunger it not only ventured to attack the flocks in the desert in presence of the shepherd (Is. xxxi. 4; 1 Sam. xvii. 34), but laid waste towns and villages (2 K. xvii. 25, 26; Prov. xxii. 13, xxvi. 13), and devoured men (1 K. xiii. 24, xx. 36; 2 K. xvii. 25; Ez. xix. 3,6). The shepherds sometimes ventured to encounter the lion single handed (1 Sam. xvii. 34), and the vivid figure employed by Amos (iii. 12), the herdsman of Tekoa, was but the transcript of a scene which he must have often witnessed. At other times they pursued the animal in large bands, raising loud shouts to intimidate him (Is. xxxi. 4), and drive him into the net or pit they had prepared to catch him (Ez. xix. 4,8). ‘This method of capturing wild beasts is described by Xenophon (de Ven. xi. 4) and by Shaw, who says, “ The Arabs dig a pit where they are observed to enter; and, covering it over lightly with reeds or small] branches of trees, they frequently decoy and catch them”? (Z'ravels, 2d ed. p. 172). Benaiah, one of David’s heroic body-guard, had distinguished him- 1666 LION self by slaying a lion in his den (2 Sam. xxiii. 20). The kings of Persia had a menagerie of lions (23, g0b, Dan. vi. 7, &c.). When captured alive they were put in a cage (Iz. xix. 9), but it does not appear that they were tamed. In the hunting scenes at Beni-Hassan tame lions are represented as used in hunting (Wilkinson, Anc. Hgypt. iii. 17). On the bas-reliefs at Kouyunjik a lion led by a chain is among the presents brought by the conquered to their victors (Layard, Nin. g Bab. p. 138). Hunting with a lion, which has seized an ibex. Wilkinson’s Egyptians, vol. i. p. 221.) (From The strength (Judg. xiv. 18; Prov. xxx. 30; 2 Sam. i. 23), courage (2 Sam. xvii. 10; Prov. xxviii. 1; Is. xxxi. 4; Nah. ii. 11), and ferocity (Gen. xlix. 9; Num. xxiv. 9) of the lion were proverbial. The ‘‘ lion-faced ’’ warriors of Gad were among David's most valiant troops (1 Chr. xii. 8); and the hero Judas Maccabeeus is described as “like a lion, and like a lion’s whelp roaring for his prey’ (1 Mace. iii.4). The terrible roar of the lion is expressed in Hebrew by four different words, between which the following distinction appears to be maintained: — IND), shdag (Judg. xiv. 5; Ps. xxii. 13, civ. 21; Am. iii. 4), also used of the thunder (Job xxxvii. 4), denotes the roar of the lion while seeking his prey; DiI, naham (Is. v. 29), expresses the ery which he utters when he seizes his victim; T1211, hagah (Is. xxxi. 4), the growl with which he defies any attempt to snatch the prey from his teeth; while “W3, nd’ar (Jer. li. 38), which in Syriac is applied to the braying of the ass and camel, is descriptive of the cry of the young lions. If this distinction be correct, the meaning attached to ndham will give force to Prov. xix. 12. The terms. which describe the movements of the animal are equally distinct : — V2, rabats (Gen. xlix. 9; Ez. xix. 2), is applied to the crouching of the lion, as well as of any wild beast, in his lair; TITTW, shachah, AW, ydshab es ara 8 (Job xxxviii. 40), and 2D&, drab (Ps. x. 9), to his lying in wait in his den, the two former denoting thé position of the animal, and the latter the secrecy of the act; Wi), ramas (Ps. civ. 20), is used of the stealthy creeping of the lion after his prey; and /?DT, zinnék (Deut. xxxiii. 22) of the leap with which he hurls himself upon it. The lion was the symbol of strength and sov- ereignty, as in the human-headed figures of the Nimroud gateway, the symbols of Nergal, the Assyrian Mars, and tutelary god of Babylon. In Egypt it was worshipped at the city of Leontopolis, as typical of Dom, the Egyptian Hercules (Wil- kinson, Anc. Egypt. vy. 169). \ Plutarch (de Jsid. § 38) says that the Egyptians ornamented their temples with gaping lions’ mouths, because the Nile began to rise when the sun was in the constellation LIZARD Leo. Among the Hebrews, and througho O. T., the lion was the achievement of the pi tribe of Judah, while in the closing book canon it received a deeper significance as f] blem of him who * prevailed to open the boc loose the seven:seals thereof ’’ (Rev. v. 5). ( other hand its fierceness and cruelty rende an appropriate metaphor for a fierce and mal enemy (Ps. vii. 2, xxii. 21, lvii. 4; 2 Tim. and hence for the arch-fiend himself (1 Pet. : The figure of the lion was employed as an ment both i in architecture and sculpture. O of the six steps leading up to the great ivory of Solomon stood two lions on either side, by the workmen of Hiram, and two other; beside the arms of the throne (1 K. x. If The great brazen laver was in like manner a with cherubim, lions, and palm-trees in | work (1 K. vii. 29, 36). W. A. * LIQUOR or LIQUORS. This occurs three times in the A. V. and in eve stance answers to a different Hebrew word. VDT, lit. tear, collect. singular in Ex. xx “Thou shalt not delay ¢o offer the first of th fruits, and of thy liquors.’ It is a semi expression for that which flows from the press, ly, wine and oil (as correctly given in the | amapxas GAwvos Kal Anvod cov). (2) properly wine that is mixed or spiced: “A goblet which wanteth not liquor’’ (Cant. 1 The marginal rendering (A. V.) is “mixture.” probably = 3JO%, Ps. Ixxv. 8 (where see Mt Die Psalmen, iii. 325). The Hebrews mixed with their wine for the purpose of giving it sti and flavor (see De Wette, Archwologie, § (3.) f mw, only Nura. vi. 3: “ Neither he (the. Nazarite) drink any liquor of gr Some suppose the word to denote maceratio “ steeping,’”’ and hence a species of strong wi tained from grapes by that particular process. ers make the word = ‘a crushing,’’ “ dissol hence applicable, in itself considered, to wi any sort, but here on account of the other con: specifications in the passage, the juice of ; recently broken or crushed, 7. €. new wine. Knobel, Die Biicher Numeri, ete. p. 26. 0 terms relating to wine see Rodiger in Ges. Th p. 1410. [WINE.] * LITTERS, Is. Ixvi. 20. [WaGon, . ed. | * LIVELY, employed for “living” in fi. B: «Ye also as lively stones (AlOor (4 are built up a spiritual house.”’ By the figure Christ himself is said in the previous to be “a living stone,” 7. e. in the spiritual of the church or gospel. His place is that corner-stone (comp. Eph. ii. 20), and believe built on him and into him. As the Greek same it should be rendered alike in both “ Lively” in Ex. i. 19 (for the adj. ys the Hebrew women) comes nearer to the p usage, namely, “full of life,’ vigorous hat Acts vii. 38). LIZ/ARD (TT, leta@h: Vat. and XaraBdrns' Compl. {with 13 MSS.] ao: Bédrns; Ald. xaraBdrns: stellio). The Hu word. which with its English rendering oceur LIZARD Ley. xi. 30, appears to be correctly translated the A. V. Some species of dizard is mentioned mgst those “creeping things that creep upon earth ’’ which were to be considered unclean by Israelites. izards of various kinds abound in Egypt, Pales- and Arabia; some of these are mentioned in Feet of Gecko. Bible under various Hebrew names, notices of ch will be found under other articles. [FER- 1; SNAIL.] All the old versions agree in iden- ing the letédh with some saurian, and some sur as to the particular genus indicated. The X., the Vulg., the Targ. of Jonathan,* with Arabic versions, understand a lizard by the wew word. The Syriac has a word which is rally translated salamander, but probably this ie was applied also to the zard. ‘The Greek J, with its slight variations, which the LXX. to express the le¢dédh, appears from what may ‘athered from Aristotle,’ and perhaps also from lerivation,¢ to point to some lizard belonging to ‘Geckoitde. Many members of this family of ra are characterized by a peculiar lamellated eture on the under surface of the toes, by means which they are enabled to run over the smooth- wurfaces, and even in an inverted position, like Se Wt lf Vd The Fan-Foot. (Ptyodactylus Gecko.) 2-flies on a ceiling. Mr. Broderip observes LIZARD 1067 that they can remain suspended beneath the large leaves of the tropical vegetation, and remain for hours in positions as extraordinary as the insects for which they watch; the wonderful apparatus with which their feet are furnished enabling then to overcome yravity. Now the Hebrew letddh appears to Le derived from a root which, though not extant in that language, is found in its sister- tongue the Arabic: this root means to adhere to the ground,? an expression which well agrees with the peculiar sucker-like properties of the feet of the geckos. Bochart has successfully argued that the lizard denoted by the Hebrew word is that kind which the Arabs call vachara, the translation of which term is thus given by Golius: “ An animal like a lizard, of a red color, and adhering to the ground, cibo potuive venenum inspirat quemcunque contiyerit. This description will be found to agree with the character of the Fan-Foot Lizard (Ptyo- dactylus Gecko), which is common in Egypt and in parts of Arabia, and perhaps is also found in Palestine. It is reddish brown, spotted with white.¢ Hasselquist thus speaks of it: “ The poison of this animal is very singular, as it exhales from the lobuli of the toes. At Cairo I had an opportunity of observing how acrid the exhalations of the toes of this animal are. As it ran over the hand of a man who was endeavoring to catch it, there immediately rose little red pustules over all those parts which the animal had touched”? (Voyages, p, 220). Forskal (Descr. Anim. p. 13) says that the Egyp tians call this lizard Abu burs, « father of leprosy,” in allusion to the leprous sores which contact with it produces; and to this day the same term is used by the Arabs to denote a lizard, probably of this same species. The geckos live on insects and worms, which they swallow whole. -They derive their name from the peculiar sound which some of the species utter. This sound has been described as being similar to the double click often used in riding; they make it by some movement of the jtongue against the palate. The Geckotide are sj( nocturnal in their habits, and frequent houses, cracks in rocks, ete. They move very rapidly, and without making the slightest sound; hence prob- ably the derivation of the Greek word for this lizard. They are found in all parts of the world; in the greatest abundance in warm climates. It is no doubt owing to their repulsive appearance that they have the character of being highly venomous, just as the unscientific in England attach similar properties to toads, newts, blind worms, etc. etc., although these creatures are perfectly harmless. At the same time it must be admitted that there may be species of lizards which do secrete a ven- omous fluid, the effects of which are no doubt aggravated by the heat of the climate, the un- healthy condition of the subject, or other causes. The geckos belong to the sub-order Puchyglosse, ; SI ONW, *t stellio, reptile immundum.” ‘She following are the references to the Greek word \aBarys in Aristot. de Anim. Hist. (ed. Schneider): '; $25 viii. 17, $1; viii. 19, § 2; viii. 28, § 2; « §5; ix. 10, § 2. That Aristotle understands : ‘Species of gecko by the Greek word is clear; for ys of the woodpecker, ropeveras émi tots Sévdpecy 'S Kal Urrrios Kaddmep of doxadaBarat (ix. 10, § 2). “ludes also to a species in Italy, perhaps the Herni- lus verrucatus, whose bite, he says, is fatal (?). \okadaBdrns, Swidcov éorxds cavpa év ToIs ToLxoLs oY Tov oiknuatwy, This seems to identify it with } « e : one of the Geckotide: perhaps the Tarentola was best known to the Greeks. The noiseless (novxws) and, at times, fixed habits of this lizard are referred to below (See Gaisf. Etym. Mag.) d See Ges. (Thes 8. v.). A similar roct has the force of * hiding ;*’ in which case the word will refer to the gecko’s habit of frequenting holes in walls, etc. e The Gr. agxadAaBwrys, and perhaps Lat. séel/to, indicate the genus, the red color the species. Sf o-= yl, abu burays, Lizard (Catafago, Arab. Dict.). 1668 LO-AMMI . LOCK pensable animals and utensils of agricultw also Mishna, MJaaser Sheni, i. 3. A creditor was forbidden to enter a hi reclaim a pledge, but was to stand outside - borrower should come forth to return it (Deu 10,41). 4. The original Roman law of debt per the debtor to be enslaved by his ereditor mi debt was discharged; and he might even be death by him, though this extremity does 1 pear to have been ever practiced (Gell. xx. 52; Dict. of It certainly is impr that the Jews should have had no name for the in its larva or nympha state, for they mus been quite familiar with the sight of such d ers of every green thing, the larve being ever destructive than the imago; perhaps some other nine names, all of which Bochart consi be the names of so many species, denote the in one or other of these conditions. The were evidently at a loss, for the translator: ‘- green worms,”’ in Am. vii. 1. Tychsen | identifies the géb with the Gryllus migra Linn., ‘qua vero ratione motus,’’ observes _ miller, “ non exponit.’’ (7.) Chandmal (I: éy TH TAX} j Kpver: im pruind ; “ frost”). Some writer: supposed that this word, which occurs only Ixxviii. 46, denotes some kind of locust (sé chart, Hieroz. iii. 255, ed. Rosenm.). Mr. Denham (in Kitto, s. v. Locust) is of a s opinion; but surely the concurrent testimony old versions, which interpret the word chandn signify had or frost, ought to forbid the conje We have already more locusts than it is poss identify; let chanadmdl, therefore, be underst denote haz or frost, as it is rendered by the and all the important old versions. (8.) Yelek (Ns: pls, Bpodxos: bre bruchus aculeatus, in Jer. li. 27: “ canker we ‘¢caterpillar’’) occurs in Ps. cv. 34; Nah. ii 16: Joel i. 4, ii. 25; Jer. li. 14, 27; it is ren by the A. V. canker worm in four of these _ and caterpillar in the two remaining. Fron epithet of “rough,” which is applied to the in Jeremiah, some have supposed the yelek the larva of some of the destructive Lepidop the epithet samar, however (Jer. li. 27), more erly means having spines, which agrees witl Vulgate, aculeatus. Michaelis (Suppl. p. | believes the yelek to be the cockchafer (Mayk Oedmann (ii. vi. 126) having in view this character, identifies the word with the Giyllus tatus, Linn., a species, however, which is f only in S. America, though Linneeus has errone given Arabia as a locality. Tychsen. arguing the epithet rowgh, believes that the yelek is r sented by the G. hematopus Linn. ( Callipt hemat. Aud. Sery.), a species found in S. Afri How purely conjectural are all these attem identification! for the term spined may refe1 to any particular species, but to the very spi nature of the. tibiz in all the locust tribe, yelek, the cropping, licking off insect (Num. 4), may bea synonym of some of the names ali mentioned, or the word may denote the lary pupz of the locust, which, from Joel i. 4, seem improbable, “ that which the locust (arbeh) left, hath the cankerworm (yelek) eaten,” afte winged arbeh had departed, the young larve o} same appeared and consumed the residue. passage in Nah. iii. 16, “the yelek spreadeth 6 Since the above was written it has been disco that Dr. Kitto (Pict. Bible, note on Nah. iii. 17) i similar opinion, that the gdb probably denote nympna. © PP), av. inus. 7)'29, &. g. D2, dina lambendo depavit (Ges. Thes, 8. Y.). | ; LOCUST * (margin) and fleeth away,” is no objection to opinion that the yedek may represent the larva nympha, for the same reason as was given in ormer part of this article (dd). 9.) Chasil (927). See CATERPILLAR. 10.) Tseldtsal (OEbs > épiadBn: rubigo: ust’). The derivation of this word seems to ly that some kind of locust is indicated by it. oceurs only in this sense in Deut. xxviii. 42, Il thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the lo- tconsume.’”’ In the other passages where the brew word occurs, it represents some kind of sling musical instrument, and is generally trans- d cymbals by the A. V. The word is evidently matopoetic, and is here perhaps a synonym for ie one of the other names for locust. Michaelis ppl. p. 2094) believes the word is identical with il, which he says denotes perhaps the mole- ket, Gryllus talpiformis, from the stridulous nd it produces. ‘I'ychsen (pp. 79, 80) identifies vith the Gryllus stridulus, Linn. (— Gtdipoda dula, Aud. Serv.). The notion conveyed by Hebrew word will however apply to almost any d of locust, and indeed to many kinds of insects; imilar word ¢s/salza, was applied by the Ethio- ns to a fly which the Arabs called zimb, which ears to be identical with the tsetse fly of Dr. ingstone and other African travellers. All that _be positively known respecting the tseldtsdl is, t it is some kind of insect injurious to trees and ps) The LXX. and Vulg. understand blight or dew by the word. The most destructive of the locust tribe that oc- ‘in the Bible lands are the (Huipoda migratoria, 1 the Acridium peregrinum, and as both these cies occur in Syria and Arabia, etc., it is most bable that one or other is denoted in those pas- es which speak of the dreadful devastations com- ited by these insects; nor is there any occasion believe with Bochart, Tychsen, and others, that e or ten distinct species are mentioned in the le. Some of the names may be synonyms; ers may indicate the larva or nympha con- ‘ons of the two preéminent devourers already aed. Acusts occur in great numbers, and sometimes cure the sun — Ex. x. 15; Jer. xlvi. 23; Judg. 5, Vii. 12; Joel ii. 10; Nah. iii. 15; Livy, xlii. |Mlian, N. A. iii. 12; Pliny, N. H. xi. 29; w’s Travels, p. 187 (fol. 2d ed.); Ludolf, Hist. htop. i. 13, and de Locustis, i. 4; Volney’s w. in Syria, i. 236. their voracity is alluded to in Ex. x. 12, 15; 14, 7,12, and ii. 8; Deut. xxviii. 38; Ps. ili. 46, ev. 34; Is. xxxiii. 4; Shaw’s Z’rav. , and travellers in the East, passim. they are compared to horses — Joel ii. 4; Rev. ix. | The Italians call the locust « Cavaletta;’”’ and says,“ Caput oblongum, equi instar prona ‘Omnia yero morsu erodentes, et fores quoque trum.) ; The locust-bird (see woodcut) referred to by trav- *'s, and which the Arabs call smurmur, is no doubt, 't Dr. Kitto’s description, the ‘rose-colored star- #\” Pastor roseus. The Rev. H.B Tristram saw one imen in the orange groves at Jaffa in the spring 358; but makes no allusion to its devouring locusts. + Kitto in one place (p. 410) says the locust-bird is tit the size of a starling ; in another place (p. 420), | ; jae LOCUST 1675 spectans.”” Comp. also the Arab’s description to Niebuhr, Descr. de l' Arabie. They make a fearful noise in their flight — Joel ii. 5; Rev. ix. 9. Forskal, Descr. 81, “transeuntes grylli super verticem nostrum sono magne cataract ferve- bant.”” Volney, Trav. i. 235. They have no king — Prov. xxx. 27; Kirby and Sp. Jnt. ii. 17. Their irresistible progress is referred to in Jow ii. 8,9; Shaw, Trav. p. 187. They enter dwellings, and devour even the wood- work of houses — Ex. x. 6; Joel ii. 9, 10; Pliny, N. H. xi. 29.4 They do not fly in the night— Nah. iii. 17; Niebuhr, Descr. de ? Arabie, p. 173. Birds devour them — Russel, Nat. Hist. of Alep- po, 127; Volney, Z'rav. i. 237; Kitto’s Phys. Hist. Pal. (p. 410).° eS) (ee Smurmur. Rose-colored Starling. (Pastor roseus.) The sea destroys the greater number — Ex. x. 19; Joel ii. 20; Pliny, xi. 35; Hasselq. 7’rav. p. 445 (Engl. transl. 1766); cf. also liad, xxi. 12. Their dead bodies taint the air — Joel ii. 20; Hasselq. Trav. p. 445. They are used as food — Lev. xi. 21, 22; Matt. iii. 4; Mark i. 6; Plin. NV. ZH. vi. 35, xi. 35; Diod. Sic. iii. 29 (the Acridophagi) ; Aristoph. Achar. 1116; Ludolf, ‘list. Avthiop. p. 67 (Gent’s transl.) 5; Jackson’s Marocco, p. 52; Niebuhr, Descr. de ? Ara- bie, p. 150; Sparman’s 7'’rav. i. 367, who says the Hottentots are glad when the locusts come, for they'fatten upon them; Hasselq. 7'rav. pp. 232, 419; Kirby and Spence, “ntom. i. 305. There are different ways of preparing locusts for food; sometimes they are ground and pounded, and then mixed with flour and water and made into cakes, or they are salted and then eaten; sometimes smoked; boiled or roasted; stewed, or fried in butter. Dr. Kitto (Pict. Bib. note on Lev. xi. 21), who tasted locusts, says they are more like shrimps than anything else; and an English clergy- man, some years ago, cooked some of the green grass- hoppers, Locusta viridissima, boiling them in water half an hour, throwing away the head, wings, and legs, and then sprinkling them with pepper and salt, he compares it in size toa swallow. The bird is about eight inches and a half in length. Yarrell (Brit Birds, ii. 51, 2d ed.) says, ** it is held sacred at Aleppe because it feeds on the locust ;”’ and Col. Sykes bears testimony to the immense flocks in which they fly. He says (Catalogue of Birds of Dakhan), “ they darken the air by their numbers forty or fifty have been killed at a shot.’? But he says, * they prove a calamity to the husbandman, as they are as destructive as locusts, and not much less numerous.” 1674 LOCUST and adding Lutter; he found them excellent. How - strange then, nay, “ how idle,’’ to quote the words of Kirby and Spence (/ntom. i. 305), “was the controversy concerning the locusts which formed part of the sustenance of John the Baptist, ... . and how apt even learned men are to perplex a plain question from ignorance of the customs of other countries! ’’ 4 The following are some of the works which treat of locusts: Ludolf, Dissertatio de Locustis, Fran- cof. ad Mcen. 1694. his author believes that the quails which fed the Israelites in the wilderness were locusts (vid. his Diatriba qua sententia nova de Selavis, sive Locustis, defenditur). A more ab- surd opinion was that held by Norrelius, who main- tained that the four names of Ley.. xi. 22 were birds (see his Schediasma de Avibus sacris, Arbeh, Chagab, Solum, et Chargol, in Bib. Brem. Cl. iii. p. 36). Faber, de Locustis Biblicis, et sigillatim de Avibus Quadrupedibus, ex Lev. xi. 20, Wittenb. 1710-11. Asso’s Abhandlung von den Heuschrecken, Rostock, 1787; and Tychsen’s Comment. de Lo- custis. Oedmann'’s Vermischte Sammlungen, ii. ¢. vii. Kirby and Spence’s Jntrod. to Entomology, i 305, ete. Bochart’s Hverozoicon, iii. 251, ete. ed. Rosenmiill. Kitto’s Phys. History of Palestine, pp. 419, 420. Kitto’s Pictorial Bible, see Index, “ Locust.’ Dr. Harris’s Natural History of the Bible, art. ‘ Locust,” 1833.. Kitto’s Cyclopedia, arts. ‘ Locust,’’ “* Chesil,’ ete. Harmer’s Odserva- tions, London, 1797. The travels of Shaw, Russell, Hasselquist, Volney, etc., etc. Fora systematic de- scription of the Orthoptera, see Serville’s JMono- graph in the Suites a Buffon, and Fischer's Orthop- tera Europea; and for an excellent summary, see Winer’s Jtealwérterbuch, i. 574, art. ‘¢ Heu- schrecken.’’ For the locusts of St. John, Mr. Den- ham refers to Suicer’s Thesaurus, i. 169, 179, and Gutherr, de Victu Johannis, Franc. 1785; and for the symbolical locusts of Rev. ix., to Newton On Proph- ecies, and Woodhouse On the Apocalypse.? W. H. * On the subject of locusts the reader may see also Tristram, Nat. Hist. of the Bible, pp. 806-318 (Lond. 1867); the art. Heuschrecke, by Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Real-Lncyk. vi. 68-71; and Rawlin- son's Ancient Monarchies, iii. 63 f., 316, and iv. 79. This last writer’s description of their ravages in Kurdistan and Southern Media at the present day reads almost as if translated from Joel (i. and ii.): “© The destructive locust (the Acridium peregri- num, probably) comes suddenly . . . in clouds that obscure the air, moving with a slow and steady flight, and with a sound like that of heavy rain, and settling in myriads on the fields, the gardens, the trees, the terraces of the houses, and even the streets, which they sometimes cover completely. a There are people at this day who gravely assert that the locusts which formed part of the food of the Baptist were not the insect of that name, but the long sweet pods of the locust-tree ( Ceratonia siliqua), Johan- misbrodt, ‘St. John’s bread,”? as the monks of Pales tine call it. For other equally erroneous explanations, or unauthorized alterations, of axpides, see Celsii Hierob. i. 74. 6 For the judgment of locusts referred to in the prophet Joel, see Dr. Pusey’s “ Introduction ” to that book. This writer maintains that the prophet, under the figure of the locust, foretold ««a judgment far greater, an enemy far mightier than the locust” (p. 09), namely, the Assyrian invasion of. Palestine, be- LO-DEBAR 3 Where they fall, vegetation presently disappes the leaves and even the stems of the plants devoured; the labors of the husbandman thro many a weary month perish in a day; and the ex of famine is brought upon the land which © now enjoyed the prospect of an abundant hary, It is true that the devourers are themselves voured to some extent by the poorer sort of peo, but the compensation is slight and temporary; a few days, when all verdure is gone, either swarms move to fresh pastures, or they perish ; cover the fields with their dead bodies, while desolation which they have created continue (vol. iii. p. 63 f.). For other sources of informat see under JOEL (Amer. ed.). H LOD (q [perh. strife, quarrel: Re Add, Aodadi, Aodadid;] Vat. Aodapw6, Aodal both by inclusion of the following name; [it Chr., omits;] Alex. [Aod, in Neh. vii. Aodad: in Ezra, Avddwy Aodadid; [in Neh. xi. 35, Re Vat. Alex. FA.1 omit, FA.8 Avdda:] Lod), ate of Benjamin, stated to have been founded by Shan or Shamer (1 Chr. viii. 12). It is always mentio in connection with Ono, and, with the except of the passage just quoted, in the post-captiy records only. It would appear that after the bot daries of Benjamin, as given in the book of Josh were settled, that enterprising tribe extended its further westward, into the rich plain of Shar between the central hills and the sea, and oceup or founded the towns of Lod, Ono, Hadid, and o ers named only in the later lists. The people longing to the three places just mentioned retur from Babylon to the number of 725 (Ezr. ii. | Neh. vii. 37), and again took possession of th former habitations (Neh. xi. 35). Lod has retained its name almost unaltered the present day; it is now called Ladd ; but is m familiar to us from its occurrence in its Gr garb, as LyDDA, in the Acts of the Apostles. ( LO-DEBAR (727 493 but in xvii 4 ® zi ND: n AadaBdp [2], AwdaBdp: Lodabar) place named with Mahanaim, Rogelim, and ot! trans-Jordanic towns (2 Sam. xvii. 27), and the fore no doubt on the eastern side of the Jord: It was the native place of Machir ben-Ammiel, whose house Mephibosheth found a home after 1 death of his father and the ruin of his grandfathe house (ix. 4, 5). Lo-debar receives a bare menti in the Onomasticon, nor has any trace of the na been encountered by any later traveller. Indeed has probably never been sought for. Reland (P 734) conjectures that it is intended in Josh. x 26, where the word rendered in the A. V. “of I bir” (2279), is the same in its consonants cause Joel calls the seourge the “ northern arm, which Dr. Pusey says cannot be said of the locu: because almost always by a sort of law of their be: they make their inroads from their birthplace in ' south. This one point, however, may be fairly qu tioned. The usual direction of the flight of t insect is from east to west, or from south to nort but the Gidipoda migratoria is believed to have birthplace in Tartary (Serv. Orthop. p. 188), # whence it visits Africa, the Mauritius, and part of | South of Europe. If this species be considered to the locust of Joel, the expression, northern arrvy, is m applicable to it. [JoEL, p. 1417, note a.] . LODGE lebar, though with different vowel-points. In tof this conjecture, which is adopted by J. D. aaelis (Bib. fiir Ungel.), is the fact that such a of the preposition 2 is exceedingly rare (see , Josua ad loc.). taken as a Hebrew word, the root of the name gssibly ‘‘pasture,’’ the driving out of flocks . Thes. p. 735 6; Stanley, S. ¢ P. App. § 9); this must be very uncertain. G LODGE. ([Cucumsrers, vol. i. p. 518.] ODGE, TO. This word in the A. V.— ‘one exception only, to be noticed below — is to translate the Hebrew verb > or “bees h has, at least in the narrative portions of the @, almost invariably the force of “ passing night.” ‘This is worthy of remark, because the | lodge — probably only another form of the m liggan, * to lie’? — does not appear to have exclusively that force in other English litera- at the time the Authorized Version was made. w examples of its occurrence, where the mean- f passing the night would not at first sight est itself to an English reader, may be of ser- Seer xix, 9: 1 Chr. ix. 27; Is. x. 29 re it marks the halt of the Assyrian army for fae); Neh. iv. 22, xiii. 20, 21; Cant. vii. 11; xxiv. 7, xxxi. 32, &c., &c. The same Hebrew [is otherwise translated in the A. V. by “lie ight’ (2 Sam. xii. 16; Cant. i. 13; Job xxix. “tarry the night’? (Gen. xix. 2; Judg. xix. Jer. xiv. 2); ‘¢ remain,” z. e. until the morn- Ex. xxiii. 18). he force of passing the night is also present in ° words 720, “a sleeping-place,’’ hence an [vol. ii. p. 1138], and 21779, ‘a hut,’ erect- vineyards or fruit-gardens for the shelter of a who watched all night to protect the fruit. is rendered “lodge”? in Is. i. 8, and “ cot- "in xxiv. 20, the only two passages @ in which found. [Corracr, Amer. ed.] ‘The one exception above named occurs in + li. 1, where the word in the original is 8, a word elsewhere rendered “to lie,’ gen- 7 in allusion to sexual intercourse. G. OFT. [Houvss, vol. ii. p. 1105.] OG. [Weicuts AND MEASURES.] LOG OF OIL. [0t1, 6, iii.] ‘LOGOS. [Worp, Amer. ed.] IIS (Awis), the ‘grandmother (uduun) of *THY, and doubtless the mother of his mother ‘CE (2 Tim. i. 5). From the Greek form of three names we should naturally infer that the yhad been Hellenistic for three generations st. It seems likely also that Lois had resided at Lystra; and almost certain that from her, Alas from Eunice, Timothy obtained his inti- ‘knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures (2 Tim. »). Whether she was surviving at either of /aul’s visits to Lystra, we cannot say; she is lluded to in the Acts: nor is it absolutely cer- though St. Paul speaks of her “ faith,” that Mecame a Christian. The phrase might be That can have led the LXX. to translate the word ' €heaps,” in Ps. Ixxix. 1, by omwpodvaAdkiov, LORD 167? used of a pious Jewess, who was ready to believe in the Messiah. Calvin has a good note on this subject. J: Ss cs * LOOKED (rpoceddénwv), Acts xxviii. 6, where we should say at present “expected”? or ‘looked for.”’ This sense, if not obsolete, is now obsolescent. Earlier versions (Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva) have “ wayted”’ in that passage. See also Ecclus. xx. 14. R. LOOKING-GLASSES. [Mirrors.] LORD, as applied to the Deity, is the almost uniform rendering in the A. V. of the O. T. of the Heb. MTT, Jehovah, which would be more properly represented as a proper name. The rev- erence which the Jews entertained for the sacred name of God forbade them to pronounce it, and in reading they substituted for it either Adéndi, “Lord,” or Elohim, “ God,’ according to the vowel-points by which it was accompanied. [J E- HOVAH, vol. ii. p. 1238.] This custom is observed in the version of the LX X., where Jehovah is most commonly translated by «upios, as in the N. 7. (Heb. i. 10, &.), and in the Vulgate, where Dom- mus isthe usual equivalent. The title Adéndi is also rendered “Lord” in the A. V., though this, as applied to God, is of infrequent occurrence in the historical books. For instance, it is found in Genesis only in xv. 2, 8, xviii. 3 (where “my Lord” should be “O Lord’’), 27, 30, 31, 32, xx. 4; once in Num. xiv. 17; twice in Deut. iii. 24, ix. 26; twice in Josh. vii. 7, 8; four times in Judges; andsoon. In other passages of these books “ Lord” is the transla- tion of “ Jehovah; ’’ except Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23; Deut. x. 17; Josh. iii. 11, 13, where ddén is so ren- dered. But in the poetical and historical books it is more frequent, excepting Job, where it occurs only in xxvili. 28, and the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, where it is not once found. The difference between Jehovah and Adonai (or Adon) is generally marked in the A. V. by printing the word in small capitals (LORD) when it repre- sents the former (Gen. xy. 4, &c.), and with an ini- tial capital only when it is the translation of the latter (Ps. xevii. 5; Is. i. 24, x. 16); except in Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23, where “the Lorp God ” should be more consistently “the Lord Jehovah.’ A similar distinction prevails between mn. (the letters of Jehovah with the vowel-points of Llohim) and ois, elohim ; the former being repre- sented in the A. V. by “Gop” in small capitals (Gen. xv. 2, &e.), while Elohim is “God” with an initial capital only. And, generally, when the name of the Deity is printed in capitals, it indi- eates that the corresponding Hebrew is TW, which is translated Lorv or Gop according to the vowel-points by which it is accompanied. In some instances it is difficult, on account of the pause accent, to say whether Adonai is the title of the Deity, or merely one of respect addressed to men. These have been noticed by the Masorites, who distinguish the former in their notes as “holy,” and the latter as “profane.” (See Gen. xviii. 3, xix. 2, 18; and compare the Masoretic notes on Gen. xx. 13, Is. xix. 4.) Wea. Wi which they employ for maby in the above twu passages, the writer is unable to conjecture. 1676 LORD'S DAY, THE LORD'S DAY, THE (H xupiakh tuépa; n bia oaBBarwy). It has been questioned, though not seriously until of late years, what is the mean- ing of the phrase 7 Kupiaxy ‘Huépa, which occurs in one passage only of the-Holy Scripture, Rev. i. 10, and is, in our English version, translated ‘ the Lord’s Day.’’ The general consent both of Chris- tian antiquity and of modern divines has referred it to the weekly festival of our Lord’s resurrection, and identified it with “ the first day of the week,” on which He rose, with the patristical “ eighth day,”’ or “day which is both the first and the eighth,”’ in fact, with the 4 Tod ‘HAltou ‘Huépa,”’ “Solis Dies,*’ or ‘ Sunday,’”’ of every age of the Church. But the views antagonistic to this general consent deserve at least a passing notice. (1.) Some have supposed St. John to be speaking, in the passage above referred to, of the Sabbath, .because that institution is called in Isaiah lviii. 18, by the Almighty Himself, «My holy day.”?@ To this it is replied — If St. John had intended to specify the Sabbath, he would surely have used that. word which was by no means obsolete, or even obso- lescent, at the time of his composing the book of the Revelation. And it is added, that if an Apostle had set the example of confounding the seventh and the first days of the week, it would have been strange indeed that every ecclesiastical writer for the first five centuries should have avoided any approach to such confusion. They do avoid it — for as Sad8Barov is never used by them for the first day, so Kupiaky is never used by them for the seventh day. (2.) Another theory is, that by “the Lord’s day ’’ St. John intended “ the day of judgment,’’ to which a large portion of the book of Revelation may be conceived to refer.’ Thus ‘1 was in the spirit on the Lord’s day” (éyevd- bnv ev mvevpart év TH Kupiaxh “Huepa) would imply that he was rapt, in spiritual vision, to the date of that “great and terrible day,’”’ just as St. Paul represents himself as caught up locally into Paradise. Now, not to dispute the interpretation of the passage from which, the illustration is drawn (2 Cor. xii. 4), the abettors of this view seem to have put out of sight the following considerations. In the preceding sentence, St. John had mentioned the place in which he was writing, Patmos, and the causes which had brought him thither. It is but natural that he should further particularize the circumstances under which his mysterious work was composed, by stating the exact day on which the Revelations were communicated to him, and the employment, spiritual musing, in which he was then engaged. ‘lo suppose a mixture of the meta- phorical and the literal would be strangely out of keeping. And though it be conceded that the day of judgment is in the New Testament spoken of as ‘H rod Kuplov ‘Huépa, the employment of the adjectival form constitutes a remarkable difference, which was observed and maintained ever after- wards.o There is also a critical objection to this eo wID Bt, oH ‘Hudpa tov Kupiov occurs in 1 Cor. i. 8, and 2 Thess. ii. 2, with the words yuayv *Incod Xpratod at- tached; in 1 Cor. v. 5, and 2 Cor. i. 14, with the word Tyood only attached ; and in 1 Thess. v. 2, and 2 Pet. lii. 10, with the article rod omitted. In one place, where both the day of judgment, and, as a foreshadow- ‘ng of it, the day of vengeance upon Jerusalem, seem zo be alluded to, the Lord himself says, otrws éotat . ae LORD’S DAY, THE interpretation.¢ This second theory then, whic sanctioned by the name of Augusti, must be ak doned. (3.) A third opinion is, that St. John tended by the “ Lord’s Day” that on which Lord’s resurrection was annually celebrated, or we now term it, Easter-day. On this it need « be observed, that, though it was never questio that the weekly celebration of that event she take place on the first day of the hebdomadal ey it was for a long time doubted on what day in annual cycle it should be celebrated. Two seh at least existed on this point until considerably a the death of St. John. It therefore seems unlil that, in a book intended for the whole Chureh, would have employed a method of dating wl was far from generally agreed upon. And iti be added that no patristical authority can be quo either for the interpretation contended for in~ opinion, or for the employment of 7 Kupi ‘Huépa to denote Easter-day. E ; All other conjectures upon this point may permitted to confute themselves; but the folloy cavil is too curious to be omitted. In Seript the first day of the week is called 7 pula cap twy, in post-Scriptural writers it is called 4 piaky ‘Huépa as well; therefore, the book of R lation is not to be ascribed to an Apostle; o1 other words, is not part of Scripture. ‘The k of this argument is only to be surpassed by boldness. It says, in effect, because post-Seript writers have these two designations for the - day of the week; therefore, Scriptural writers n be confined to one of them. It were surely n reasonable to suppose that the adoption by p Scriptural writers of a phrase so preémine Christian as 7» Kupiaxh ‘Hepa to denote the day of the week, and a day so especially marl can be traceable to nothing else than an Aposi use of that phrase in the same meaning. Supposing then that 7 Kupiax) ‘Hyépa of John is the Lord’s Day, — What do we gather f Holy Scripture concerning that institution? f is it spoken of by early writers up to the time Constantine? What change, if any, was brov upon it by the celebrated edict of that empe whom some have declared to have been its 01 nator ? 1. Scripture says very little concerning it. _ that little seems to indicate that the divinely spired Apostles, by their practice and by their) cepts, marked the first day of the week as a for meeting together to break bread, for comm eating and receiving instruction, for laying up 0 ings in store for charitable purposes, for oceupa in holy thought and prayer. ‘he first day of week so devoted seems also to have been the of the Lord’s Resurrection, and therefore, to ! been especially likely to be chosen for such purp by those who “preached Jesus and the Resur tion.” The Lord rose on the first day of the week MiG caBBdtTwy), and appeared, on the very da) kai 6 vids Tod avOpwrov év TH Hmepa avTOd, Luke: 24. . ¢ *Eyevdunv would necessarily have to be beanie with év qudpe, “I was in the day of judgment, T was passing the day of judgment spiritually. yivecOor év nuépa is never used for diem age. on the other hand, the construction of éyevouny | év rvevmare is justified by a parallel passage in 1 iv. 2, kai <)O we eyevouny ev mvEvMaTL. oH sf LORD'S DAY, THE - LORD'S DAY, THE 1677 ising, to his followers on five distinct occa-| other days may be, and are, defensible on other _— to Mary Magdalene, to the other women, to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, to St. r separately, to ten Apostles collected together. r eight days (ue quéepas oxTd), that is, ac- ng to the ordinary reckoning, on the first day 1e next week, He appeared to the eleven. He not seem to have appeared in the interval — it be to render that day especially noticeable by Apostles, or, it may be for other reasons. But, wer this question be settled, on the day of ecost, which in that year fell on the first day ve week (see Bramhall, Disc. of the Sabhath Lord's Day, in Works, vol. y. p. 51, Oxford on), “they were all with one accord in one ,” had spiritual gifts conferred on them, and ir turn began to communicate those gifts, as mpaniments of instruction, to others. At ‘l'roas sxx. 7), many years after the occurrence at ecost, when Christianity had begun to assume thing like a settled form, St. Luke records the wing circumstances. St. Paul and his com- ons arrived there, and ‘abode seven days, and | the first day of the week, when the disciples 2 together to break bread, Paul preached unto & In 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2, that same St. Paul ag thus: ‘‘ Now concerning the collection for jaints, as I have given order to the churches in tia, even so do ye. » Upon the first day of the , let every one of you lay by him in store, as hath prospered him, that there be no gather- when I[ come.” In Heb. x. 25, the corre- dents of the writer are desired “ not to forsake wssembling of themselves together, as the man- of some is, but to exhort one another,” an 1etion which seems to imply that a regular for such assembling existed, and was well mj; for otherwise no rebuke would lie. And y, in the passage given above, St. John de- es himself as being in the Spirit “on the ’s day.” iken separately, perhaps, and even all together, } passa: seem scarcely adequate to prove that ledicat sn of the first day of the week to the ses above mentioned was a matter of apostolic fution, or even of apostolic practice. But, it ‘be observed, that it is at any rate an extraor- ‘y coincidence, that almost immediately we ge from Scripture, we find the same day men- in a similar manner, and directly associated the Lord’s Resurrection; that it is an extraor- ‘y fact that we never find its dedication tioned or argued about, but accepted as some- $ equally apostolic with Confirmation, with nt Baptism, with Ordination, or at least spoken _the same way. And as to direct support Holy Scripture, it is noticeable that those ‘ordinances which are usually considered Scrip- , and in support of which Scripture is usually » are dependent, so far as mere quotation is ned, upon fewer texts than the Lord’s Day is. ‘ng the case at the very lowest, the Lord’s Day t least “ probable insinuations in Scripture,” @ 180 is superior to any other holy day, whether bdomadal celebration, as Friday in memory of Jrucifixion, or of annual celebration, as Easter- ‘n memory of the Resurrection itself. These | his phrase is employed by Bishop Sanderson. youey Thy Nu€pav Thy byddnv cis eippoadyyny, év 0 ‘Ingots avéory éx vexpav. grounds; but they do not possess anything like a Scriptural authority for their observance. And if we are inclined still to press for more pertinen\ Scriptural proof, and more frequent mention of the institution, for such we suppose it to be, in the writings of the Apostles, we must recollect how little is said of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and how vast a difference is naturally to be ex~ pected to exist between a sketch of the manners and habits of their age, which the authors of the Holy Scriptures did not write, and hints as to life and conduct, and regulation of known practices, which they did write. 2. On quitting the canonical writings, we turn naturally to Clement of Rome. He does not, how- ever, directly mention “the Lord’s Day,” but in 1 Cor. i. 40, he says, wdvru rater moveiv obelAouer, and he speaks of dpicuévor Katpol kal dpa, at which the Christian mpoapopal Kah Aertoupylas should be made. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John (ad Magn. ec. 9), contrasts Judaism and Christianity, and as an exemplification of the contrast, opposes gaBBari- (ev to living according to the Lord’s life (card Thy Kupiakhy Gwhv Covrtes)- The epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas, which, though certainly not written by that Apostle, was in existence in the earlier part of the 2d century, has (c. 15) the following words, “ We celebrate the eighth day with joy, on which too Jesus rose from the dead.’’® A pagan document now comes into view. It is the well-known letter of Pliny to Trajan, written while he presided over Pontus and Bithynia. ‘The Christians (says he), attrm the whole of their guilt or error to be, that they were accustomed to meet together on a stated day (stato die), before it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ as a God, and to bind themselves by a Sacramentum, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery; never to break their word, or to refuse, when called upon, to deliver up any trust; after which it was their custom to separate, and to as- semble again to take a meal, but a general one, and without guilty purpose.”’ A thoroughly Christian authority, Justin Martyr, who flourished A. D. 140, stands next on the list. He writes thus: “On the day called Sunday (74 Tov 7Alov Aeyomevn NEPA), is an assembly of all who live either in the cities or in the rural districts, and the memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the prophets are read.’’ Then he goes on to de- scribe the particulars of the religious acts which are entered upon at this assembly. They consist of prayer, of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and of collection of alms. He afterwards assigns the reasons which Christians had for meeting on Sunday. These are, “ because it is the /’i7'st Day, on which God dispelled the darkness (rd oxdTos) and the original state of things (ryyv #Anyv), and formed the world, and because Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead upon it” (Apol. I. ¢. 67.). In another work (Dial. c. Tryph.), he makes cir- cumcision furnish a type of Sunday. ‘The com- mand to circumcise infants on the eighth day was a type of the true circumcision by which we are circumcised from error and wickedness through our Lord Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead on the first day of the week (77 mG caBBarwr); therefore it remains the chief and first of days.” As for gaBBariew, he uses that with exclusive 1678 LORD'S DAY, THE reference to the Jewish law. He carefully dis- tinguishes Saturday (4% kpoviky), the day after which our Lord was crucified, from Sunday (7 ueTa THY KpowHKyy Hris éeortv H Tod “HAlov népa), upon which He rose from the dead. (If any surprise is felt at Justin’s employment of the heathen designations for the seventh and first days of the week, it may be accounted for thus. Before the death of Hadrian, A. D. 138, the hebdomadal division (which Dion Cassius, writing in the 3d century, derives, together with its nomenclature, from Egypt) had in matters of common life almost universally superseded in Greece, and even in Italy, the national divisions of the lunar month. Justin Martyr, writing to and for heathen, as well as to and for Jews, employs it, therefore, with a certainty of being understood.) The strange heretic, Bardesanes, who however delighted to consider himself a sort of Christian, has the following words in his book on “ Fate,” or on ‘‘the Laws of the Countries,’’ which he addressed to the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus: ‘ What then shall we say respecting the new race of our- selves who are Christians, whom in every country and in every region the Messiah established at his coming; for, lo! wherever we be, all of us are called by the one name of the Messiah, Christians; and upon one day, which is the first of the week, we assemble ourselves together, and on the appointed days we abstain from food ’’ (Cureton’s 7?ansla- tion). Two very short notices stand next on our list, but they are important from their casual and un- studied character. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, A. D. 170, in a letter to the Church of Rome, a fragment of which is preserved by Eusebius, says, THY ohuepov ody Kupiakhy aylay Huépay Sinya-yo- Mev, ev 7 aveyvwmey buoy Thy emotoAnv. And Melito, bishop of Sardis, his contemporary, is stated to have composed, among other works, a treatise on the Lord’s Day (6 wep) rijs Kuptakns Adyos): The next writer who may be quoted is Irenzus, bishop of Lyons, A. p. 178. He asserts that the Sabbath is abolished; but his evidence to the ex- istence of the Lord’s Day is clear and distinct. It is spoken of in one of the best known of his Frag- ments (see Beaven’s /reneus, p. 202). But a record in Euseb. (v. 23, 2), of the part which he took in the Quartodeciman controversy, shows that in his time it was an institution beyond dispute. The point in question was this: Should Easter be celebrated in connection with the Jewish Passover, on whatever day of the week that might happen to fall, with the Churches of Asia Minor, Syria, and Mesopotamia; or on the Lord’s Day, with the rest of the Christian-world? The Churches of Gaul, then under the superintendence of Jrenzeus, agreed upon a synodical epistle to Victor, bishop of Rome, in which occurred words somewhat to this effect, * The mystery of the Lord’s Resurrection may not be celebrated on any other day than the Lord’s Day, and on this alone should we observe the breaking off of the Paschal Fast.’?@ This confirms what was said above, that while, even towards the end of the 2d century, tradition varied as to the yearly & ‘Qs av pnd’ ev dAAQ Tote THS Kupranys nuepa 7d 77s Ek VeKp@V avagTacews emiTéAOLTO TOU Kupiov muaTnpLov, cal Omws ev THITY MOVY TOY KATA TO TdTXA VHTTELOV bvAatroipeba Tas emLAvaELs, b Obros évroAny THY Kata 7d evayyédiov Scampaga- wevos, Kupianyv thy nucpay moet, OT av amroBddAg LORD'S DAY, THE celebration of Christ’s Resurrection, the we celebration of it was one upon which no diver existed or was even hinted at. Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, comes n One does not expect anything very definite fro writer of so mystical atendency, but he has 5 things quite to our purpose. In his Strom. § 3), he speaks of thy apxtyovoy iuépav, Typ byrt avdravow mov, Thy by Kal rpdTny TE. gwrds yéveowv, k.7.A., words which Bishop I interprets as contrasting the seventh day of the | with the eighth day of the Gospel. And, as same learned prelate observes, “‘ When Clen says that the Gnostic, or transcendental Christ does not pray in any fixed place, or on any st: days, but throughout his whole life, he gives u understand that Christians in general did r together in fixed places and at appointed times the purposes of prayer.”” But we are not lef mere inference on this important point, for Clen speaks of the Lord’s Day as a well-known and | tomary festival, and in one place gives a mys interpretation of the name.® Tertullian, whose date is assignable to the ¢ of the 2d century, may, in spite of his conyer, to Montanism, be quoted as a witness to fe He terms the first day of the week someti Sunday (Dies Solis), sometimes Dies Domini He speaks of it as a day of joy (* Diem Solis let indulgemus,’’ Apol. ¢. 16), and asserts that i wrong to fast upon it, or to pray kneeling du its continuance (“Die Dominico jejunium n ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare,” De Cor. ¢. « Even business is to be put off, lest we give p to the devil’’ (“ Differentes etiam negotia, ne q Diabolo locum demus,’’ De Orat. e. 18). Origen contends that the Lord’s Day had its periority to the Sabbath indicated by manna | ing been given on it to the Israelites, while it withheld on the Sabbath. It is one of the m: of the perfect Christian to keep the Lord’s Daj Minucius Felix, A. p. 210, makes the heat interlocutor, in his dialogue called Octavius, as that the Christians come together to a repast a solemn day ”’ (solenni die). Cyprian and his colleagues, in a synodical let A. D. 253, make the Jewish circumcision on eighth day prefigure the newness of life of Christian, to which Christ’s resurrection introd him, and point to the Lord’s Day, which is at¢ the eighth and the first. Commodian, cire. A. D. 270, mentions the Lo Day. Victorinus, A. D. 290, contrasts it, in a 1 remarkable passage, with the Parasceye and Sabbath ; And Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 300, of it, “ We keep the Lord’s Day as a day of because of Him who rose thereon.”? © The results of our examination of the prince writers of the two centuries after the death of John are as follows: The Lord’s Day (@ 0 which has now come out more prominently, an connected more explicitly with our Lord’s re rection than before) existed during these two ee paddrov vonua Kal yrwotiKdy mpogAdBn, THY év avTa Kupiov avdaracw dofdgwv (Strom. Y,). c Thy yap Kuptakhy xapmoovrns hucpay ayopers Tov dvaotdvra év adrij, ev f} odds yovaTa KALE Me Ajdaper. LORD’S DAY, THE g as a part and parcel of apostolical, and so of ptural Christianity. It was never defended, for ag never impugned, or at least only impugned ther things received from the Apostles were. vas never confounded with the Sabbath, but fully distinguished from it (though we have quoted nearly all the passages by which this t might be proved). It was not an institution eyere Sabbatical character, but a day of joy puocuv” ) and cheerfulness (evppoavvy), rather yuraging than forbidding relaxation. Relig- ly regarded, it was a day of solemn meeting for Holy Eucharist, for united prayer, for instruc- , for alnisgiving; and though, being an institu- ‘under the law of liberty, work does not appear ave been formally interdicted, or rest formally ined, ‘Tertullian seems to indicate that the char- r of the day was opposed to worldly business. ally, whatever analogy may be supposed to exist veen the Lord's Day and the Sabbath, in no gage that has come down to us is the Fourth amandment appealed to as the ground of the gation to observe the Lord’s Day. Ecclesias- ] writers reiterate again and again, in the etest sense of the words, ‘ Let no man therefore ye you in respect of an holiday, or of the new mn, or of the sabbath days’? (Mf Tis buas Kpi- w év wépet EopTis, 7) vovunvias, 7) caBBitwv, . ii. 16). Nor, again, is it referred to any batical foundation anterior to the promulgation the Mosaic economy. On the contrary, those yre the Mosaic era are constantly assumed to had neither knowledge nor observance of the ybath. And as little is it anywhere asserted t the Lord’s Day is merely an ecclesiastical insti- ion, dependent on the post-apostolic Church for origin, and by consequence capable of being ie away, should a time ever arrive when it ap- ws to be no longer needed. Our design does not necessarily lead us to do re than state facts; but if the facts be allowed speak for themselves, they indicate that the rd’s Day is a purely Christian institution, sanc- ned by apostolic practice, mentioned in apostolic itings, and so possessed of whatever divine au- wity all apostolic ordinances and doctrines (which re not obviously temporary, or were not abro- ted by the Apostles themselves) can be supposed possess. 3. But on whatever grounds “the Lord's Day ” iy be supposed to rest, it is a great and indis- table fact that four years before the Cicumenical uncil of Nica, it was recognized by Constan- ie in his celebrated edict, as ‘* the venerable Day ‘the Sun.” The terms of the document are pse : — tt Imperator Constantinus Aug. Helpidio. © Omnes judices urbanzeque plebes et cunctarum ar- (m officia venerabili Die Solis quiescant. Ruri tamen siti agrorum culture liberé licenterque inserviant, ‘oniam frequenter evenit ut non aptius alio die fru- a @Thv kvpiaxyy Kadoupévyy nucpav, Av ‘EBpatoe Tyv Ths éBSoudd5os Ovoudgovow, "EAAyves 5é tT}? Aw avarOéacry, Kat Thy mpd Tis EBSouns , EvoMOBETHTE ‘agTypiwv Kal TaY GAAWY TpaynaTwY oXOATY aye vas, kal év evxais Kal AcTats TO @ctov Ocpameverv: Ba 88 thy KvpiaKyy, as év radty ToD Xpicrov ava.- dvros ek vexpav’ thy 88 érépav, ws év adT] TTavpw- ’t0s (Soz. Eccl. Hist. i.c. 8). acer obseryes very truly, * Non dicit a Constantino /Pellatam xvpiakjv, sed jam ante sic vocatam feria- But on this passage LORD’S DAY, THE 1679 menta sulcis aut vines scrobibus mandentur, ne oc cagione momenti pereat commodritas ccelesti provisione concessa.’? — Dat. Non. Mart. Crispo Il. et Constan- tino Il. Coss. Some have endeavored to explain away this doc- ument by alleging — Ist, that ‘‘ Solis Dies ’’ is not the Christian name of the Lord’s Day, and that Constantine did not therefore intend to acknowl- edge it as a Christian institution. 2d. That, before his conversion, Constantine had professed himself to be especially under the guard- ianship of the sun, and that, at the very best, he intended to make a religious compromise between sun-worshippers, properly so-called, and the wor- shippers of the “Sun of Righteousness,” 7. e. Christians. 3d. That Constantine’s edict was purely a kalen- darial one, and intended to reduce the number of public holidays, “Dies Nefasti,’’ or “ Feriati,”’ which had, so long ago as the date of the “ Actiones Verrinze,’”’ become a serious impediment to the transaction of business. And that this was to be effected by choosing a day which, while it would be accepted by the Paganism then in fashion, would of course be agreeable to the Christians. 4th. That Constantine then instituted Sunday for the first time as a religious day for Christians. The fourth of these statements is absolutely re- futed, both by the quotations made above from writers of the second and third centuries, and by the terms of the edict itself. It is evident that Constantine, accepting as facts the existence of the ‘« Solis Dies,’’ and the reverence paid to it by gome one or other, does nothing more than make that reverence practically universal, It is “ vener- abilis” already. And it is probable that this most natural interpretation would never have been dis- turbed, had not Sozomen asserted, without warrant from either the Justinian or the Theodosian Code, that Constantine did for the sixth day of the week what the codes assert he did for the first. The three other statements concern themselves rather with what Constantine meant than with what he did. But with such considerations we have little or nothing to do. He may have pur- posely selected an ambiguous appellation. He may have been only half a Christian, wavering between allegiance to Christ and allegiance to Mithras. He may have affected a religious syncretism. He may have wished his people to adopt such syncretism. He may have feared to offend the Pagans. He may have hesitated to avow too openly his inward’ lean- ings to Christianity. He may have considered that community of religious days might lead by and by to community of religious thought and feeling. And he may have had in view the rectification of the calendar. But all this is nothing to the pur. pose. It is a fact, that in the year A. D. 321, in a public edict, which was to apply to Christians as well as to Pagans, he put especial honor upon a day already honored by the former — judiciously ealling it by a name which Christians had long — tam esse decrevit.”? There is a passage also in Euse- bius (Vit. Const. iv. 18), which appears to assert the same thing of Saturday. It is, however, manifestly corrupt, and can scarcely be translated at all, except by the employment of an emendation ; while, if we dc thus emend it, it will speak of Friday, as Sozomen does, and not of Saturday ; and, what is more to out purpose, to whichever of those days it does refer, what is said in it concerning » xvptaxy will fall under Suicer’s remark. 1680 LORD'S DAY, THE ae LORD’S SUPPER employed without scruple, and to which, as it was| treated of by the writer of this article in ¢) in ordinary use, the Pagans could scarcely object.! Bampton Lecture for 1860. What he did for it was to insist that worklly business, whether by the functionaries of the law or by private citizens, should be intermitted during its continuance. An exception indeed was made in favor of the rural districts, avowedly from the necessity of the case, covertly perhaps to prevent those districts, where Paganism (as the word Pagus would intimate) still prevailed extensively, from feeling aggrieved by a sudden and stringent change. It need only be added here, that the readiness with which Christians acquiesced in the interdiction of business on the Lord’s Day affords no small pre- sumption that they had long considered it to be a day of rest, and that, so far as circumstances ad- mitted, they had made it so long before Were any other testimony wanting to the exist- ence of Sunday as a day of Christian worship at this period, it might be supplied by the Council of Niceea, A. D. 325. The Fathers there and then assembled make no doubt of the obligation of that day — do not ordain it —do not defend it. They assume it as an existing fact, and only notice it incidentally in order to regulate an indifferent matter, the posture of Christian worshippers upon it. Richard Baxter has well summed up the history of the Lord’s Day at this point, and his words may not unaptly be inserted here: “That the first Christian emperor, finding all Christians unanimous in the possession of the day, should make a law (as our kings do) for the due observing of it, and that the first Christian council should establish uni- formity in the very gesture of worship on that day, are strong confirmations of the matter of fact, that the churches unanimously agreed in the holy use of it, as a separated day even from and in the Apostles’ days’? (Richard Baxter, On the Divine Appointment of the Lord’s Day, p. 41, 1671). Here we conclude our inquiry. If patristical or ecclesiastical ground has been touched upon, it has been only so far as appeared necessary for the eluci- dation of the Scripture phrase, 7 Kupiax ‘Huépa. What became of the Sabbath after Christianity was fairly planted; what Christ said of it in the Gospels, and how his words are to be interpreted; what the Apostles said of that day, and how they treated it; what the early ecclesiastical writers held respecting it; and in what sense “ There remaineth a sab- batismus (caBBatiouds, A. V. “rest’’) to the people of God’’ (Heb. iv. 9): these are questions which fall rather under the head of SABBATH than under that of “ Lord’s Day.”” And as no debate arose in apostolic or in primitive times respecting the relation, by descent, of the Lord’s Day to the Mosaic Sabbath, or to any Sabbatical institution of assumed higher antiquity, none need be raised here. [See SABBATH. ] The whole subject of the Lord’s Day, including its “origin, history, and present obligation,’’ is & *Eretdy tives ciow év tH Kvptaxy yovu KAtvovtes Kat ev Tats THS IlevtyKoaTHs Nuépats, UTép TOD méVTA év TaoN TaporKia omoiws pvddrrecOat, éaTaras éSoke TH ayia avvodw Tas evxas amodiddvar TH Ow (Conc. Nic Can. 20). b Maldonatus (Comm. on Matt. xxvi. 26) is bold enough to deny that the “Lord’s Supper’ of 1 Cor. xi. 20 is the same as the “ Eucharistia”’ of the later Church, and identifies it with the meal that followed. J. A. “Tie! LORD’S SUPPER (Kupiardy Setrvoy Cena Dominica). 'The words which thus deseri| the great central act of the worship of the Christi: Church occur but in one single passage of the N. ' (1 Cor. xi. 20).0 Of the fact which lies under #] name we have several notices, and from these, ij cidental and fragmentary as they are, it is possib to form a tolerably distinet picture. To exami these notices in their relation to the life of tl Christian society in the first stages of its growt and so to learn what “the Supper of the Lord| actually was, will be the object of this article. would be foreign to its purpose to trace the histo of the stately liturgies which grew up out of it }) the 2d and 8d centuries, except so far as thi supply or suggest evidence as to the customs of tl earlier period, or to touch upon the many contr) versies which then, or at a later age, have clustere round the original institution. I. The starting-point of this inquiry is found } the history of that night when Jesus and his dij ciples met together to eat the Passover (Matt. xxy 19; Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxii. 13). The mann in which the Paschal feast was kept by the Jey of that period differed in many details from th; originally prescribed by the rules of Ex. xii. Tl multitudes that came up to Jerusalem, met, as th could find accommodation, family by family, or groups of friends, with one of their number as tl celebrant, or ‘“proclaimer”? of the feast. Tl ceremonies of the feast took place in the followir! order (Lightfoot, Temple Service, xiii.; Meye! Comm. in Matt. xxvi. 26). (1.) The members ¢} the company that were joined for this purpose mi in the evening and reclined on couches, this positic| being now as much a matter of rule as standin had been originally (comp. Matt. xxvi. 20, avékerr Luke xxii. 14; and John xiii. 23, 25). The hea, of the household, or celebrant, began by a form ( blessing “for the day and for the wine,’ pri nounced over a cup, of which he and the others the drank. The wine was, according to rabbinic tr) ditions, to be mixed with water; not for an] mysterious reason, but because that was regarde as the best way of using the best wine (comp. | Mace. xv. 89). (2.) All who were present the washed their hands; this also having a speci benediction. (8.) The table was then set out wit) the paschal lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herb) and the dish known as Charoseth (7275 a sauce made of dates, figs, raisins, and vinega| and designed to commemorate the mortar of the) bondage in Egypt (Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. 831) (4.) The celebrant first, and then the others, dippé a portion of the bitter herbs into the Charosel| and ate them. (5.) The dishes were then remove! and a cup of wine again brought. Then followe an interval which was, allowed theoretically for tl 2 The phraseology to which we are accustomed is to hi} only an example of the “ ridicula Calvinistarum / Lutheranorum inscitia,”? innovating on the receiv’ language of the Church. The keen detector of heres) however, is in this instance at variance not only wil the consensus of the chief fathers of the ancient Churt) (comp. Suicer, Thes. 8. y. detrvov), but with the # thoritative teaching of his own (Catechism Tride c. iv. qu. 5). , Pre | Ri LORD'S SUPPER stions that might be asked by children or jelytes, who were astonished at such a strange mning of a feast, and the cup was passed round ‘drunk at the close of it. (6.) The dishes being ight on again, the celebrant repeated the com- iorative words which opened what was strictly paschal supper, and pronounced a solemn iksgiving, followed by Ps. cxiii. and cxiv.¢ Then came a second washing of the hands, //a short form of blessing as before, and the yrant broke one of the two loaves or cakes of avened bread, and gave thanks over it. All | took portions of the hread and dipped them, jther with the bitter herbs, into the Charoseth, iso ate them. (8.) After this they ate the flesh |e paschal lamb, with ‘bread, etc., as they liked; | after another blessing, a third cup, known tially as the « cup of blessing,’ was handed jd. (9.) This was succeeded by a fourth cup, ‘the recital of Ps. cxv.-cxviii. followed by a jer, and this was accordingly known as the cup é Hallel, or of the Song. (10.) There might fa conclusion, a fifth cup, provided that the vat Hallel’’ (possibly Psalms exx.-cxxxvii.) ung over it. ; /mparing the ritual thus gathered from Rab- i writers with the N. T., and assuming (1) that \presents substantially the common practice of jord’s time; and (2) that the meal of which (nd his disciples partook, was either the Pass- ‘itself, or an anticipation of it,’ conducted ding to the same rules, we are able to point, ish not with absolute certainty, to the points parture which the old practice presented for ‘istitution of the new. To (1) or (3), or even ), we may refer the first words and the first bution of the cup (Luke xxii. 17, 18); to (2) ' the dipping of the sop (Ywulov) of John 116; to (7), or to an interval during or after Yhe distribution of the bread (Matt. xxvi. 26; fixiv. 22; Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24); or (10) (+ after supper,’”? Luke xxii. 20), the ésgiving, and distribution of the cup, and the } with which the whole was ended. It will be id that, according to this order of succession, fiestion whether Judas partook of what, in the ‘age of a later age, would be called the conse- i! elements, is most probably to be answered ' negative. /2 narratives of the Gospels show how strongly esciples were impressed with the words which “iven a new meaning to the old familiar acts. ‘leave unnoticed all the ceremonies of the Sver, except those which had thus been trans- 1 to the Christian Church and perpetuated in old things were passing away, and all things ling new. They had looked on the bread and fine as memorials of the deliverance from + They were now told to partake of them 4 ' may be interesting to give the words, as showing ’.ind of forms may have served as types for the ‘orship of the Christian Church. Lis is the passover, which we eat because the : assed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt. * hese are the bitter herbs, which we eat in re- Von that the Egyptians made the lives of our bitter in Egypt. his is the unleavened bread, which we eat, be- iio dough of our fathers had not time to be Nd before the Lord revealed himself and redeemed Hut of hand. } 106 LORD’S SUPPER 1681 “in remembrance” of their Master and Lord. The festival had been annual. No rule was given as to the time and frequency of the new feast that thus supervened on the old, but the command “Do this as oft as ye drink it” (1 Cor. xi. 25), suggested the more continual recurrence of that which was to be their memorial of one whom they would wish never to forget. The words, “ This is my body,” gave to the unleavened bread a new character. They had been prepared for language that would otherwise have been so startling, by the teaching of John (vi. 32-58), and they were thus taught to see in the bread that was broken the witness of the closest possible union and incorpora- tion with their Lord. The cup which was “the new testament’ (S:a0hxn) “in His blood,’ would remind them, in like manner, of the wonderful prophecy in which that new covenant had been foretold (Jer. xxxi. 31-34) of which the crowning glory was in the promise, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.’? His blood shed, as He told them, “for them and for many,”’ for that remission of sins which He had been proclaiming throughout his whole ministry, was to be to the new covenant what the blood of sprinkling had been to that of Moses (Ex. xxiv. 8). It is possible that there may have been yet another thought connected with these symbolic acts. The funeral customs of the Jews involved, at or after the burial, the administration to the mourners of bread (comp. Jer. xvi. 7, “ neither shall they break bread for them in mourning,’’ in marginal reading of A. V.; Ewald and Hitzig, ad loc.; Ez. xxiy. 17; Hos. ix. 4; Tob. iv. 17), and of wine, known, when thus given, as “ the cup of consolation.’ May not the bread and the wine of the Last Supper have had something of that character, preparing the minds of Christ's disciples for his departure by treating it as already accomplished? They were to think of his body as already anointed for the burial (Matt. xxvi. 12; Mark xiv. 8; John xii. 7), of his body as already given up to death, of his blood as already shed. The passover-meal was also, little as they might dream of it, a funeral-feast. The bread and the wine were to be pledges of con- solation for their sorrow, analogous to the verbal promises of John xiv. 1, 27, xvi. 20. The word diaOjxyn might even have the twofold meaning which is connected with it in the Epistle to the Hebrews. May we not conjecture, without leaving the region of history for that of controversy, that the thoughts, desires, emotions, of that hour of divine sorrow and communion would be such as to lead the disciples to crave earnestly to renew them? Would it not be natural that they should seek that renewal in the way which their Master had pointed out to them? From this time, accordingly, the words “to break bread,” appear to have had for 4. Therefore are we bound to give thanks, to praise, to laud, to glorify, to extol, to honor, to praise, to magnify him that hath done for our fathers, and for us, all these wonders; who hath brought us from bondage to freedom, from sorrow to rejoicing, from mourning to a good day, from darkness to a great light, from affliction to redemption; therefore must we say before him, Ifallelujah, praise ye the Lord... . followed by Ps. exiii. (Lightfoot, /. c.). 6 This reservation is made as being a possible alternative for explaining the differences between the three first Gospels and St John. 1682 LORD’S SUPPER the disciples a new significance. It may not have assumed indeed, as yet, the character of a distinct liturgical act; but when they met to break bread, it was with new thoughts and hopes, and with the memories of that evening fresh on them. It would be natural that the Twelve should transmit the command to others who had not been present, and seek to lead them to the same obedience and the same blessings. The narrative of the two disciples to whom their Lord made himself known “ in breaking of bread’’ at Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 30-35) would strengthén the belief that this was the way to an abiding fellowship with Him. Il. In the account given by the writer of the Acts of the life of the first disciples at Jerusalem, a prominent place is given to this act, and to the phrase which indicated it. Writing, we must re- member, with the definite associations that had gathered round the words during the thirty years that followed the events he records, he describes the baptized members of the Church as continuing steadfast in or to the teaching of the Apostles, in fellowship with them and with each other,® and in breaking of bread and in prayers (Acts ii. 42). A few verses further on, their daily life is described as ranging itself under two heads: (1) that of public devotion, which still belonged to them as Jews (continuing daily with one accord in the Temple’’); (2) that of their distinctive acts of fellowship ‘ breaking bread from house to house (or ‘¢ privately,’”’ Meyer), they did eat their meat in gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people.’ ‘Taken in con- nection with the account given in the preceding verses of the love which made them live as having all things common, we can scarcely doubt that this implies that the chief actual meal of each day was one in which they met as brothers, and which was either preceded or followed by the more solemn commemorative acts of the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup. It will be convenient to anticipate the language and the thoughts of a somewhat later date, and to say that, apparently, they thus united every day the Agapé¢ or feast of Love with the celebration of the Eucharist. So far as the former was concerned, they were repro- ducing in the streets of Jerusalem the simple and a The general consensus of patristic and Roman Catholic interpreters finds in this also a solemn cele- bration of the Eucharist. Here, they say, are the solemn benediction, and the technical words for the distribution of the elements as in the original institu- tion, and as in the later notices of the Acts. It should be remembered, however, that the phrase “to break bread ’’ had been a synonym for the act of any one presiding at a meal (comp. Jer. xvi. 7, Lam. iy. 4), and that the rabbinic rule required a blessing whenever three persons sat down together at it. (Comp. Mal- donatus and Meyer, ad loc.) 4 The meaning of xowwvia in this passage is prob- ably explained by the etyov amavra xowa that follows (comp. Meyer, ad loc.). The Vulg. rendering, “ et communicatione fractionis panis,” originated probably in a wish to give to the word its later liturgical sense. ec The fact is traceable to the earliest days of the Church. The origin of the name is obscure. It occurs in this sense only in two passages of the N. T., 2 Pet. ii. 18, Jude ver. 12; and there the reading (though sup- ported by B and other great MSS.) is not undisputed. The absence of any reference to it in St. Paul’s mem- orable chapter on ’Aya7y (1 Cor. xiii.) makes it im- probable that i‘ was then and there in use. In the LORD'S SUPPER brotherly life which the Essenes were leading their seclusion on the shores of the Dead Sea. would be natural that in a society consisting many thousand members there should be mz places of meeting. These might be rooms hi for the purpose, or freely given by those memb of the Church who had them to dispose of. 1 congregation assembling in each place would eo to be known as “the Church’? in this or # man’s house (Rom. xvi. 5, 235: 1 Cor. xvi. 19; ( iv. 15; Philem. ver.2). When they met, the pl of honor would naturally be taken by one of - Apostles, or some elder representing him. It wo belong to him to pronounce the blessing (edAoy and thanksgiving (evxapioria), with which : meals of devout Jews always began and ended. 17 materials for the meal would be provided out of common funds of the Church,-or the liberality individual members. The bread (unless the e verted Jews were to think of themselves as keepi a perpetual passover) would be such as they hak ually used. The wine (probably the common | wine of Palestine, Proy. xxiii. 81) would, accordi to their usual practice, be mixed with wat Special stress would probably be laid at first on { oftice of breaking and distributing the bread, that which represented the fatherly relation of 1 pastor to his flock, and his work as ministering men the word of life. But if this was to be m than a common meal after the pattern of 1 Essenes, it would be necessary to introduce wo that would show that what was done was in reme brance of their Master. At some time, before after ¢ the meal of which they partook as such, | bread and the wine would be given with 501 special form of words or acts, to indicate its ¢h acter. New converts would need some explanati of the meaning and origin of the observan What would be so fitting and so much in harmo with the precedents of the Paschal feast as 1 narrative of what had passed on the night of institution (1 Cor. xi. 23-27)? With this th would naturally be associated (as in Acts ii. 4 prayers for themselves and others. Their gladn would show itself in the psalms and hymns wi which they praised God (Acts ii. 46, 47; Jan v. 13). The analogy of the Passover, the gene! age after the Apostles, however, it is a currently | cepted word for the meal here described (Ignat. 1 ad Smyrn. c. 8; Tertull. Apol. c. 89, ad Mare. c. Cyprian, Testim. ad Quirin. iii. 8). a d The account given by Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. deserves to be studied, both as coming from an e) witness (Vita, c. 2), and as showing a type of holin which could hardly have been unknown to the fi Christian disciples. The description of the meals, the Essenes might almost pass for that of an Aga. * They wash themselves with pure water, and = their refectory as to a holy place (réuevos), om down calmly..... The priest begins with a pra, over the food, and it is unlawful for any one to ta of it before the prayer.” This is the early meal. 1 Seirvov is in the same order (comp. Pliny, Ep. Traj.). e Examples of both are found in the history of | early Church ; 1 Cor. xi. is an example of the. coming before the Eucharist. The order of the t words in Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn. c. 4 implies priori The practice continued in some parts of Egypt even the time of Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. vii. e, 19), and | rule of the Council of Carthage (can. xii.) forbidd it implies that it had been customary. et a LORD'S SUPPER g of the Jews, and the practice of the Essenes possibly have suggested ablutions, partial or , 48 & preparation for the feast (Heb. x. 22; Bil. 1-15; comp. Tertull. de Orat. c. xi, s for the later practice of the Church, August. . ccxliv.). At some point in the feast those were present, men and women sitting apart, | rise to salute each other with the « holy (1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii, 12; Clem. Alex. og. iii. c. 11; Tertull. de Orat. c. 14; Just. pol. ii.). Of the stages in the growth of the vorship we have, it is true, no direct evidence, lese conjectures from antecedent likelihood are med by the fact that this order appears as the on element of all later liturgies. next traces that meet us are in 1 Cor., and ct that we find them is in itself significant. ommemorative feast has not been confined to sonal disciples of Christ, or the Jewish con- whom they gathered round them at Jeru- _ it has been the law of the Church's expan- hat this should form part of its life every- . Wherever the Apostles or their delegates yone, they have taken this with them. ‘The ige of St. Paul, we must remember, is not € a man who is setting forth a new truth, ‘one who appeals to thoughts, words, phrases te familiar to his readers, and we find accord- widence of a received liturgical terminology. He of the «cup of blessing” (1 Cor. x. 16), win its origin and form (see above), has been ed into the Greek Church. The synonym fe cup of the Lord” (1 Cor. x. 21) distin- sit from the other cups that belonged to the 7 The word fellowship ots (Kowvwvia) is 4 by degrees into the special signification of jnunion.” The Apostle refers to his own office \king the bread and blessing the cup (1 Cor. The table on which the bread was placed |e Lord’s Table, and that title was to the \f, as later controversies have made it, the isis of altar (Qvciacrhpiov), but as nearly ible a synonym (Mal. i. 7, 12; Ez. xli. 22). \2 practice of the Agapé, as well as the ob- je of the commemorative feast, had been ‘red to Corinth, and this called for a special Evils had sprung up which had to be } at once. The meeting of friends for a aeal, to which all contributed, was a sufti- | oS familiar practice in the common life of of this period; and these club-feasts were ad with plans of mutual relief or charity to b* (comp. Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities, ypavot). The Agape of the new society ‘?em to them to be such a feast, and hence disorder that altogether frustrated the object Yhurch in instituting it. Richer members Tinging their supper with them, or appro- an ~ ” ‘plural cAGper has been understood as imply- | the congregation took part in the act of | (Stanley, Corinthians ; and Estius, ad loc.). “€ questioned, however, whether this is suffi- *und for an interpretation for which there is { traditions of the Church. The evdAoyodpuer, can kardiy be referred When the act is the singular is always used Tertullian, in the passage to pf. Stanley refers, speaks of the other practice LORD'S SUPPER 1683 priating what belonged to the common stock, and sat down to consume it without waiting till others were assembled and the presiding elder had taken his place. The poor were put to shame, and de- frauded of their share in the feast. Each was thinking of his own supper, not of that to which we now find attached the distinguishing title of “the Lord’s Supper.” And when the time for that came, one was hungry enough to be looking to it with physical not spiritual craving, another so overpowered with wine as to be incapable of receiv- ing it with any reverence. It is quite conceivable that a life of excess and excitement, of overwrought emotion and unrestrained indulgence, such as this epistle brings before us, may have proved destructive to the physical as well as the moral health of those who were affected by it, and so the sicknesses and the deaths of which St. Paul speaks (1 Cor. xi. 30) as the consequences of this disorder may have been so, not by supernatural infliction, but by the work- ing of those general laws of the divine government, which make the punishment the traceable conse- quence of the sin. In any case, what the Corin- thians needed was, to be taught to come to the Lord’s table with greater reverence, to distinguish (Siaxpivery) the Lord’s body from their common food. Unless they did so, they would bring upon themselves condemnation. What was to be the remedy for this terrible and growing evil he does not state explicitly. He reserves formal regulations for a later personal visit. In the mean time he gives a rule which would make the union of the Agapé and the Lord’s Supper possible without the risk of profanation. They were not to come even to the former with the keen edge of appetite. ‘They were to wait till all were met, instead of scrambling tumultuously to help themselves (1 Cor. xi. 33, 34). In one point, however, the custom of the Church of Corinth differed apparently from that of Jerusalem. The meeting for the Lord’s Supper was no longer daily (1 Cor. xi. 20, 33). ‘The directions: given in 1 Cor. xvi. 2, suggest the constitution of a celebration on the first day’ of the week (comp. Just. Mart. Apol. i. 67; Pliny, Lp. ad Traj.). The meeting at Troas is on the same day (Acts xx. 7). Yhe tendency of this language, and therefore probably of the order subsequently established, was to separate what had hitherto been united.c We stand as it were at the dividing point of the history of the two institutions, and henceforth each takes its own course. One, as belonging to a transient phase of the Christian life, and varying in its effects with changes in national character or forms of civiliza- tion, passes through many stages “ — becomes more and more a merely local custom — is found to be productive of evil rather than of good —is dis- couraged by bishops and forbidden by councils — SS (“nec de aliorum quam presidentium manibus,”’ de Cor. Mil. c. 8) as an old tradition, not as a change. > The word xupiaxds appears to have been coined for the purpose of expressing the new thought. ¢ It has been ingeniously contended that the change from evening to morning was the direct result of St. Paul’s interposition (Christian Remembrancer, art. on “ Evening Communions,” July, 1860). d That presented by the Council of Gangra (can. xi. is noticeable as an attempt to preserve the primitive custom of an Agapé in church against the assaults of a false asceticism ee 1684 LORD'S SUPPER LOT was intended to have, for himself and his Chris companions, the character at once of the Ag and the Eucharist. The heathen soldiers sailors, it may be noticed, are said to have follo his example, not to have partaken of the bi which he had broken. If we adopt this expl tion, we have in this narrative another exampl a celebration in the early hours between midn and dawn (comp. vv. 27, 39), at the same time, : as we have met with in the meeting at Troas. All the distinct references to the Lord’s Su which occur within the limits of the N. T.h it is believed, been noticed. ‘To find, as a re writer has done (Christian Remembrancer April, 1860), quotations from the Liturgy of Eastern Church in the Pauline Epistles, iny (ingeniously as the hypothesis is supported) asst tions too many and too bold to justify our ae ance of it.4 Extending the inquiry, howeve the times as well as the writings of the N. 7. find reason to believe that we can trace in the. worship of the Church some fragments of which belonged to it from the beginning. — agreement of the four great families of litw implies the substratum of a common order. that order may well have belonged the He words Hallelujah, Amen, Hosanna, Lord of baoth; the salutations ‘“ Peace to all,” “ Pea thee;”’ the Sursum Corda (4yw ox@uev ris Slas), the Trisagion, the Kyrie Eleison. We justified in looking at these as having been por of a liturgy that was really primitive; guarded change with the tenacity with which the Chris of the second century clung to the traditions mapaddcers of 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6) of the forming part of the great deposit (rapaxarae of faith and worship which they had received the Apostles and have transmitted to later (comp. Bingham, /ccles. Antig. b. xv. ¢ Augusti, Christl. Archdol. b. yiii.; Stanley | Cor. x. and xi.). E. ae. LO-RUHAMAH (7EO7 NO: Arenmevyn? arsque misericordia), i. -€. “the compassionated,”’ the name of the daughte Hosea the prophet, given to denote the wl ruined and hopeless condition of the kingdo Israel, on whom Jehovah would no more mercy (Hos. i. 6, 8). Sad LOT (ais [a covering, veil]: Adr; Jo A@ros, and so Veneto-Greek Vers.: Lot), th of Haran, and therefore the nephew of Abr. (Gen. xi. 27,31). His sisters were MILca) wife of Nahor, and Iscan, by some identified Sarah. The following genealogy exhibits the f relations: — ; and finally dies out.* Traces of it linger in some of the traditional practices of the Western Church.? There have been attempts to revive it among the Moravians and other religious communities. The other also has it changes. ‘The morning celebration takes the place of the evening. New names— Eucharist, Sacrifice, Altar, Mass, Holy Mysteries — gather round it. New epithets and new ceremonies express the growing reverence of the people. The mode of celebration at the high altar of a basilica in the 4th century differs so widely from the cir- cumstances of the original institution, that a care- less eye would have found it hard to recognize their identity. Speculations, controversies, superstitions crystallize round this as their nucleus. Great dis- ruptions and changes threaten to destroy the life and unity of the Church. Still, through all the changes, the Supper of the Lord vindicates its claim to universality, and bears a permanent witness of the truths with which it was associated. In Acts xx. 11 we haye an example of the way in which the transition may have been effected. The disciples at Troas meet together to break bread. The hour is not definitely stated, but the fact that St. Paul’s discourse was protracted till past mid- night, and the mention of the many lamps, indicate a later time than that commonly fixed for the Greek derrvoy. If we are not to suppose a scene at variance with St. Paul's rule in 1 Cor. xi. 34, they must haye had each his own supper before they as- sembled. ‘Then came the teaching and the prayers, and then, towards early dawn, the breaking of bread, which constituted the Lord’s Supper, and for which they were gathered together. If this midnight meeting may be taken as indicating a common prac- tice, originating in reverence for an ordinance which Christ had enjoined, we can easily understand how the next step would be (as circumstances rendered the midnight gatherings unnecessary or inexpedient) to transfer the celebration of the Eucharist perma- nently to the morning hour, to which it had grad- ually been approximating.c Here also in later times there were traces of the original custom. Even when a later celebration was looked on as at variance with the general custom of the Church (Sozomen, supra), it was recognized as legitimate to hold an evening communion, as a special com- memoraticn of the original institution, on the Thursday before Easter (August. /p. p. 118; ad Jan. e. 5-7); and again on Easter-eve, the celebra- tion in the latter case probably taking place “very early in the morning while it was yet dark”’ (Tertull. ad Usxor. ii. c. 4). The recurrence of the same liturgical words in Acts xxvii. 85 makes it probable, though not cer- tain, that the food of which St. Paul thus partook Bei pause UE En Ue re nie Yee js still common in France and other parts of Bt (Comp. Moroni, Dizionar. Lccles.; Pascal, L Cathol., in Migne’s Encyc. Théol., s. y. “ Eulogie e Comp. the “antelucanis coetibus ” of Tertu Cor. Mil. c. 3). The amalgamation in the ritual. monastic orders, of the Nocturns, and Matin-I into the single office of Matins, presents an im! of an analogous transition (Palmer, Orig. Lite 202). d 1 Cor. ii. 9, compared with the recurrence | same words in the Liturgy with an antecedent relative which appears in the epistle without ¢ the passage on which most stress is laid. 1 Pet. and Eph. v. 14, are adduced as further instances ina © a The history of the Agapeze, in their connection with the life of the Church, is full of interest, but would be out of place here. An outline of it may be found in Augusti, Christl. Archaol. iii. 704-711. 6 The practice of distributing bread, which has been blessed but not consecrated, to the congregation gen- ' erally (children included), at the greater festivals of the Church, presents a vestige, or at least an analogue, of the old Agape. Liturgical writers refer it to the period (A. p. 158-385) when the earlier practice was falling into disuse, and this taking its place as the expression of the same feeling.. The bread thus dis- tributed is known in the Eastern Church as evaAoyia, jn the Western as the pants benedictus, the “ pain béni” of the modern French Church. The practice LOT LOT 1684 TERA | r= eden = Sarai nehor =Milcah Haran @ ae. | Pree shmael Isaac Bethuel Lot = wife ti = Nahor sb “er iz | | | | | , Esau Jacob Rebekah Laban Daughter Daughter ' Leah Rachel. Moab Ben-Ammi. an died before the emigration of Terah and his , cian settlements which had struck root in its fertile ly from Ur of the Chaldees (ver. 28), and Lot | depths.” It was exactly the prospect to tempt a therefore born there. He removed with the | man who had no fixed purpose of his own, who had of his kindred to Charan, and again subse- | not like Abram obeyed a stern inward call of duty. itly with Abram and Sarai to Canaan (xii. |So Lot left his uncle on the barren hills of Bethel, ). With them he took refuge in Egypt from |and he “ chose all the precinct of the Jordan, and mine, and with them returned, first to the | journeyed east,’’ down the ravines which give access uth” (xiii. 1), and then to their original settle- | to the Jordan Valley; and then when he reached it t between Bethel and Ai (vv. 3, 4), where|turned again southward and advanced as far as am had built his first altar (xiii. 4; comp. xii. | Sodom (11, 12). Here he “ pitched his tent,”’ for ind invoked on it the name of Jehovah. But|he was still a nomad. But his nomad life was astures of the hills of Bethel, which had with | virtually at an end. He was now to relinquish the ‘contained the two strangers on their first | freedom and independence of the simple life uf the al, were not able any longer to bear them, so | tent —a mode of life destined to be one of the great h had their possessions of sheep, goats, and | methods of educating the descendants of Abram — e increased since that time. It was not any |and encounter the corruptions which seem always sreemient between Abram and Lot — their rela-|to have attended the life of cities in the East — continued good to the last; but between the |“ the men of Sodom were wicked, and sinners be- 's who tended their coutitless herds disputes | fore Jehovah exceedingly.” 3, and a parting was necessary. The exact} 2. The next occurrence in the life of Lot is his lity with which Abram treats Lot is very re-|capture by the four kings of the East, and his table. It is as if they were really, according | rescue by Abram (Gen. xiv.). Whatever may be ie very ancient idiom of these records (Ewald | the age of this chapter in relation to those before fen. xxxi.), “brethren,” instead of uncle and | and after it, there is no doubt that as far as the ew. From some one of the round swelling | history of Lot is concerned, it is in its right posi- “which surround Bethel —from none more/tion in the narrative. The events which it nar- y than that which stands immediately on its | rates must have occurred after those of ch. xiii., {Berne , vol. i.] —the two Hebrews looked |and before those of xviii. and xix. Abram has ithe comparatively empty land, in the direction | moved further south, and is living under the oaks odom, Gomorrah, and Zoar (xiii. 10). ‘The |of Mamre the Amorite, where he remained till the sion was to the two lords of Palestine — then | destruction of Sodom. There is little in it which ‘st ‘free before them where to choose’ — what | calls for remark here. The term “ brother’’ is recian legends is represented under the figure | once used (ver. 16) for Lot’s relation to Abram 'e Choice of Hercules: in the fables of Islam | (but comp. ver. 12, ‘brother's son”); and a word ir the story of the Prophet turning back from |is employed for the possessions of Lot (ver. 11, jascus.”” And Lot lifted up his eyes towards| A. V. “ goods’’), which, from its being elsewhere eft, and beheld all the precinct of the Jordan | in these early records (xlvi. 6; Num. xxxv. 3) dis- ‘it was well watered everywhere; like a garden | tinguished from “ cattle,’ and employed specially thovah ; like that unutterably green and fertile | for the spoil of Sodom and Gomorrah, may perhaps {of Egypt he had only lately quitted. Even | denote that Lot had exchanged the wealth of his ‘that distance, through the clear air of Pales | pastoral condition for other possessions more pecu- ican be distinctly discovered the long and thick | liar to his new abode. Women are also named es of vegetation which fringe the numerous | (ver. 16), though these may belong to the people ms that descend from the hills on either side, | of Sodom. eet the central stream in its tropical depths.| 3. The last scene preserved to us in the history ‘what it now is immediately opposite Bethel, | of Lot is too well known to need repetition. He is it seems then to have been “even to Zoar,’”’ | still living in Sodom (Gen. xix.). Some years haye te farthest. extremity of the sea which now | passed, for he is a well-known resident in the town, ‘sthe “valley of the fields®” —the fields of | with wife, sons, and daughters, married and mar- ‘mand Gomorrah. “No crust of salt, no vol-|riageable. But in the midst of the licentious cor- ‘convulsions, had as yet blasted its verdure, or |ruption of Sodom — the eating and drinking, the ned the secure civilization of the early Pheeni- buying and selling, the planting and building (Luke terth’s sons are given ‘above in the order in| terms, seem to show that Haran was the eldest of 1a they occur in the record (Gen. xi. 27-382). But|Terah’s three descendants, and Abram the youngest. vets that Nahor and Isaac (and if Iscah be Sarai, | It would be a parallel to the case of Shem, Ham, and \m also) married wives not of their own generation, | Japhet, where Japhet was really the eldest, though of the next below them, and that Abram and Lot | enumerated last. [ABRAHAM, Vol. i. p. 13, note d.} 1 together and behave as if exaztly on equal| 2% “ Valley of Siddim ” —Siddim = fields 1686 LOT xvii. 28), and of the darker evils exposed in the ancient narrative — he still preserves some of the delightful characteristics of his wandering life, his fervent and chivalrous hospitality (xix. 2, 8), the unleavened bread of the tent of the wilderness (ver. 3), the water for the feet of the wayfarers (ver. 2), affording his guests a reception identical with that which they had experienced that very morning in Abraham's tent on the heights of Hebron (comp. xviii. 3,6). It is this hospitality which receives the commendation of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in words which have passed into a familiar proverb, “be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels 4 unawares ’’ (Heb. xiii. 2). On the other hand, it is his deliverance from the guilty and condemned city —the one just> man in that mob of sensual lawless wretches — which points the allusion of St. Peter, to “ the godly delivered out of temptations, the unjust reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished, an ensample to those that after should live ungodly ”’ (2 Pet. ii. 6-9). Where Zoar was situated, in which he found a temporary refuge during the destruction of the other cities of the plain, we do not know with absolute certainty. — If, as is most probable, it was at the mouth of Wady Kerak (Rob. ii. 188, 517), then by “ the mountain” is meant the very elevated ground east of the Dead Sea. If with De Saulcy we place it in es-Zouara, on the precipitous descent from Hebron, “ the mountain ”’ was the high ground of Judah. Either would afford caves for his subsequent dwelling. The former situation — on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, has in its favor the fact that it is in accordance with the position subsequently occupied by the Ammonites and Moabites. But this will be best examined under ZOAR. : The end of Lot’s wife¢ is commonly treated as -one of the ‘difficulties’? of the Bible. But it surely need not be so. It cannot be necessary, as some have done, to create the details of the story where none are given — to describe “the unhappy woman struck dead’? — ‘a blackened corpse — smothered and stiffened as she stood, and fixed for the time to the soil by saline or bituminous in- crustations — like a pillar of salt.’’ On these points the record is silent. Its words are simply these: “His wife looked back from behind him,@ and became a pillar of salt; — words which neither in themselves nor in their position in the narrative afford any warrant for such speculations. In fact, when taken with what has gone before, they con- tradict them, for it seems plain, from vv. 22, 23, @ The story of Baucis and Philemon, who unwit- tingly entertained Jupiter and Mercury (see Dict. of Biography, etc.), has been often compared with this. b Atxatos, possibly referring to Gen. xviii. 23-33, where the LXX. employ this word throughout. The rabbinical tradition is that he was actually “ judge” of Sodom, and sate in the gate in that capacity. (See quotations in Otho, Lex. Rabb. “ Loth,” and “ Sod- omah.”’’) ¢ In the Jewish traditions her name is Edith — FY TY. One of the daughters was called Plutith — moe. See Fabricius, Cod. Pseudep. V. T. i. 481. d LXX., cis ra drigw ; comp. Luke ix. 62, Phil. iii. 13. é¢ * A very rational explanation may be that the wife of Lot, as she lingered on the way in her reluctance to ‘eave Sodom, was overtaken by the storm, and, like be agit ae LOT that the work of destruction by fire did not ¢ mence till after Lot had entered Zoar. But | like the rest of her fate, is left in mystery.e The value and the significance of the story t are contained in the allusion of Christ (Luke 3 32): “In that day he that is in the field let not return back: remember Lot’s wife,’’ who ‘¢ Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose It will be observed that there is no attempt in narrative to invest the circumstance with per nence; no statement — as in the case of the p erected over Rachel’s graye (xxxv. 20) — th: was to be seen at the time of the compilation of history. And in this we surely have a remark instance of that sobriety which characterizes statements of Scripture, even where the events : rated are most out of the ordinary course. Later ages have not been satisfied so to leaye matter, but have insisted on identifying the « lar’ with some one of the fleeting forms which perishable rock of the south end of the Dead & constantly assuming in its process of decomposi and liquefaction (Anderson's Off. Narr. pp. 181). The first allusion of this kind is perhaps | in Wisd. x. 7, where ‘+a standing pillar of salt, monument (uynuetoy) of an unbelieving soul, mentioned with the ‘waste land that smoke' and the “plants bearing fruit that never com ripeness,’ as remaining to that day, a testimon the wickedness of Sodom. Josephus also (An 11, § 4) says that he had seen it, and that it then remaining. So too do Clemens Romanus Treneus (quoted by Kitto, Cycl. “ Lot”) does Benjamin of Tudela, whose account is n than usually circumstantial (ed. Asher, i. 7: And so doubtless have travellers in every ag they certainly have in our own.times. See Mau rell, March 30; Lynch, Report, p. 15; and An son’s Off. Narrative, 181, where an accoun given of a pillar or spur standing out detached f the general mass of the Jebel Usdiim, about 40 in height, and which was recognized by the sai of the expedition as ‘ Lot’s wife.”’ The story of the origin of the nations of M and Ammon from the incestuous intercourse tween Lot. and his two daughters, with which history abruptly concludes, has been often tres as if it were a Hebrew legend which owed its or to the bitter hatred existing from the earliest to latest times between the “Children of Lot” the Children of Israel. The horrible nature of transaction — not the result of impulse or pass but a plan calculated and carried out, and that the victims of many a similar catastrophe. was 81 cated by the sulphurous smoke or killed by lightn The body would lie where it fell, and in such a res would soon be incrusted with salt. Blocks of abound there at present and illustrate this fate of unhappy woman. (See Rob. Bibi. Res. ii. 482, Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 864, 2d ed.) “It is said,” as Dr. Conant remarks, ‘ that she was ehan into that substance, but, inerusted with it, she bee: ta pillar of salt.’ ?? (Book of Genesis, ete., p- B) J See the quotations from the Fathers and other Hofmann’s Lezicon (s. y. * Lot”), and in Mislin, Lt Saints (iii. 224). , 9 Rabbi Petachia, on the other hand, looked fo but “did not see it; it no longer exists ” (Ed. Bent 61). we h See Tuch, Genesis, 369. Von Bohlen aseribes legend to the latter part of the reign of Josiah. eet LOT e but twice, would prompt the wish that the mdary theory were true.¢ But even the most ructive critics (as, for instance, Tuch) allow { the narrative is a continuation without a ik of that which precedes it, while they fail to it out any marks of later date in the language his portion; and it cannot be questioned that writer records it as an historical fact. wen if the legendary theory were admissible, e is no doubt of the fact that Ammon and Moab mg from Lot. It is affirmed in the statements Jeut. ii. 9 and 19, as well as in the later doc- ant of Ps. Ixxxiii. 8, which Ewald ascribes to time when Nehemiah and his newly-returned ny were suffering from the attacks and obstruc- s of Tobiah the Ammonite and Sanballat the onite (Ewald, Dichter, Ps. 83). ‘he Mohammedan traditions of Lot are contained he Koran, chiefly in ce. vii. and xi.; others are n by D’Herbelot (s. v. “Loth’’). According hese statements he was sent to the inhabitants le five cities as a preacher, to warn them against unnatural and horrible sins which they prac- 1—sins which Mohammed is continually de- neing, but with less success than that of ikenness, since the former is perhaps the most mon, the latter the rarest vice, of Eastern s. Krom Lot’s connection with the inhabitants jodom, his name is now given not only to the in question (Freytag, Leaicon, iv. 136a), but to the people of the five cities themselves — the u, or Kuim Loth. The local name of the Dead is Bahr Lit — Sea of Lot. G. ‘OT. The custom of deciding doubtful ques- 3 by lot is one of great extent and high antiquity, mmending itself as a sort of appeal to the Al- ity, secure from all influence of passion or bias, isa sort of divination employed even by the themselves (Hom. JU. xxii. 209: Cie. de Div. , li. 41). The word sors is thus used for an ular response (Cic. de Div. ii. 56). [D1rvina- .} Among heathen instances the following be cited: 1. Choice of a champion or of ‘ity in combat (//. iii. 316, vii. 171; Heer. iii. + 2. Decision of fate in battle (//. xx. 209). ppointment of magistrates, jurymen, or other jionaries (Arist. Pol. iv. 16; Schol. Qn Aris- ‘Plut. 277; Her. vi. 109; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5, 55; osth. ¢c. Aristog. i. 778, 1; Dict. of’ Antiq. tastes”). 4. Priests (Aisch. in Tim. p. 188, .). 5. A German practice of deciding by $ on twigs, mentioned by Tacitus (Germ. 10). ivision of conquered or colonized land (Thue. 9; Plut. Pericl. 84; Boeckh, Pub. Econ. of ji, 170). mong the Jews also the use of lots, with a ous intention, direct or indirect, prevailed ex- vely. The religious estimate of them may athered from Prov. xvi. 33. The following tieal or ritual instances correspond in. most sts to those of a heathen kind mentioned Choice of men for an invading force (Judg. oa Partition, (a) of the soil of Palestine among tibes (Num. xxvi. 55; Josh. xviii. 10; Acts 9); (0) of Jerusalem; i. e. probably its spoil or the pretty legend of the repentance of Lot, {the tree which he planted, which, being cut for use in the building of the Temple, was after- LOT 1687 or captives among captors (Obad. 11); of the land itself in a similar way (1 Mace. iii. 36). (c., After the return from captivity, Jerusalem was populated by inhabitants drawn by lot in the proportion of ila of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Neh. xi 1, 2; see Ps. xvi. 5, 6, Ez. xxiv. 6). (d.) Appor tionment of possessions, or spoil, or of prisoners, to foreigners or captors (Joel iii. 3; Nah. iii. 10, Matt. xxvii. 35). 3. (a.) Settlement of doubtful questions (Prov. xvi. 33, where “lap” is perhaps —urn; xviii. 18). (6.) A mode of divination among heathens by means of arrows, two inscribed, and one without mark, Bedouavtela (Hos. iv. 12; Ez. xxi. 21; Mauritius, de Sortitione, c. 14, § 4; see also Esth. iii. riage 24-32; Mishna, Taanith, ii. 10). [DivINATION; Purm.] (c.) Detection of a criminal, as in the case of Achan (Josh. vii. 14, 18). A notion pre- vailed among the Jews that this detection was per- formed by observing the shining of the stones in the high-priest’s breastplate (Mauritius, ¢. 21, § 4). Jonathan was discovered by lot (1 Sam. xiy. 41, 42). (d.) Appointment of persons to offices or duties. Saul (1 Sam. x. 20, 21), said to have been chosen as above in Achan’s case. St. Matthias, to replace Judas among the Twelve (Acts i. 24-26). Distribution of priestly offices in the Temple-service among the sixteen of the family of Eleazar, and the eight of that of Ithamar (1 Chr. xxiv. 3, 5, 19; Luke i. 9). Also of the Levites for similar purposes (1 Chr. xxiii. 28, xxiv. 20-31, x@v. 8, xxvi. 13; Mishna, Z'amid, i. 2, iii. 1, v. 2; Joma, ii. 2, 3, 4; Shabb. xxiii. 2; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Luke i. 8, 9, vol. ii. p. 489). Election by lot appears to have prevailed in the Christian Church as late as the 7th century (Bing- ham, Lecles. Antiy. iv. 1, 1, vol. i. p. 426; Bruns, Cone. ii. 66). (e.) Selection of the scape-goat on the Day of Atonement (Ley. xvi. 8,10). The two inscribed tablets of boxwood, afterwards of gold, were put into an urn, which was shaken, and the lots drawn out (Joma, iii. 9, iv. 1). [ATONEMENT, Day OF.] 4. The use of words heard or passages chosen at random from Seripture. Sortes Biblice, like the Sortes Virgiliane, prevailed among Jews, as they have also among Christians, though denounced by several Councils (Dict. of Antig. “ Sortes;’? John- son, ‘Life of Cowley,” Works, ix. 8; Bingham, Ecel. Ant. xvi. 5, 3, id. vi. 53, &e.; Bruns, Conc. ii. 145-54, 166; Mauritius, ch, 15; Hofmann, Lex. ‘¢ Sortes ’’), Hs, We: P3 * In Prov, xvi, 33 (see no. 3 (a) above), “lap” is the true rendering, and there is no reference to an “urn.’’ In such a proverbial allusion or ex- pression, we should expect to find, of course, the earliest and simplest, as well as the readiest, mode of using the lot, The “lap” (or bosom of the outer garment) was a convenient receptacle, always at hand, into which the lots conld be cast, and thence drawn forth. Cast into the lap” was, therefore, the most suitable form of expression for a proverbial saying, the idea of which originated in the earliest and rudest stage of society, and was acted on under all circumstances. In the more formal and official use of the lot (as in Lev. xvi. 8, wards employed for the Cross, see Fabricius, Cod. Pseudepigr, V. T., i. 428-481, f 1688 LOTAN Josh. xviii. 6) when every convenience was at hand, a vessel in the shape of an urn was likely to be used, though there is no allusion to this in the Scriptures. The Heb. word 7 (‘lap,’’ or “bosom,” of the garment), is used metaphorically of a similar recep- tacle in any other object only in connection with the name of the object itself; as in 1 Kings xxii. 35, “into the bosom (hollow) of the chariot ” (A. V. “ midst of ’’),and in Ezek. xliii. 18, 14, 17, in the ideal description of the altar. “To cast lots”? (Lev. xvi. 18; Josh. xviii. 6) means to employ them in the decision of any mat- ter. This was done by casting them into some conyenient receptacle, from which they were drawn forth. Hence the phrase, “the lot came forth” (or “out ’’), Josh. xix. 1, 17, 24, 82, 40, 1 Chron. xxiv. 7; and also, “the lot came up,” Josh. xix. 10, the lot being drawn up from the bottom of the receptacle. In 1 Chron. xxvi. 14 is found the full expression, ‘they cast lots, and his lot came out,” etc. The phrase, “ the lot fell upon ’’ (Ley. xvi. 9, 10), or “fell to”? (1 Chron. xxvi. 14), expresses the result of an appeal to the lot, as coming upon, or affecting, the person or object concerned. The full expression occurs in Jonah, i. 7, * they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah.” The suggestion of Leyrer (Herzog’s Real-En- cykl. art. Los, viii. 485), that the use of the word “fell” originated from the practice of casting the lots out of a vessel or the lap, is not consistent. with Proy. xvi. 33, ‘the lot is cast into the lap.” Ty degC: LO’TAN (ran [covering]: Awrdy: Lotan), the eldest son of Seir the Horite, and a “duke” or chief of his tribe in the land of Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 20, 22, 29; 1 Chr. i. 38, 39). LOTHASU’BUS $(Aw@dcouBos: Abusthas, Sabus), a corruption of HAsuum in Neh. viii. 4, for which it is not easy to account (1 Esdr. ix. 44), The Vulg. is a further corruption of the LXX. LOTS, FEAST OF. [Purm.] LOVE-FEASTS (aydara: epule, convivia: in this sense used only twice, Jude 12, and 2 Pet. ii. 13, in which latter place, however, &mdrai is also read), an entertainment in which the poorer members of the church partook, furnished from the contributions of Christians resorting to the Eucha- ristic celebration, but whether before or after it may be doubted. The true account of the matter is probably that given by Chrysostom, who says that after the early community of goods had ceased, the richer members brought to the church contri- butions of food and drink, of which, after the con- clusion of the services and the celebration of the Eucharist, all partook together, by this means help- ing to promote the principle of love among Chris- tians (Hom. in 1 Cor. xi. 19, vol. iii. p. 293, and Hom. xxvii. in 1 Cor. xi. vol. x. p. 281, ed. Gaume). The intimate connection, especially in early times, between the Eucharist itself and the love-feast, has led several writers to speak of them almost as identical. Of those who either take this view, or regard the feast as subsequent to the Eucharist, a *Promiscuum et innoxium, quod ipsum” (7, e. the entertainment, surely not the sacramentum) ‘ facere desisse post edictum meum ”’ (Ep. x. 97), pie LUBIM may be mentioned Pliny, who says the Christ met and exchanged sacramental pledges agains sorts of immorality; after which they separa and met again to partake in an entertainme The same view is taken by Ignatius, ad Sm ch. 8; Tertull. Apol. 39; Clem. Alex. Strom. 322 (vol. ii. p. 892), i iii. 185 (vol. i. 514), but Ped. ii. 61 (vol. i. p. 165), he seems to ¥ them as distinct; Apost. Const. ii. 28, 1: besides these, Jerome on 1 Cor. xi.; Theodoret (cumenius, quoted by Bingham, who consi that the Agapé was subsequent (Orig. Keel. 6,7; vol. v. p. 284); Hofmann, Lew. + Agap On the other side may be mentioned Grotius 2 Pet. ii. 18, in Crit. Sacr.), Suicer (Thes. d vol. i. s. v.), Hammond, Whitby, Corn. & Lay and authorities quoted by Bingham, J. c.® — almost universal custom to receive the Kuch fasting proves that in later times the love-fe must have followed, not preceded, the Lucha (Sozomen, H. 4. vii. 19; Aug. c. Faust. xx. Lip. liv. (alias exviii.); ad Januar. ¢. 6, vol. ii 203, ed. Migne; Cone. Carth. iii. A. D. 397, 29; Bruns, Cone. i. p. 127): but the exception one day from the general rule (the day ¢a Cena Domini, or Maunday Thursday), seems argue a previously different practice. The k feasts were forbidden to be held in churches by Council of Laodicea, A. D. 320 [363 ?], Cone. Qt isext., A. D. 692, ch. 74, Aix-la-Chapelle, A. D. 8 but in some form or other they continued to a m later period. Entertainments at births, deaths, : marriages were also in use under the names agape natalitie, nuptrales and funerales. (Be Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl. i. 30; Ap. Const. viii. 1; Theodoret, Evang. Verit. viii. pp. 923, 924, Schulz; Grey. Naz. ep. i. 14, and Carm. x.; Pr mann, Lee .¢.) Hi; W. P * LOW COUNTRY (725v"), 2 Ch xxvi. 10, &c. [JupAnH, p. 1490.] el LO’ZON (Ao¢év: Dedon), one of the sons Solomon’s servants’? who returned with Zoroba (1 Esdr. vy. 33). The name corresponds with D. KON in the parallel lists of Ezr. ii. 56 and N vii. 58, and the variation may be an error of transcriber, which is easily traceable when word is written in the uncial character. LU’BIM (D°21?, 2 Chr. xii. 3, xvi. 8; N iii. 9, O >, Dan. xi. 43 [perh. thirsty, thence abit ‘of. a dry land, Marcell be AlBves: Liby except Daniel. Libya [Lybia, Van Ess]), a nat mentioned as contributing, together with Cushi and Sukkiim, to Shishak’s army (2 Chr. xil. | and apparently as forming with Cushites the bi of Zerah’s army (xvi. 8), spoken of by Nah (iii. 9) with Put or Phut, as helping No-An (Thebes), of which Cush and Egypt were © strength; and by Daniel (xi. 43) as paying co with the Cushites toa conqueror of Egypt or Egyptians. These particulars indicate an Afri nation under tribute to Egypt, if not under Eg tian rule, contributing, i in the 10th century B., valuable aid in mercenaries or auxiliaries to | Egyptian armies, and down to Nahum’s time, @ a period prophesied of by Daniel, probably | > This subject is also discussed under Logp’s § PER. , LUBIM nof Antiochus Epiphanes [ANriocnus IV.], sting, either politically or commercially, to sus- the Egyptian power, or, in the last case, de- dent on it. These indications do not fix the sraphical position of the Lubim, but they favor supposition that their territory was near Egypt, er to the west or south. ‘or more precise information we look to the ptian monuments, upon which we find repre- ations of a people called REeBu, or LeBu (Rh L having no distinction in hieroglyphics), who not be doubted to correspond to the Lubim. se Rebu were a warlike people, with whom yptah (the son and successor of Rameses II.) Rameses III., who both ruled in the 13th cen- ? B. C., waged successful wars. The latter king ed thein with much slaughter. The sculptures he great temple he raised at Thebes, now called , of Medeenet Haboo, give us representations of Rebu, showing that they were fair, and of what uled a Semitic type, like the Berbers and Ka- s. They are distinguished as northern, that is, arallel to, or north of, Lower Egypt. Of their ig African there can be no reasonable doubt, we may assign them to the coast of the Med- ‘anean, commencing not far to the westward of pt. We do not find them to have been mer- wies of Egypt from the nionuments, but we w that the kindred Mashawasha-u were so em- ed by the Bubastite family, to which Shishak probably Zerah also belonged; and it is not kely that the latter are intended by the Lubim, . in a more generic sense than Rebu, in the jieal mention of the armies of these kings. igsch, Geogr. Inschr. ii. 79 ff.) We have idy shown that the Lubim are probably the raite LEHABIM: if so, their so-called Semitic tieal characteristics, as represented on the ptian monuments, afford evidence of great im- ance for the inquirer into primeval history. mention in Manetho’s Dynasties that, under herophes, or Necherochis, the first Memphite », and head of the third dynasty (B. Cc. cir. 2600), Libyans revolted from the Egyptians, but re- ed to their allegiance through fear, on a won- il increase of the moon,@ may refer to the Lu- but may as probably relate to some other can people, perhaps the Naphtuhim, or Phut i)s he historical indications of the Egyptian monu- ts thus lead us to place the seat of the Lubim, timitive Libyans, on the African coast to the ward of Egypt, perhaps extending far beyond Oyrenaica. From the earliest ages of which lave any record,a stream of colonization has @d from the east along the coast of Africa, of the Great Desert, as far as the Pillars fereules. The oldest of these colonists of this m were doubtless the Lubim and kindred 8, particularly the Mashawasha-u and Tahen- \f the Egyptian monuments, all of which appear dave ultimately taken their common name of ans from the Lubim. They seem to have been ‘Teduced by the Egyptians about 1250 B. c., ito have been afterwards driven inland by the —- Texepardns ...€f ob AiBues améatncav AlyuTTiov 4S Tedjvys mapa Adyov avéEnOeians dia S€os EavTovs a ap. Cory, Anc. Frag. 2d ed. p. 100, » 101). LUCIUS 1689 Pheenician and Greek colonists. Now, they sti remain on the northern confines of the Great Desert, and even within it, and in the mountains, while their later Shemite rivals pasture their flocks in the rich plains. Many as are the Arab tribes of Africa, one great tribe, that of the Benee ’Alee, extends from Egypt to Morocco, illustrating the probable extent of the territory of the Lubiin and their cog- nates. It is possible that in Ezek. xxx. 5, Lub, miso: should be read for Chub, 2°23 but there is no other instance of the use of this form: as, how- ever, 2 and =p nlp) are used for one people, ap- parently the Mizraite Ludim, most probably kin- dred to the Lubim, this objection is not conclusive [Cuus; Luprm]. In Jer. xlvi. 9, the A. V. ren- ders Phut “the Libyans;”’ and in Ezek. xxxviii. 5 “« Libya.” RS SHP. LU’CAS (Aovkas: Lucas), a friend and come panion of St. Paul during his imprisonment at Rome (Philem. 24). He is the same as Luke, the beloved physician, who is associated with Demas in Col. iv. 14, and who remained faithful to the Apostle when others forsook him (2 Tim. iv. 11), on his first examination before the emperor. For the grounds of his identification with the evangelist St. Luke, see article LUKE. LU’CIFER Obn [see below]: ‘Ewapdpos: Lucifer). The name is found in Is. xiv. 12, coupled with the epithet “son of the morning,” and (being derived from S577, “to shine’’) clearly signifies a “bright star,’’ and probably what we call the morning star.? In this passage it is a symbolical representation of the king of Babylon, in his splen dor and in his fall; perhaps also it refers to his glory as paling before the unveiled presence of God. Its application (from St. Jerome downwards) to Satan in his fall from heaven arises probably from the fact that the Babylonian Empire is in Scripture represented as the type of tyrannical and self-idol- izing power, and especially connected with the em- pire of the Evil One in the Apocalypse. The fall of its material power before the unseen working of the providence of God is therefore a type of the de- feat of all manifestations of the tyranny of Satan. This application of the name “ Lucifer ’’ as a proper name of the Devil, is plainly ungrounded; but the magnificence of the imagery of the prophet, far transcending in grandeur the fall of Nebuchadnezzar to which it immediately refers, has naturally given a color to the symbolical interpretation of the pas- sage, and fixed that application in our modern lan- guage. A. B. LU’CIUS $ (Aedv«ios, Aodktos: [Lucius]}), a Roman consul (fzatos ‘Pwuaiwy), who is said to have written* the letter to Ptolemy (Kuergetes), which assured Simon I. of the protection of Rome (cir. B. C. 139-8; 1 Macc. xv. 10, 15-24). The whole form of the letter — the mention of one con- sul only, the description of the consul by the pre- nomen, the omission of the senate and of the date (comp. Wernsdorf, De fide Macc. § cxix.), — shows that it cannot be an accurate copy of the original b The other interpretation, which makes bn an imperative of the verb eps in the sense of wail ” or * lament,”’ injures the parallelism, and is generally regarded as untenable. 1690 LUCIUS document; but there is nothing. in the substance of the letter which is open to just suspicion. The imperfect transcription of the name has led to the identification of Lucius with three distinct persons — (1.) [Lucius] Furius Philus (the lists, Clinton, #asti /ell. ii. 112, give P. Furius Philus), who was not consul till B. c. 136, and is therefore at once excluded. (2.) Lucius Cecilius Metellus Calvus, who was consul in B. ©. 142, immediately after Simon assumed the government. On this supposition it might seem not unlikely that the answer which Simon received to an application for protection, which he made to Rome directly on his assumption of power (comp. 1 Mace. xiv. 17, 18) in the consulship of Metellus, has been combined with the answer to the later embassy of Numenius (1 Mace. xiv. 24, xv. 18). (8.) But the third identification with Lucius Calpurnius Piso, who was consul B. ©. 139, is most probably correct. The date exactly corresponds, and, though the prenomen of Calpurnius is not established beyond all question, the balance of evidence is decidedly against the common lists. The Fasti Capitolint are defective for this year, and only give a fragment of the name of Popillius, the fellow-consul of Cal- purnius. Cassiodorus (Chron.) as edited, gives Cn. Calpurnius, but the eye of the scribe (if the reading is correct) was probably misled by the names in the years immediately before. On the other hand Valerius Maximus (i. 8) is wrongly quoted from the printed text as giving the same prenomen. The passage in which the name occurs is in reality no part of Valerius Maximus, but a piece of the abstract of Julius Paris inserted in the text. Of eleven MSS. of Valerius which the writer has examined, it occurs only in one (Mus. Brit. Burn. 209), and there the name is given Lucius Calpurnius, as it is given by Mai in his edition of Julius Paris (Script. Vet. Nova Coll. iii. 7). Sigonius says rightly (Mast? Cons. p. 207): ‘‘ Cassiodorus prodit consules Cn. Pisonem ... . epitoma L. Calpurnium”’ . . . The chance of an error of transcription in Julius Paris is obviously less than in the Fast? of Cassiodorus; and even if the evidence were equal, the authority of 1 Mace. might rightly be urged as decisive in such a case. Josephus omits all mention of the letter of “‘ Lucius ’’ in his account of Simon, but gives ‘one very similar in contents (Amt. xiv. 8, § 5), as written on the motion of Lucius Valerius in the ninth (nineteenth) year of Hyrcanus II.; and unless the two letters and the two missions which led to them were purposely assimilated, which is not wholly improbable, it must be supposed that he has been guilty of a strange oversight in removing the inci- dent from its proper place. Ber Wi LU’CIUS (Aov«ios: Lucius), a kinsman or fellow-tribesman of St. Paul (Rom. xv. 21), by whom he is said by tradition to have been ordained bishop of the church of Cenchrez, from whence the Epistle to the Romans was written (Apost. Const. vii. 46). He is thought by some to be the same with Lucius of Cyrene. (See the following arti- cle. ) LU’CIUS OF CYRE‘’NE (Aovxuios 6 Kupn- vaios)- Lucius, thus distinguished by the name of his city — the capital of a Greek colony in Northern Africa, and remarkable for the number of its Jewish inhabitants — is first mentioned in the N. T. in company with Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Manaen, and Saul, who are described as prophets LUD and teachers of the church at Antioch (Acts xii These honored disciples having, while engag the office of common worship, received comm ment from the Holy Ghost to set apart Barr and Saul for the special service of God, proces after fasting ‘and prayer, to lay their hands | them. This is the first recorded instance formal ordination to the office of Evangelist, b cannot be supposed that so solemn a commi; would have been given to any but such as themselves been ordained to the ministry of Word, and we may therefore assume that L1 and his companions were already of that nun Whether Lucius was one of the seventy disci as stated by Pseudo-Hippolytus, is quite a m: of conjecture, but it is highly probable tha formed one of the congregation to whom St. I preached on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. and there can hardly be a doubt that he was of “the men of Cyrene’’ who, being “ scat abroad upon the persecution that arose about phen,”’ went to Antioch preaching the Lord J (Acts xi. 19, 20). lt is commonly supposed that Lucius is the] man of St. Paul mentioned by that Apostle as_ ing with him in his salutation to the Roman b: ren (Rom. xvi. 21). There is certainly no suffi reason for regarding him as identical with St. ] the Evangelist, though this opinion was appare held by Origen (im loco), and is supported by met, as well as by Wetstein, who adduces in firmation of it the fact reported by Heroc (iii. 121), that the Cyrenians had throug Greece a high reputation as physicians. Bi must be observed that the names are clearly tinct. The missionary companion of St. Paul not Lucius, but Lucas, or Lucanus, “the bel physician,’’ who, though named in three diffe Epistles (Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 11; Philem. is never referred to as a relation. Again, | hardly probable that St. Luke, who suppresse own name as the companion of St. Paul, ¥ have mentioned himself as one among the | distinguished prophets and teachers at Ant Oishausen, indeed, asserts confidently that th tion of St. Luke and Lucius being the same p has nothing whatever to support it (Clark’s 7 Lib. iv. 513). In the Apostolical Constitu vii. 46, it is stated that. St. Paul consec Lucius bishop of Cenchree. Different tradi make Lucius the first bishop of Cyrene an Laodicea in Syria. E. H— LUD (771): Aov8; [Ezek. xxvii. 10, x Avdot:] Lud [Lydia, Lydii, Lydi}), the f name in the list of the children of Shem (Ge 22; comp. 1 Chr. i. 17), that of a person ort or both, descended from him. It has been posed that Lud was the ancestor of the Ly (Jos. Ant. i. 6, § 4), and thus represented by Lydus of their mythical period (Herod. i. 7a Shemite character of their manners, and the s! orientalism of the art of the Lydian kingdom di its latest period and after the Persian conquest before the predominance of Greek art in Asia M favor this idea; but, on the other hand, the f tian monuments show us in the 18th, 14th, 15th centuries B. ©. a powerful people called Rt or LuDEN, probably seated near Mesopotamia. apparently north of Palestine, whom somé, ever, make the Assyrians. We may perhaps jecture that the Lydians first established 4 * » LUDIM 3 near Palestine, and afterwards spread into , Minor; the occupiers of the old seat of the being destroyed or removed by the Assyrians. the question whether the Lud [Is. Ixvi. 19, ¢. xxvii. 10, xxx. 5] or Ludim mentioned by prophets be of this stock or the Mizraite Ludim en. x., see the next article. Re BP. UDIM (O°, Gen. x. 13, OTN, 1 i. 11 [perh. shining white, Fiirst]: Aovdietu: im), a Mizraite people or tribe. From their ion at the head of the list of the Mizraites, it obable that the Ludim were settled to the west gypt, perhaps further than any other Mizraite . Lud and the Ludim are mentioned in four ages of the prophets. It is important to ascer- if possible, whether the Mizraite Ludim or Shemite Lud be referred to in each of these uges. Isaiah mentions “Tarshish, Pul, and ‘that draw the bow (TWP Sw), Tubal, Javan, the isles afar off”? (Ixvi. 19). Here the ession in the plural, “that draw the bow ”’ lentes sagittam, Vulg.), may refer only to Lud, therefore not connect it with one or both of the es preceding. A comparison with the other : passayes, in all which Phut is mentioned im- ately before or after Lud or the Ludim, makes most certain that the LXX. reading, Phut, , for Pul, a word not occurring in any other ie, is the true one, extraordinary as is the ge from YDWD to Moody. [Puu.] Jere- , in speaking of Pharaoh Necho’s army, makes tion of * Cush and Phut that handle the buck- and the Ludim that handle [and] bend the ” @ (xlvi. 9). Here the Ludim are associated The manner in which these foreign troops in the tian army are characterized is perfectly in accord- with the evidence of the monuments, which, ugh about six centuries earlier than the prophet’s no doubt represent the same condition of mili- ‘Matters. The only people of Africa beyond t, portrayed on the monuments, whom we can con- as most probably of the same stock as the Egyp- » are the ReBU, who are the Lubim of the Bible, 3st certainly the same as the Mizraite Lehabim. \BIM; Lusim.] ‘Therefore we may take the ReBU obably illustrating the Ludim, supposing the lat- » be Mizraites, in which case they may indeed be ded under the same name as the Lubim, if the lation ReBU be wider than the Lubim of the ) and also as illustrating Cush and Phut. ‘ast two are spoken of as handling the buck- The Egyptians are generally represented ‘small shields, frequently round; the ReBU ‘mal round shields, for which the term used, 122, the small shield, and the ex- jon “that handle,” are perfectly appro- » That the Ludim should have been arch- ‘nd apparently armed with a long bow that ung with the aid of the foot by treading 12 2177), is note-worthy, since the Af- $ were always famous for their archery. BU, and one other of the foreign nations Served in the Egyptian army — the monuments the former only as enemies — were bowmen, being { with a bow of moderate length ; the other mer- les — of whom we can only identify the Philistine thim, though they probably include certain of reenaries or auxiliaries mentioned in the Bible Ying swcrds and javelins, but not bows. These Of agreement, founded on our examination of tonuments. are of no little weight, as showing curacy of the Bible. LUDIM 1661 with African nations, as mercenaries or auxiliaries of the king of Egypt, and therefore it would seem probable, prima facie, that the Mizraite Ludim are intended. Ezekiel, in the description of Tyre, speaks thus of Lud: “ Persia and Lud and Phut were in thine army, thy men of war: buckler (7279) and helmet hung they up in thee; they set thine adorning ” (xxvii. 10). In this place Lud might seem to mean the Shemite Lud, especially if the latter be connected with Lydia; but the association with Phut renders it as likely that the nation or country is that of the African Ludim. In the prophecy against Gog a similar passage occurs; “ Persia, Cush, and Phut (A. V. “ Libya”) with them [the army of Gog]; all of them [with] buck- ler (7372) and helmet’’ (xxxviii. 5). It seems from this that there were Persian mercenaries at this time, the prophet perhaps, if speaking of a remote future period, using their name and that of other well-known mercenaries in a general sense. The association of Persia and Lud in the former passage loses therefore somewhat of its weight. In one of the prophecies against Egypt Lud is thus mentioned among the supports of that country: “And the sword shall come upon Mizraim, and great pain shall be in Cush, at the falling of the slain in Mizraim, and they shall take away her multitude (7121979), and her foundations shall be broken down. Cush, and Phut, and Lud, and all the mingled people (ANY), and Chub, and the children of the land of the ‘covenant, shall fall by the sword with them” (xxx. 4,5). Here Lud is associated with Cush and Phut, as though an Afri- can nation. The Ereb, whom we have called b The description of Tyre in this prophecy of Ezekiel receives striking illustration from what we believe to be its earliest coins. These coins were held to be most probably of Tyre, or some other Phoenician city, or possibly of Babylon, on numismatic evidence alone, by the writer’s lamented colleague at the British Museum, Mr. Burgon. They probably date during the 5th cen- tury B. 0.; they may possibly be a little older; but it is most reasonable to consider them as of the time of, and issued by Darius Hystaspis. The chief coins are octodrachms of the earlier Phoenician weight [Monzy], bearing on the obverse a war-galley beneath the tow- ered walls of a city, and, on the reverse, a king ina chariot, with an incuse goat beneath. ‘This combina- tion of galley and city is exactly what we find in the description of Tyre in Ezekiel, which mainly portrays a state-galley, but also refers to a port, and speaks of towers and walls. ce There may perhaps be here a reference by parono- masia to Amon, the chief divinity of Thebes, the He- brew name of which, 778 3, contains his name. [Amon.] 1692 LUDIM “ nlingled: people ’’ rather than “ strangers,’’ appear to have been an Arab population of the Sinaitic peninsula, perhaps including Arab or half-Arab tribes of the Egyptian desert to the east of the Nile. Chub is a name nowhere else occurring, which per- haps should be read Lub, for the country or nation of the Lubim. [Cuus; Lusim.] The ‘children of the land of the covenant’ may be some league of tribes, as probably were the Nine Bows of the Egyptian inscriptions; or the expression may mean nations or tribes allied with Egypt, as though a general designation for the rest of its supporters besides those specified. It is noticeable that in this passage, although Lud is placed among the close allies or supporters of Egypt, yet it follows African nations, and is followed by a nation or tribe at least partly inhabiting Asia, although possibly also partly inhabiting Africa. There can be no doubt that but one nation is intended in these passages, and it seems that thus far the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the Mizraite Ludim. . There are no indications in the Bible known to be positive of mercenary or allied troops in the Egyptian armies, except of Africans, and perhaps of tribes bordering Egypt on the east. We have still to inquire how the evidence of the Egyptian monuments and of profane history may affect our supposition. From the former we learn that several foreign nations contributed allies or mercenaries to the Egyptian armies. Among them we identify the Repu with the Lubim, and the SHARYATANA with the Cherethim, who also served in David’s army. The latter were probably from the coast of Palestine, although they may have been drawn in the case of the Egyptian army from an insular portion of the same people. The rest of these foreign troops seem to have been of African nations, but this is not certain. The evidence of the monuments reaches no lower than the time of the Bubastite line. There is a single foreign con- temporary inscribed record on one of the colossi of the temple of Aboo-Simbel in Nubia, recording the passage of Greek mercenaries of a Psammetichus, probably the first (Wilkinson, Modern Egypt and Thebes, ii. 829).¢ From the Greek writers, who give us information from the time of Psammetichus I. downwards, we learn that Ionian, Carian, and other Greek mercenaries formed an important element in the Egyptian army in all times when the country was independent, from the reign of that king until the final conquest by Ochus. These mercenaries were even settled in Egypt by Psam- metichus. There does not seem to be any mention of them in the Bible, excepting they be intended by Lud and the Ludim in the passages that have been considered. It must be recollected that it is rea- sonable to connect the Shemite Lud with the Lydi- ans, and that at the time of the prophets by whom Lud and the Ludim are mentioned, the Lydian kingdom generally or always included the more western part of Asia Minor, so that the terms Lud and Ludim might well apply to the Ionian and Carian mercenaries drawn from this territory.° We must therefore hesitate before absolutely con- cluding that this important portion of the Egyp- a The leader of these mercenaries is called in the inscription “ Psammatichus, son of Theocles ;”’ which shows, in the adoption of an Egyptian name, the do- mestication of these Greeks in Egypt. b Any indications of an alliance with Lydia under Amasis are insufficient to render it probable that even = ” h. LUKE tian mercenaries is not mentioned in the Bj upon the prima facia evidence that the only n: which could stand for it would seem to be that an African nation. k. $32 LU’HITH, THE ASCENT OF (719 mrpbn, in Isaiah; and so alsc in the Kr corrected text of Jeremiah, although there the o inal text has FYWT IF, i. e: hal-Luhéth: 4 ¢ Baots Aovel@; in Jeremiah, ’AAdO,¢ Alex. Ada [FA.* AAeO:] ascensus Lwith), a place in Mo apparently the ascent to a sanctuary or holy on an eminence. It occurs only in Is. xv. 5, the parallel passage of Jeremiah (xlviii. 5). 1] mentioned with ZOAR and Horonai, but whet because they were locally connected, or beea they were all sanctuaries, is doubtful. In the d of Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasticon, * Luitl it was still known, and stood between Areop (Rabbath-Moab) and Zoar, the latter being pr ably at the mouth of the Wady Kerak. de Sauley (Voyage, ii. 19, and Map, sheet places it at ‘* Kharbet-Nouéhin;’’ but this is ne of Areopolis, and cannot be said to lie betwee and Zoar, whether we take Zoar on the east or west side ‘of the sea. The writer is not aware t any one else has attempted to identify the place The signification of the name hal-Luhith m remain doubtful. As a Hebrew word it sign “‘made of boards or posts’’ (Ges. Thes. p. 7: but why assume that a Moabite spot should 1 a Hebrew name? By the Syriac interpreters i rendered ‘paved with flagstones ’’ (Eichhorn, 4 Bibliothek, i. 845, 872). In the Targums (Psee jon. and Jerus. on Num. xxi. 16, and Jonatha Is. xv. 1) Lechaiath is given as the equivalent Ar-Moab. ‘This may contain an ‘allusion to chith; or it may point to the use of a term meal ‘jaw’ for certain eminences, not only in the of the Lehi of Samson, but also elsewhere. | Michaelis, Suppl. No. 1307; but, on the other hi Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb, 1134.) It-is probably, AKRABBIM, the name of the ascent, and not of town at the summit, as in that case the Vv would appear as Luhithah, with the particle motion added. —G LUKE. The name Luke (Aouxas: [Luca is an abbreviated form of Lucianus or of Lue (Meyer). It is not to be confounded with Lu (Acts xiii. 1: Rom. xvi. 21), which belongs toa ferent person. The name Luke occurs three ti in the New Testament (Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. Philem. 24), and probably in all, three, the Evangelist is the person spoken of. To the C sians he is described as “the beloved physicie probably because he had been known to them in’ faculty. Timothy needs no additional mark identification ; to him the words are, ‘ only Luk with me.” To Philemon Luke sends his saluta in common with other “ fellow-laborers ”’ of Paul. As there is every reason to believe that Luke of these passages is the author of the Act the Apostles as well as of the Gospel which bears name, it is natural to seek in the former book then Lydians fought in the Egyptian army, and th no light on the earlier relations of the Egyptians Lydians. ce The LXX. follow the Cethid rather than the as they frequently do elsewhere and also include definite article of the Hebrew. | LUKE LUKE 1693 traces of that connection with St. Paul which passages assume to exist; and although the of St. Luke does not occur in the Acts, there son to believe that under the pronoun ‘ we” al references to the Evangelist are to be added e three places just quoted. mbining the traditional element with the tural, the uncertain with the certain, we are to trace the following dim outline of the gelist’s life. He was born at Antioch in Syria sbius, Hist. iii. 4); in what condition of life certain. That he was taught the science of sine does not prove that he was of higher birth the rest of the disciples; medicine in its earlier ruder state was sometimes practiced even by a _ The well-known tradition that Luke was 1 painter, and of no mean skill, rests on the writy of Nicephorus (ii. 43), of the Menology e Emperor Basil, drawn up in 980, and of ‘late writers; but none of them are of his- ul authority, and the Acts and [Epistles are ly silent upon a point so likely to be mentioned. as not born a Jew, for he is not reckoned ig them “of the circumcision” by St. Paul p- Col. iv. 11 with ver. 14). If this be not ght conclusive, nothing can be argued from reek idioms in his style, for he might be a ‘nist Jew, nor from the Gentile tendency of his el, for this it would share with the inspired ngs of St. Paul, a Pharisee brought up at the of Gamaliel. The date of his conversion is tain. He was not indeed ‘an eye-witness ‘minister of the word from the beginning”’ i. 2), or he would have rested his claim as vangelist upon that ground. Still he may have ‘converted by the Lord Himself, some time be- iis departure; and the statement of Epiphanius t. Her. li. 11) and others, that he was one le seventy disciples, has nothing very improb- Min it; whilst that which Theophylact adopts luke xxiy.), that he was one of the two who jneyed to Emmaus with the risen Redeemer, found modern defenders. ‘Tertullian assumes | the conversion of Luke is to be ascribed to ; — « Lucas non apostolus, sed apostolicus; non ster, sed discipulus, utique magistro minor, _ tanto posterior quanto posterioris Apostoli itor, Pauli sine dubio”’ (Adv. Marcion. iv. 2); ithe balance of probability is on this side. jae first ray of historical light falls on the welist when he joins St. Paul at Troas, and M's his journey into Macedonia. The sudden ‘ition to the first person plural in Acts xvi. 10 Jost naturally explained, after all the objections have been urged, by supposing that Luke, the or of the Acts, formed one of St. Paul’s com- i from this point. His conversion had taken I before, since he silently assumes his place Nig the great Apostle’s followers without any i that this was his first admission to the knowl- d and ministry of Christ. He may haye found livay to Troas to preach the Gospel, sent pos- by St. Paul himself. As far as Philippi the Jigelist journeyed with the Apostle. The re- ation of the third person on Paul’s departure that place (xvii. 1) would show that Luke was left behind. During the rest of St. Paul’s bid missionary journey we hear of Luke no m: But on the third journey the same indica- reminds us that Luke is again of the company 4s xx. 5), having joined it apparently at Philippi, We he had been left. With the Apostle he danger. passed through Miletus, Tyre, and Ceesarea to Jeru- salem (xx. 5, xxi. 18). Between the two visits of Paul to Philippi seven years had elapsed (A. D. 51 to A. D. 58), which the Evangelist may have spent in Philippi and its neighborhood, preaching the Gospel. There remains one passage, which, if it refers to St. Luke, must belong to this period. “‘ We have sent with him’? (@. e. Titus) “the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches ”’ (2 Cor. viii. 18), The subscription of the epistle sets out that it was ‘“ written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas,” and it is an old opinion that Luke was the companion of Titus, although he is not named in the body of the epistle. If this be so, we are to suppose that during the “three months” of Paul’s sojourn at Philippi (Acts xx. 3) Luke was sent from that place to Corinth on this errand; and the words * whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the churches ”’ enable us to form an estimate of his activity during the interval in which he has not been otherwise mentioned. It is needless to add that the praise lay in the activity with which he preached the Gospel, and not, as Jerome understands the passage, in his being the author of a written gospel. ‘ Lu- cas . . . scripsit Evangelium de quo idem Paulus ‘ Misimus, inquit, cum illo fratrem, cujus laus est in Evangelio per omnes ecclesias ’ ”’ (De Viris Ill. c. 7). He again appears in the company of Paul in the memorable journey to Rome (Acts xxvii. 1). He remained at his side during his first imprisonment (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24); and if it is to be sup- posed that the Second Epistle to Timothy was written during the second imprisonment, then the testimony of that epistle (iv. 11) shows that he continued faithful to the Apostle to the end of his afflictions. After the death of St. Paul, the acts of his faith- ful companion are hopelessly obscure to us. In the well-known passage of Epiphanius (cont. Her. li. 11, vol. ii. 464, in Dindorf's recent edition), we find that “ receiving the commission to preach the Gospel, [Luke] preaches first in Dalmatia and Gallia, in Italy and Macedonia, but first in Gallia, as Paul himself says of some of his companions, in his epistles, ‘ Crescens in Gallia,’ for we are not to read ‘in Galatia’ as some mistakenly think, but ‘in Gallia’? But there seems to be as little authority for this account of St. Luke’s ministry as there is for the reading Gallia in 2 Tim. iv. 10. How scanty are the data, and how vague the re- sults, the reader may find by referring to the Acia Sanctorum, October, vol. viii., in the recent Brus- sels edition. It is, as perhaps the Evangelist wishes it to be: we only know him whilst he stands by the side of his beloved Paul; when the master departs the history of the follower becomes con- fusion and fable. As to the age and death of the Evangelist there is the utmost uncertainty. It seems probable that he died in advanced life; but whether he suffered martyrdom or died a natural death; whether Bithynia or Achaia, or some other country, witnessed his end, it is impossible to de- termine amidst contradictory voices. That he died a martyr, between A. D. 75 and A. D. 100, would seem to have the balance of suffrages in its favor. Tt is enough for us, so far as regards the Gospel of St. Luke, to know that the writer was the tried and constant friend of the Apostle Paul, who shared his labors, and was not driven from his side by VWs aca 1694 LUKE, GOSPEL OF LUKE,GOSPEL OF. The third Gospel is ascribed, by the general consent of ancient Christen- dom, to “the beloved physician,’’ Luke, the friend and companion of the Apostle Paul. In the well- known Muratorian fragment (see vol. ii. p. 942) we find “ Tertio evangelii librum secundum Lucam. Lucas iste medicus post ascensun: Christi cum eum Paulus, quasi ut juris studiosum secundum ad- sumsisset, nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit. Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne. It idem prout assequi potuit. Ita et ab nativitate Johannis incipit dicere.’’ (Here Credner’s restoration of the text is followed; see his Geschichte des N. T’. Kanon, p. 153, § 76; comp. Routh’s Reliquia, vol. iv.) The citations of Justin Martyr from the Gospel narrative show an acquaintance with and use of St. Luke’s account (see Kirchhofer, Quellen- sammlung, p. 132, for the passages). Irenseus (cont. Heer. iii. 1) says that “ Luke, the follower of Paul, preserved in a book the Gospel which that Apostle preached.” ‘The same writer affords (iii. 14) an account of the contents of the Gospel, which proves that in the book preserved to us we possess the same which he knew. Eusebius (iii. 4) speaks without doubting, of the two books, the Gospel and the Acts, as the work of St. Luke. Both he and Jerome (Catal, Script. Eccl. ¢. 7) mention the opinion that when St. Paul uses the words “ ac- cording to my Gospel’’ it is to the work of St. Luke that he refers; both mention that St. Luke derived his knowledge of divine things, not from. Paul only, but from the rest of the Apostles, with whom (says Eusebius) he had active intercourse. Although St. Paul’s words refer in all probability to no written Gospel at all, but to the substance of his own inspired preaching, the error is im- portant, as showing how strong was the opinion in ancient times that Paul was in some way connected with the writing of the third Gospel. It has been shown already [GOSPELS, vol. ii. p. 942 f.] that the Gospels were in use as one col- lection, and were spoken of undoubtingly as the work of those whose names they bear, towards the end of the second century. But as regards the genuineness of St. Luke any discussion is entangled with a somewhat difficult question, namely, what is the relation of the Gospel we possess to that which was used by the heretic Marcion? The case may be briefly stated. The religion of Jesus Christ announced salvation to Jew and Gentile, through Him who was born a Jew, of the seed of David. The two sides of this fact produced very early two opposite tendencies in the Church. One party thought of Christ as the Messiah of the Jews; the other as the Redeemer of the human race. The former viewed the Lord as the Messiah of Jewish prophecy and tradition; the other as the revealer of a doctrine wholly new, in which atonement and salvation and enlighten- ment were offered to men for the first time. Marcion of Sinope, who flourished in the first half of the second century, expressed strongly the tendency opposed to Judaism. The scheme of redemption, so full of divine compassion and love, was adopted by him, though in a perverted form, with his whole heart. The aspersions on his sincerity are thrown a “Cerdon autem. . prophetis annuntiatus sit Deus, non esse patrem Domini nostri Christi Jesu. Hune enim cognosci, illum autem ignorari; et alterum quidem justum, alterum autem bonumi esse. Succedens autem ei Marcion Ponticus . docuit eum qui a lege et | adampliavit doctrinam, impudorate blasphemans \ LUKE, GOSPEL OF out in the loose rhetoric of controversy, and are be received with something more than cauti The heathen world, into the discord of which { music of that message had never come, appeal to him as the kingdom of darkness and of Sat; So far Marcion and his opponents would go- gether. But how does Marcion deal with { O. T.? He views it, not as a preparation for | coming of the Lord, but as something hostile spirit to the Gospel. In God, as revealed in | QO. T., he saw only a being jealous and cruel. 17 heretic Cerdo taught that the just and severe G of the Law and the Prophets was not the same the merciful Father of the Lord Jesus. T dualism Marcion carried further, and blasphemou argued that the God of the O. T. was represent as doing evil and delighting in strife, as repenti of his decrees and inconsistent with Himsel This divorcement of the N. T. from the Old y at the root of Marcion’s doctrine. In his strar system the God of the O. T. was a lower being, whom he gave the name of An.oupyés, engag in a constant conflict with matter (“YAn), 0 which he did not gain a complete victory. I the holy and eternal God, perfect in goodness a love, comes not in contact with matter, and crea only what is like to and cognate with himself. the O. T. we see the “ Demiurgus;”’ the hist of redemption is the history of the operation of | true God. Thus much it is necessary to state bearing upon what follows: the life and doctr of Marcion have received a much fuller elucidat, from Neander, Kirchengeschtchte, vol. ii.; Ai gnostikus, and Dogmengeschichte; and from Vo mar, Das Lvangelium Marcions, p. 25. ‘The d in older writers are found inthe Apology of Jus Martyr, in Tertullian against Marcion i.—y.; | Irenzeus, i. ch. 27; and Epiphanius, Her, xiii. For the present purpose it is to be noticed t) a teacher, determined as Marcion was to sever | connection between the Old and New Testame would approach the Gospel history with strc prejudices, and would be unable to accept as stands the written narrative of any of the th Evangelists, so far as it admitted allusions to Old Testament as the soil and root of the New. is clear, in fact, that he regarded Paul as the 0 Apostle who had remained faithful to his calli He admitted the Epistles of St. Paul, and a Gos which he regarded as Pauline, and rejected the 1 of the N. T., not from any idea that the bo were not genuine, but because they were, as alleged, the genuine works of men who were faithful teachers of the Gospel they had received But what was the Gospel which Marcion ust The ancient testimony is very strong on this poi it was the Gospel of St. Luke, altered to suit! peculiar tenets. “ Et super haec,”’ says Irene “id quod est secundum Lucam Evangelium | cumcidens, et omnia que sunt de generatit Domini conscripta auferens, et de doctrina monum Domini multa auferens, in quibus mani tissime conditorem hujus universitatis suum Patt confitens Dominus conscriptus est; semetipsum ( veraciorem quam sunt hi, qui Evangelium tri derunt apostoli, suasit discipulis suis; non Evan A qui a lege et prophetis annuntiatus est Deus ; malor' factorem et bellorum concupiscentem et inconstan quoque sententia, et contrarium sibi ipsum dicel) (Irenseus, i. 27, §$ 1 and 2, p. 256, Stieren’s ed.). | 2 » =: LUKE, GOSPEL OF ‘sed particulam Evangelii tradens eis. Similiter ‘net apostoli Pauli Epistolas abscidit, auferens sumque manifeste dicta sunt ab apostolo de eo qui mundum fecit, quoniam hic Pater Domini i Jesu Christi, et queecumque ex propheticis ‘orans apostolus docuit, prenuntiantibus ad- ‘um Domini”’ (cont. Her. i. xxvii. 2). “ Lucam ur Marcion elegisse,”’ says ‘l'ertullian, ‘* quem ret” (cont. Mare. iv. 2; comp. Origen, cont. wm, ii. 27; Epiphanius, Her. xlii. 11; The- ot, Heret. ab. i, 24). Marcion, however, did weribe to Luke by name the Gospel thus cor- od (Tert. cont. Mure. iy. 6), calling it simply |xospel of Christ. “om these passages the opinion that Marcion ‘ed for himself a Gospel, on the principle of ‘ting all that savored of Judaism in an existing ~~ ‘tive, and that he selected the Gospel of St. i: as needing the least alteration, seems to have : held universally in the Church, until Semler ed a doubt, the prolific seed of a large con- vrsy; from the whole result of which, however, sause of truth has little to regret. His opinion {that the Gospel of St. Luke and that used by [:ion were drawn from one and the same original %e, neither being altered from the other. He is that Tertullian erred from want of historical iiedge. ‘The charge of Kpiphanius, of omis- i in Marcion’s Gospel, he meets by the fact of ‘ullian’s silence. (Griesbach, about the same , cast doubt upon the received opinion. Eich- applied his theory of an “original Gospel ’’ J article GosPELS, vol. ii. p. 945 f.] to this ques- and maintained that the Fathers had mistaken pert and unadulterated Gospel used by Marcion ) un abridgment of St. Luke, whereas it was ably more near the ‘original Gospel” than ake. Hahn has more recently shown, in an rate work, that there were sutticient motives, t doctrinal kind, to induce Marcion to wish to erid of parts of St. Luke’s Gospel; and he ¢es Eichhorn’s reasoning on several passages h he had misunderstood from neglecting Ter- w’s testimony. He has the merit, admitted on lands, of being the first to collect the data for storation of Marcion’s text in a satisfactory ner, and of tracing out in detail the bearing of iiloctrines on particular portions of it. Many i disposed to regard Hahn’s work as conclusive; i certainly most of its results are still undis- ied. Ritschl, however, took the other side, and « that Marcion only used the Gospel of St. Luke it older and more primitive form, and that what Teharged against the former as omissions are f interpolations in the latter. A controversy, which Baur, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar took a has resulted in the confirmation, by an over- ¢ ring weight of argument, of the old opinion ‘Marcion corrupted the Gospel of Luke for his purposes. Volkmar, whose work contains best account of the whole controversy, sweeps 7, it is to be hoped for ever, the opinion of ‘hl and Baur that Marcion quoted the “ origi- xospel of Luke,’’ as well as the later view of %', for which there is really not a particle of Vinee, that the Gospel had passed through the ‘8 of two authors or editors, the former with ig inclinations against Judaism, a zealous fol- h The history of this controversy is highly in- Mtive. For a good account of it, see Bleek’s Einl. as N.T.§ 52. It should be noted that Baur, LUKE, GOSPEL OF 1695. lower of St. Paul, and the latter with leanings te Judaism and against the Gnostics! He considera the Gospel of St. Luke, as we now possess it, to be in all its general features that which Marcion found ready to his hand, and which for doctrinal reasons he abridged and altered. In certain passages, in- deed, he considers that the Gospel used by Marcion, as cited by Tertullian and Epiphanius, may be employed to correct our present text. But this is only putting the copy used by Marcion on the foot- ing of an older MS. The passages which he con- siders to have certainly suffered alteration since Marcion’s time are only these: Luke x. 21 (edya- pioT® Kal eEouodoyovpar), 22 (Kal oddels yyw tls éorw 6 wathp ¢i uh 6 vids, kal tis éorw 6 vibs ef uh 6 marnp Kal @ éay BovAnTtat Kk. T. A.) xi. 2 (5ds quiy 7d Gyov mvedua Gov), xil. 38 (77 Eomepivh pudaky)s xvii. 2 (supply ei wh eyevvndn } x. 7. A.), Xviil. 19 (uh pe Adye ayaddy’ ets éotw dyabes 6 mathp 5 év Tots ovpavois). In all these places the deviations are such as may be found to exist between different MSS. A new witness as to the last, which 1s of the greatest im- portance, appears in Hippolytus, Refutatio Here- sium, p. 254, Oxford edition, where the ri ye Aéyere Gyabdy appears. See, on all these pas- sages, 'Tischendorf’s Gieck Testament, ed. vii., and critical notes. Of four other places Volkmar speaks more doubtfully, as having been disturbed, but possibly before Marcion (vi. 17, xii. 32, xvii. 12, xxiii. 2). From this controversy we gain the following result: Marcion was in the height of his activity about A. D. 138, soon after which Justin Martyr wrote his Apology; and he had probably given forth his Gospel some years before, t. ¢. about A. D. 130. At the time when he composed it he found the Gospel of St. Luke so far diffused and accepted that he based his own Gospel upon it, altering and omitting. ‘Therefore we may assume that, about A. D. 120, the Gospel of St. Luke which we possess was in use, and was familiarly known. The theory that it was composed about the middle or end of the 2d century is thus overthrown; and there is no positive evidence of any kind to set against the harmonious assertion of all the ancient Church that this Gospel is the genuine production of St. Luke. (On St. Luke’s Gospel in its relation to Marcion, see, besides the fathers quoted above, Hahn, Das kvangelium Marcions, Kénigsberg, 1823; Ols- hausen, Echtheit der vier kanon. Evangelien, Kénigsberg, 1823; Ritschl, Das Evangelium Mar- cions, etc., Tiibingen, 1846, with his retractation in Theol. Jahrb. 1851; Baur, Krit. Untersuchun- gen tiber d. kanon. Evangelien, Tiibingen, 1847; Hilgenfeld, Krit. Untersuchungen, etc., Halle, 1850; Volkmar, Das Evangelium Marcions, Leipzig, 1852; Bishop Thirlwall’s ntroduction to Schleier- macher on St. Luke; De Wette, Lehrbuch [d. hist. krit. Einl. in] d. N. T., Berlin, 1848 [6¢ Ausg, von Messner u. Liinemann, 1860; see § 70 ff.]. These are but a part of the writers who have touched the subject. The work of Volkmar is the most comprehensive and thorough; and, though some of his views cannot be adopted, he has satisfactorily proved that our Gospel of St. Luke existed before the time of Marcion.®) unable to resist the arguments of Volkmar, in his Markusevangelium (1851), p. 191 ff., essentially modi- fied his earlier view of the relation of Marcicn’s Gos- 1696 LUKE, GOSPEL OF il. Date of the Gospel of Luke. —We have secn that this Gospel was in use before the year 120. rom internal evidence the date can be more nearly fixed. From Acts i. 1, it is clear that it was written before the Acts of the Apostles. The latest time actually mentioned in the Acts is the term of two years during which Paul dwelt at Rome “in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him”’ (xxviii. 30, 31). ° The writer, who has tracked the footsteps of Paul hitherto with such exactness, leaves him here abruptly, without making known the result of his appeal to Cesar, or the works in which he engaged afterwards. No other motive for this silence can be suggested than that the writer, at the time when he published the Acts, had no more to tell; and in that case the book of the Acts was completed about the end of the second year of St. Paul's imprisonment, that is, about A.D. 63 (Wieseler, Olshausen, Alford). How niuch earlier the Gospel, described as “the former trea- tise’’ (Acts i. 1), may have been written is uncer- tain. But Dean Alford (Prolegomena) remarks that the words imply some considerable interval between the two productions. The opinion of the younger Thiersch (Christian Church, p. 148, Car- lyle’s translation) thus becomes very probable, that it was written at Ceesarea during St. Paul’s im- prisonment there, A. D. 58-60. The Gospel of St. Matthew was probably written about the same time; and neither Evangelist appears to have used the other, although both made use of that form of oral teaching which the Apostles had gradually come to employ. [GospELs.] It is painful to remark how the opinions of many commentators, who re- fuse to fix the date of this Gospel earlier than the destruction of Jerusalem, have been influenced by the determination that nothing like prophecy shall be found in it. Believing that our Lord did really prophesy that event, we have no difficulty in be- lieving that an Evangelist reported the prophecy before it was fulfilled (see Meyer’s Commentary, Introduction). Ill. Place where the Gospel was written. — If the time has been rightly indicated, the place would be Ceesarea. Other suppositions are — that it was composed in Achaia and the region of Beotia (Jerome), in Alexandria (Syriac version), in Rome (Ewald, ete.), in Achaia and Macedonia (Hilgen- feld), and Asia Minor (KG6stlin). It is impossible to verify these traditions and conjectures. IV. Origin of the Gospel. —The preface, con- tained in the four first verses of the Gospel, describes the object of its writer. ‘* Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most _ excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein ‘thou hast been instructed.”’ Here are several facts to be observed. There were many narratives of the life of our Lord current at the early time when Luke wrote his Gospel. The word “many’’ cannot apply to Mat- thew and Mark, because it must at any rate include pel to that of Luke. Zeller and Ritschl soon after completely surrendered their former positions (Theol. Jahrb. 1851, pp 337,528 ff.). The whole question had however long before been really settled, and the as- e LUKE, GOSPEL OF more than two, and because it is implied t] former laborers leave something still to do, a that the writer will supersede or supplement ‘th either in whole or in part. The ground of fitn for the task St. Luke places in his having carefu followed out the whole course of events from { beginning. He does not claim the character of eye-witness from the first; but possibly he m have been a witness of some part of our Tor doings (see above LUKE, LIFE). The ancient opinion, that Luke wrote his fe under the influence of Paul, rests on the authori of Irenzeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius. T two first assert that we have in Luke the Gos preached by Paul (Iren. cont. Her. iii. 1; Te cont. Mare. iv. 5); Origen calls it ‘the Gos pp by Paul,” alluding to Rom. ii. 16 (Euse E. Hist. vi. 25): and Eusebius refers Paul’s wor ‘“‘according to my Gospel ” (2 Tim. ii. 8), to th of Luke (E. Hist. iii. 4), in which Jerome conet (De Vir. Jil. 7). The language of the preface against the notion of any exclusive influence of § Paul. The Ev angelist, a man on whom the Spi of God was, made the history of the Saviour’s ] the subject of research, and with materials soo tained wrote, under the guidance of the Spirit th was upon him, the history now before us. 7 four verses could not have been put at the head a history composed under the exclusive guidan of Paul or of any one Apostle, and as little cov they have introduced a gospel simply communicat by another. Yet if we compare St. Paul’s accou of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. : 23-25) with that in St. Luke’s Gospel (xxii. 1 20), none will think the verbal similarity could accidental. A less obvious parallel between 1 Cc xv. 3 and Luke xxiv. 26, 27, more of thought th of expression, tends the same way. ‘The truth seer to be that St. Luke, seeking information from eye quarter, sought it from the preaching of his beloy master, St. Paul; and the Apostle in his turn er ployed the knowledge acquired from other soure by his disciple. Thus the preaching of the Apost: founded on the same body of facts, and the san arrangement of them as the rest of the Apostl used, became assimilated especially to that whi St. Luke set forth in his narrative. This does n detract from the worth of either. ‘The preachit and the Gospel proceeded each from an inspir man; for it is certain that Luke, employed as | was by Paul, could have been no exception in th plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost to which Pa himself bears witness. That the teaching of ti men so linked together (see Lirr) should have b come more and more assimilated is just what wou be expected. But the influence was mutual, at not one-sided; and Luke still claims with rig the position of an independent inquirer into” Mi toric facts. Upon the question whether Luke made use a fi Gospels of Matthew and Mark, no opinion giv here could be conclusive. [Gospets, vol. ii. 944.] Each reader should examine it for hinnse with the aid of a Greek Harmony. It is probal that Matthew and Luke wrote independently, a1 about the same time. Some of their coincidenc arise from their both incorporating the oral teac. — tounding blunders of Eichhorn in respect to the su ject exposed, by Mr. Norton, in his Genuineness of t Gospels, vol. iii. Addit. Note ©, p. xlix. ff. (Bosto 1844). A LUKE, GOSPEL OF of the Apostles, and others, it may be, from common use of written documents, such as tinted at in Luke i. 1. As regards St. Mark, regard his Gospel as the oldest New Testa- writing, whilst others infer, from apparent syiations (Mark i. 12, xvi. 12), from insertions atter from other places (Mark iv. 10-34, ix. 8), and from the mode in which additional mation is introduced —now with a seeming ection with Matthew and now with Luke — Mark’s Gospel is the last, and has been framed the other two (De Wette, Einleitung, § 94). result of this controversy should be to inspire ust of all such seeming proofs, which conduct ent critics to exactly opposite results. . Purpose for which the Gospel was written. — Evangelist professes to write that Theophilus gbt know the certainty of those things wherein ad been instructed ” (i. 4). Who was this philus? Some have supposed that it is a sig- it name, applicable not to one man; but. to amans Dei; but the addition of KpaTiaros, & of honor which would be used towards a man ation, or sometimes (see passages in Kuinol Wetstein) towards a personal friend, seems ist this. He was, then, an existing person. ecture has been wildly busy in endeavoring to iify him with some person known to history. 2 indications are given in the Gospel about ‘and beyond them we do not propose to go. was not an inhabitant of Palestine, for the ‘gelist minutely describes the position of places 4 to such a one would be well known. It is tith Capernaum (iv. 31), Nazareth (i. 26), iathea (xxiii. 51), the country of the Gada- ' Wiii. 26), the distance of Mount Olivet and taus from Jerusalem (Acts i. 12; Luke xxiv. Tf places in England — say Bristol, and Ox- and Hampstead —were mentioned in this al minute way, it would be a fair inference ‘the writer meant his work for other than ish readers. * the same test he probably was not a Mace- n (Acts xvi. 12), nor an Athenian (Acts xvii. jnor a Cretan (Acts xxvii. 8, 12). But that |i a native of Italy, and perhaps an inhabitant ‘me, is probable from similar data. In tracing jaul’s journey to Rome, places which an Italian t be supposed not to know are described min- ( (Acts xxvii. 8, 12, 16); but when he comes ily and Italy this 3 is neglected. Syracuse and ium, even the more obscure Puteoli, and Appii n and the Three Taverns, are mentioned as to likely to know them. (For other theories see Ws Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. p. 236; Kuindl’s i:gomena, and Winer’s Realwb. art. Theophilus. ) tat emerges from this argument is, that the 11 for whom Luke wrote in the first instance 1 Gentile reader. We must admit, but with t caution, on account of the abuses to which €otion has led, that there are traces in the dl of a leaning towards Gentile rather than \h converts. The genealogy of Jesus is traced lam, not from Abraham; so as to connect i with the whole human race, and not merely the Jews. Luke describes the mission of the ) ty, which number has been usually supposed ‘typical of all nations; as twelve, the number Apostles, represents the Jews and their twelve #» As each Gospel has within certain limits s/n character and mode of treatment, we shall Ciize with Olshausen that “ St. Luke has the! 107 LUKE, GOSPEL OF 1697 peculiar power of exhibiting with great clearnesa of conception and truth (especially in the long ac- count of Christ’s journey, from ix. 51 to xviii. 34), not so much the discourses of Jesus as his conver- sations, with all the incidents that gave rise to them, with the remarks of those who were present, and with the final results.”’ On the supposed ‘doctrinal tendency ”’ of the Gospel, however, much has been written which it is painful to dwell on, but easy to refute. Some have endeavored to see in this divine book an at- tempt to engraft the teaching of St. Paul on the Jewish representations of the Messiah, and to elevate the doctrine of universal salvation, of which Paul was the most prominent preacher, over the Judaiz- ing tendencies, and to put St. Paul higher than the twelve Apostles! (See Zeller, Apost. ; Baur, Kanon. Evang. ; and Hilgenfeld.) How two im- partial historical narratives, the Gospel and the Acts, could have been taken for two tracts written for polemical and personal ends, is to an English mind hardly conceivable. Even its supporters found that the inspired author had carried out his pur- pose so badly, that they were forced to assume that a second author or editor had altered the work with a view to work up together Jewish and Pauline elements into harmony (Baur, Kanon. Evang. p. 502). Of this editing and re-editing there is no trace whatever; and the invention of the second editor is a gross device to cover the failure of the first hypothesis. By such a machinery, it will be possible to prove in after ages that Gibbon’s His- tory was originally a plea for Christianity, or any similar paradox. The passages which are supposed to bear out this “ Pauline tendency,” are brought together by Hilgenfeld with great care (Hvangelien, p. 220); but Reuss has shown, by passages from St. Matthew which have the same “ tendéncy ’’ against the Jews, how brittle such an argument is, and has left no room for doubt that the two Evangelists wrote facts and not theories, and dealt with those facts with pure historical candor (Reuss, Histoire de la Thé- ologie, vol. ii. b. vi. ch. 6.). Writing to a Gentile convert, and through him addressing other Gentiles, St. Luke has adapted the form of his narrative to their needs; but not a trace of a subjective bias, not a vestige of a personal motive, has been suffered to sully the inspired page. Had the influence of Paul been the exclusive or principal source of this Gospel, we should have found in it more resemblance to the Epistle to the Ephesians, which contains (so to speak) the Gospel of St. Paul. VI. Language and style of the Gospel. —It has never been doubted that the Evangelist wrote his Gospel in Greek. Whilst Hebraisms are frequent, classical idioms and Greek compound words abound. The number of words used by Luke only is un- usually great, and many of them are compound words for which there is classical authority (see Dean Alford’s valuable Greek Test.). Some of the leading peculiarities of style are here noted: a more minute examination will be found in Prof. Davidson’s Introduction to N. T. (Bagster, 1848), [and in his new work, Jntrod. to the Study of the N. T. (Lond. 1868), ii. 56 ff, comp. p. 12 ff.] 1. The very frequent use of eyévero in intro- ducing a new narrative or a transition, and of evyeveTo ev TH with an ae are traceable to the Hebrew. 1698 LUKE, GOSPEL OF 2. The same may be said of the frequent use of kapdia, answering to the Hebrew =) 3. Nouuol, used six times instead of the usual ypaypareis, and émiorarns used six times for paBBi, d:ddcKados, are cases of a preference for words more intelligible to Greeks or Gentiles. 4. The neuter participle is used frequently for a substantive, both in the Gospel and the Acts. 5. The infinitive with the genitive of the article, to indicate design or result, as in i. 9, is frequent in both books. 6. The frequent use of 5€ kal, for the sake of emphasis, as in lil. 9. 7. The frequent use of rat abrds, as in i. 17. 8. The preposition gdy is used about seventy- five times in Gospel and Acts: in the other Gospels rarely. 9. *AreviCew is used eleven times in Gospel and Acts; elsewhere only twice, by St. Paul (2 Cor.). 10. Ei 5& wh ye 18 used five times for the ef 5¢ un of Mark and John. 11. Eiety mpds, which is frequent in St. Luke, is used elsewhere only by St. John: Aadeiy mpéds, also frequent, is only thrice used by other writers. 12. St. Luke very frequently uses the auxiliary verb with a participle for the verb, as in v. 17, i. 20. 13. He makes remarkable use of verbs com- pounded with d:¢ and ézi. 14. Xdpis, very frequent in Luke, is only used thrice by John, and not at all by Matthew and Mark. Swrhp, cwrnpla, cwrhpiov, are frequent with Luke; the two first are used once each by John, and not by the other Evangelists. 15. The same may be said of ebayyeAlCerOat, once.in Matthew, and not at all in Mark and John; broorpépev, once in Mark, not in other Gospels ; édiordvat, not used.in the other three Gospels; diépxeoat, thirty-two times in Luke’s Gospel and the Acts, and only twice each in Matthew, Mark, and John; rapaxpyua frequent in Luke, and only twice elsewhere, in Matthew. 16. The words déuodvpaddy, evAaBns, avhp, as a form of address and before substantives, are also characteristic of Luke. 17. Some Latin words are used by Luke: Aeyedy (viii. 30), Snvdpioy (x. 35), covddptov (xix. 20), koAwvia (Acts xvi. 12). On comparing the Gospel with the Acts it is found that the style of the latter is more pure and free from Hebrew idioms; and the style of the later portion of the Acts is more pure than that of the former. Where Luke used the materials he derived from others, oral or written, or both, his style reflects the Hebrew idioms of them; but when he comes to scenes of which he was an eye-witness and describes entirely in his owm words, these dis- appear. VIL. Quotations from the Old Testament. — In the citations from the O. T., of the principal of which the following is a list, there are plain marks of the use of the Septuagint version: — Luke i. 17. Mal. iv. 4, 5. YSiees Vy23 Ex. xiii. 2. “Gi, 24. Ley. xii. 8. “ ii. 4,5,6. Is. xl. 8, 4, 5. “iv 4. . Deut. viii. 3. “iv. 8. Deut. vi. 18. “ iv. 10, 11 Ps. xci. 11, 12. Ce Ayre Deut. vi. 16. « iy. 18. Ig. lxi. 1, 2. LUKE, GOSPEL OF Luke vii. 27. Mal. iii. 1. ar) «viii. 10. Is. vi. 9. - (ede Deut. vi. 5; Lev. xix. ]) “xviii. 20. Ex. xx. 12. a «xix. 46. Is. lvi. 7; Jer. vii. 11, i ee Ps. exviii. 22, 23. 56 Ree Deut. xxv. 5. “xx. 42,48. Ps. ex. 1. 66) SERA he Is. liii., 12. “| xxiii. 46. Ps, xxxi. 5. VIII. Integrity of the Gospel— the firs Chapters. — The Gospel of Luke is quote Justin Martyr and by the author of the Cleme Homilies. The silence of the apostolic fathers indicates that it. was admitted into the Canon ; what late, which was probably the case. The} of the Marcion controversy is, as we have seen, our Gospel was in use before A. D. 120. Ag question, however, has been raised about thi first chapters. The critical history of these i drawn out perhaps in Meyer’s note. The objection against them is founded on the ga opening of Marcion’s Gospel, who omits the first chapters, and connects iii. 1 immediately iv. 81. (So Tertullian, “ Anno quintodecimo cipatus Tiberiani proponit Deum descendis civitatem Galilee Capharnaum,’’ cont. Mar 7.) But any objection founded on this would to the third chapter as well; and the history Lord’s childhood seems to have been known t quoted by Justin Martyr (see Apology, i. § 33 an allusion, Dial. cum Tryph. 100) about the of Marcion. ‘There is therefore no real grour distinguishing between the two first chapter the rest; and the arguments for the genuin of St. Luke’s Gospel apply to the whole ins narrative as we now possess it (see Meyer’s also Volkmar, p. 180). ii IX. Contents of’ the Gospel. — This Gospel tains — 1. A preface, i. 1-4. 2. An accoui the time preceding the ministry of Jesus, i. 5 52. 8. Several accounts of: discourses and a our Lord, common to Luke, Matthew, and | related for the most part in their order, an longing to Capernaum and the neighborhood, to ix. 50. 4. A collection of similar account ferring to a certain journey to Jerusalem, m them peculiar to Luke, ix. 51 to xviii. 14. account of the sufferings, death, and resurr of Jesus, common to Luke with the other Ey lists, except as to some of the accounts of took place after the resurrection, xviii. 19 | end. ! Sources. — Works of Irenseus (ed. Stic Justin Martyr (ed. Otto); Tertullian, Origen Epiphanius (ed. Dindorf); Hippolytus (ed. M and Eusebius (ed. Valesius); Marsh’s Mich De Wette, Linleitung ; Meyer, Kommentar work of Hahn, Ritschl, Baur, and Volkmar, q above; Credner, Kanon; Dean Alford’s Con tary; Dictionaries of Winer and Herzog; . mentaries of Kuinél, Wetstein, and others; Thi Church History (Eng. Trans.); Olshausen, | heit; Hug, Einleitung ; Weisse, Evangelienfi Greek Testament, Tischendorf, ed. vii., and there. W. * The most important works on the Gos| Luke will be found referred to in the addit: the art. GOSPELS, p. 959 ff. Others worthy of, are the following. Patristie: Origen, Ho extant in Jerome’s Latin translation, with ‘ Greek fragments (Migne’s Patrol. Greca, vol on LUMP OF FIGS 1801-1910); Eusebius, Comm. (fragments),’ in ne, tid. xxiv. 529-606; Cyril of Alexandria, um., in Migne, tid. Ixxii. 475-950, Syriac ver- of the same, mere complete, edited by R. P. th, Oxford, 1858, 4to, and trans. by him into lish, 2 vols. Oxf. 1859, 8vo; Kuthymius Ziga- is, Comm. in IV. vangelia, ed. C. F. Mat: , 8 vols. Lips. 1792 (Migne, vol. exxix.); yphylact, Opp. i. 267-498, Venet. 1754 (Migne, exxili.); Ambrose, Opp. i. 1261-1544, Par. 1; Bede, Works, ed. Giles, vols. x., xi., Lond. ', See also Corderius, Catena sexaginta quinque corum Patrum in S. Lucam, Antv. 1628, fol. ; tas, Catena, etc. in Mai’s Scriptt. Vet. Nova - ix. 626-720; Cramer, Catena in S. Luce et oannis Evv., Oxon. 1841. issing by the commentaries of the scholastic es, and others, we further note: C. Segaar, . phil. et theol. in Evang. Luce Capp. xi. ‘ix. as in Winer and others] priora, Traj. ad 1766; Morus, Prelectt. in Luce Ev., Lips. ; Valckenaer, Selecta e Scholis Valckenarii in .quosdam N. T. ed. E. Wassenbergh, 2 tom. i 1815~18 (vol. i. Luke and Acts); C. W. 1, Comm. zudem Lv. d. Lucas, Halle, 1830; » Bornemann, Scholia in Luce Ev., Lips. , valuable philologically; James Smith of Jor- ill, Diss. on the Life and Writings of St. , in his Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1. Lond. 1856, pp. 1-58: [N. N. Whiting,] | Gospel according to Luke, trans. from the %, on the Basis of the Common Engiish Ver- ‘with Notes. New York (Amer. Bible Union), | dto: H. Jacoby, Vier Beitrdge zun Ver- niss der Reden des Herrn im kv. d. Lucas, jhausen, 1863; J. J. van Oosterzee, Das Kv. ‘Lukas, theol-homil. bearbeitet, 3¢ Aufl. eld, 1867 (Theil iii. of Lange’s Bibelwerk), i from 2d ed. by Dr. Philip Schaff and Rev. | Starbuck, N. Y. 1866 (vol. ii. of Lange’s 13). ire popular commentaries are those of James ipson, Kapos. Lectures on the Gospel of St. i 8 vols. Lond. 1849-51; James Ford, The of St. Luke illustrated from Ancient and (rm Authors, Lond. 1851; James Foote, Lec- ‘on the Gospel according to St. Luke, 3d ed. \j. Glasg. 1857; James Stark, Comm. on the Al according to Luke, 2 vols. Lond. 1866 Minal); and Van Doren, Suggestive Comm. on . uke, Amer. reprint, 2 vols. N. Y. 1868. } the older literature relating to this Gospel, €aay. consult the well-known bibliographical of Lilienthal, Walch, Winer, Danz, and ig A. “UMP OF FIGS, 2 K. xx. 7. [Fie- Hy &] YNATIUS (weAnviaCouevor). IDIs word 1s wice in the N. T. In the enumeration of “he ground for this suggestion, besides the re- tole agreement of the ancient versions as given ® is Josh. xviii. 13, where the words FMD“ OS a Should, according to ordinary usage, be ren- to the shoulder of Luzah ;” the ah, which is stele of motion in Hebrew, not being required ate it is in the former part of the same verse. » lames are found both with and without a similar Hation, as Jotbah, Jotbathah; Timnath, Tim- 2 Riblah, Riblathah. Laish and Laishah are ly distinct places. LUZ 1699 Matt. iv. 24, the “Junaties”’ are distinguished from the demoniacs; in Matt. xvii. 15, the name is ap- plied to a boy who is expressly declared to have been possessed. It is evident, therefore, that the word itself refers to some disease, affecting both the body and the mind, which might, or might not, bea sign of possession (see on this suhject DEMONIACS). By the description of Mark ix. 17-26, it is con- cluded that this disease was epilepsy (see Winer, Kealw. + Besessene;’? Trench, On the Miracles, p- 363). The origin of the name (as of geAnviads and eeAnvdBAnros in earlier Greek, “lunaticus ” in Latin, and equivalent words in modern lan- guages) is to be found in the belief that diseases of a paroxysmal character were affected by the light, or by the changes of the moon. * LUST, not restricted formerly to one passion, but any strong desire or inclination. It occurs in the A. V. in the narrower and the wider sense. It is employed to translate WD), 79 yw), TINS, and émiOuula, ndovh, vpetis, mdOos. In Ex. xv. 9 WD (in the A. V. “lust ’) denotes strictly the soul as the seat of the desires. The meaning of “lust” as a verb (found six times in the A. V.) fluctuates in like manner. Hi * LUSTY, Judg. iii. 29, archaic for “ stout,” “ vigorous’; but in the marg., “ fat,” as the A. V. renders Vow elsewhere, except Is. xxx. 23, where it is “ plenteous.”’ H. LUZ (79, and perhaps ma," i. e. Luzah [almond-tree, Ges.: see below], which is also the reading of the Samar. Codex and of its two ver- sions: of the LXX. and Eusebius, Aou(d and Aov(a;° [Vat. once in Josh. xviii. 13 Kov(a:] and the Vulgate Luza). The uncertainty which attends the name attaches in a greater degree to the place itself. It seems impossible to discover with precision whether Luz and Bethel represent one and the same town — the former the Canaanite, the latter the Hebrew name —or whether they were distinct places, though in close proximity. The latter is the natural inference from two of the passages in which Luz is spoken of. Jacob “ called the name of the place Bethel, but the name of the city was called Luz in the beginning’ (Gen. xxviii, 19); as if the spot—the “certain place’? — on which he had * lighted,’’ where he saw his vision and erected his pillar, were outside the walls of the Canaanite town. And with this agree the terms of the specification of the common boundary of Ephraim and Benjamin. It ran “from Bethel te Luz’ (Josh. xvi. 2), or “from the wilderness of Bethaven . . . to Luz, to the shoulder of Luzah southward, that is Bethel’ (xviii. 13); as if Bethel were on the south side of the hill on which the other city stood. Other passages, however, seem to speak of the b In one case only do the LXX. omit the termination, namely, in Gen. xxviii. 19, and here they give the name as Oulammaous, OvAap.aovs [So in many MSS., but Rom. OdaAapaovg, Alex. OvAaumavs], incorporating with it the preceding Hebrew word Ulam, DAN, aa they have also done in the case of Laish (see p. 1581, note c.). The eagerness with which Jerome attacka this monstrous name at every possible opportunity is very curious and characteristic. 1700 LUZ LYCAONIA | describe by means of the names of the places ne thereto at the time of his writing (Gen. x xiii. 3). Nor had any town yet been built a time of Jacob’s first (Gen. xxviii. 11-19), nor second (xxxy. 6) visit, the narrative implying it was a solitary place. At his first visit , named the place Bethel; but he remained only a single night, and there was no one with to hear or give currency to the designation. his second visit therefore, with his numerous h hold (‘he and all the people that were with h when he apparently sojourned there for some he repeated it, and it became thenceforward j descendants the rightful name of the loc When he removed thence, it again became a inhabited place, and the Canaanites built a which they called by their own name of Lm which continued quite down to the con During the interyal between the building ¢ town and the conquest there were therefore t Israelites two names, that de faclo of the Luz; and that de jwre, of the locality (ther yet no such town), Bethel. Hither name is to describe the place. (Gen. xxxv. 6; Judg. ete.) The Canaanite town was built in the in between Jacob’s second visit and the time : death — probably before his going down to I This second visit having been before the bi Benjamin (xxxv. 6, 16),there was ample tin the building. When Jacob speaks of the pl a later time (xlviii. 8), he naturally calls it | existing name; while in Judges i. 23, after been destroyed and replaced by an Israelite it is as naturally called by the latter, with thetical mention of the former name. Th gestion in the above article, that the later toy not precisely cover the site of the earlier, in nation of Josh. xvi. 2, seems altogether probi two as identical — “ Luz in the land of Canaan, that is Bethel”? (Gen. xxxv. 6); and in the account of the capture of Bethel, after the conquest of the country, it is said that *‘ the name of the city before was Luz’ (Judg. i. 23). Nor should it be over- looked that, in the very first notice of Abram’s arrival in Canaan, Bethel is mentioned without Luz (Gen. xii. 8, xiii. 3), just as Luz is mentioned by Jacob without Bethel (xlviii. 3). Perhaps there never was a point on which the evidence’ was so curiously contradictory. In the passages just quoted we find Bethel mentioned in the most express manner two generations before the occurrence of the event which gave it its name; while the patriarch to whom that event occurred, and who made there the most solemn vow of his life, in recurring to that very circumstance, calls the place by its heathen name. We further find the Israelite name attached, before the conquest of the country by the Israelites, to a city of the build- ing of which we have no record, and which city is then in the possession of the Canaanites. The conclusion of the writer is that the two places were, during the times preceding the con- quest, distinct, Luz being the city and Bethel the pillar and altar of Jacob: that after the destruction of Luz by the tribe of Ephraim the town of Bethel arose: that the close proximity of the two was sufficient to account for their being taken as iden- tical in cases where there was no special reason for discriminating them, and that the great subsequent reputation of Bethel will account for the occurrence of its name in Abram’s history in reference to a date prior to its existence, as well as in the records of the conquest. 2. When the original Luz was destroyed, through the treachery of one of its inhabitants, the man who had introduced the Israelites into the town went into the “(land of the Hittites’? and built a city, which he named after the former one. This city was standing at the date of the record (Judg. i. 26). But its situation, as well as that of the “land of the Hittites,’ has never been discovered since, and is one of the favorite puzzles of Scripture geographers. Eusebius (Onom. Aov(d) mentions a place of the name as standing near Shechem, nine (Jerome, three) miles from Neapolis (Nablus). The objection to this is the difficulty of placing in central Palestine, and at that period, a district ex- clusively Hittite. Some have imagined it to be in | (Jablonsky, Opuse. iii. 3; Gukling, De Lin Cyprus, as if Chittim were the country of the Hit-! caon. 1726).4 The fact that the Lyeaoniau tites: others in Arabia, as at Lysa, a Roman town | familiar with the Greek mythology is con in the desert. south of Palestine, on the road to| with either supposition. It is deeply interes) Akabah (Rob. i. 187). see these rude country people, when Paul The signification of the name is quite uncertain. | nabas worked miracles among them, rushing It is usually taken as meaning “ hazel,” and de-|conclusion that the strangers were Mercu: noting the presence of such trees; but the latest | Jupiter, whose visit to this very neighborhoo) lexicographer (Fiirst, Handwb. 666) has returned | the subject of one of Ovid’s most charming | to the opinion of an earlier scholar (Hiller, Onom. | (Ovid, Metam. viii. 626). Nor can we fail 70), that the notion at the root of the word is rather | tice how admirably St. Paul’s address on th) “bending” or “ sinking,’’ as of a valley. G. |sion was adapted to a simple and imperfect]; * The difficulties suggested in this article and ized race (xiv. 15-17). This was at Lys) in that on BeruEtas to the use of the two names, | the heart of the country. Further to the e) are removed by careful attention to the narrative. | DERBE (ver. 6), not far from the chief past There seems to have been no town in the locality |leads up through Taurus, from CILICIA 4 in the time of Abraham; but he pitched his tent | coast, to the central table-land. At the» and built his altar in a place which Moses can only | limit of Lyeaonia was Icontum (ver. 1), in th LYCAO’NIA (Avxaovia). This is ‘ those districts of Asia Minor, which, as men’ in the N. T., are to be understood rather ethnological than a strictly political sense. what is said in Acts xiv. 11 of ‘the speech | caonia,” it is evident that the inhabitants district, in St. Paul's day, spoke somethin different from ordinary Greek. Whether t guage was some Syrian dialect [CAPPADOCh a corrupt form of Greek, has been much | a * Luke mentions that the Lystrians spoke in their | the likeness of men.” They were ignorant) native tongue (Acts xiv. 11), because it explains why | language in which this was spoken. It does Paul and Barvabas did not at once rebuke the cry of { pear that the Apostles possessed any permanen) the multitude: “ The gods are come down to us in| tongues to aid them in preaching the Gospel. | LYDDA 1701 Lydda’’ (Acts ix. 32), the consequence of which was the conversion of a very large number of the inhabitants of the town and of the neighboring plain of Sharon (ver. 35). Here Peter was residing when the disciples of Joppa fetched him to that city in their distress at the death of Tabitha (ver. 38). Quite in accordance with these and the other scattered indications of Scripture is the situation of the modern town, which exactly retains its name, and probably its position. Lidd (Tobler, 3te Wand. pp- 69, 456), or Ladd (Robinson, Bibl. Res. ii. 244), stands in the AMerj, or meadow, of Lbn Omeir, part of the great maritime plain which anciently bore the name of SHARON, and which, when covered with its crops of corn, reminds the traveller of the rich wheat-fields of our own Lincolnshire (Rob. iii. 145; and see Thomson, Land and Book, ch. xxxiv.). It is 9 miles from Joppa,@ and is the first town on the northernmost of the two roads between that place and Jerusalem. Within a circle of 4 miles still stand Ono (Kefr Auna), Hadid (e/-Haditheh), and Neballat (Beit-Neballah), three places constantly associated with Lod in the ancient records. The watercourse outside the town is said still to bear the name of Abi Butrus (Peter), in memory of the Apostle (Rob. ii. 248; Tobler, 471). Lying so conspicuously in this fertile plain, and upon the main road from the sea to the interior, Lydda could hardly escape an eventful history. It was in the time of Josephus a place of considerable size, which gave its name to one of the three (or four, xi. 57) “governments ”’ or toparchies (see Joseph. B. J. iii. 8, § 5) which Demetrius Soter (B. ©. cir. 152), at the request of Jonathan Maccabzus, released from tribute, and transferred from Samaria to the estate of the Temple at Jerusalem (1 Mace. xi. 34; comp. x. 30, 88; xi. 28, 57); though by whom these districts were originally defined does not appear (see Michaelis, Bib. fiir Ungel.). A cen- tury later (B. c. cir. 45) Lydda, with Gophna, Em- maus, and Thamna, became the prey of the insa- tiable Cassius, by whom the whole of the inhab- itants were sold into slavery to raise the exorbitant taxes imposed (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 11, § 2). From this they were, it is true, soon released by Antony; but a few years only elapsed before their city (A. D 66) was burnt by Cestius Gallus on his way from Ceesarea to Jerusalem. He entered it when all the people of the piace but fifty were absent at the feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem (Joseph. B. J. ii. 19, § 1). He must have passed the hardly cold ruins not more than a fortnight after, when flying for his life before the infuriated Jews of Jerusalem. LYCIA vf ANTIOCH IN PisrprA. A good Roman jntersected the district along the line thus in- ed. On St. Paul’s first missionary journey he rsed Lycaonia from west to east, and then re- ad on his steps (v. 21; see 2 Tim. iii. 11). On second and third journeys he entered it from ast; and after leaving it, travelled in the one to Troas (Acts xvi. 1-8), in the other to Eph- ‘(Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1). Lycaonia is for the _part a dreary plain, bare of trees, destitute of water, and with several salt lakes. It is, how- _yery favorable to sheep-farming. In the first es of this district, which occur in connection ‘Roman history, we find it under the rule of ar-chieftains. After the provincial system had raced the whole of Asia Minor, the boundaries ie provinces were variable; and Lycaonia was, ically, sometimes in Cappadocia, sometimes in tia. A question has been raised, in connection this point, concerning the chronology of parts 't. Paul’s life. This subject is noticed in the le on GALATIA. J: §. B. WYCTIA (Aveia: [Lycia]), [Acts xxvii. 5,] is fame of that southwestern region of the penin- of Asia Minor which is immediately opposite sland of Rhodes. It is a remarkable district @ physically and historically. The last emi- es of the range of Taurus come down here in stic masses to the sea, forming the heights of jus, and Anticragus, with the river Xanthus fing between them, and ending in the long ¢s of promontories called by modern sailors the ven eapes,’’ among which are deep inlets favor- Ito seafaring and piracy. In this district are i? curious and very ancient architectural remains, ih have been so fully illustrated by our English lers, Sir C. Fellows, and Messrs. Spratt and es, and many specimens of which are in the ish Museum. Whatever may have» been the ical history of the earliest Lycians, their try was incorporated in the Persian empire, heir ships were conspicuous in the great war dast the Greeks (Herod. vii. 91, 92). After the bof Alexander the Great, Lycia was included nie Greek Seleucid kingdom, and was a part of territory which the Romans forced Antiochus ide (Liv. xxxvii. 55). It was made in the first ls one of the continental possessions of Rhodes (gtA]: but before long it was politically sepa- al from that island, and allowed to be an inde- lent state. This has been called the golden dod of the history of Lycia. It is in this period it we find it mentioned (1 Mace. xv. 23) as one f he countries to which the Romans sent de- ishes in favor of the Jews under Simon Macca- is. It was not till the reign of Claudius that La became part of the Roman provincial sys- ‘ At first it was combined with Pamphylia, ‘the governor bore the title of ‘“ Proconsul Le et Pamphylie ”’ (Gruter, Thes. p. 458). 51 seems to have been the condition of the dis- tt when St. Paul visited the Lycian towns of BARA (Acts xxi. 1) and Myra (Acts xxvii. 5). A’ later period of the Roman empire it was a tate province, with Myra for its capital. ' A Dats 0 # YDDA (Add3a: Lydda), tne Greek form of name which originally appears in the Hebrew rirds as Lop. It is familiar to us as the scene One of St. Peter’s acts of healing, on the para- + Hneas, one of “the saints who dwelt at Some repair appears to have been immediately made, for in less than two years, early in A. D. 68, it was in a condition to be again taken by Vespa- sian, then on his way to his campaign in the south of Judea. Vespasian introduced fresh inhabitants from the prisoners lately taken in Galilee (Joseph. B. J. iv. 8, § 1). But the substantial rebuilding of the town —lying as it did in the road of every invader and every countermarch — can hardly have been effected till the disorders of this unhappy country were somewhat composed. Hadrian’s reign, after the suppression of the revolt of Bar- Cocheba (A. D. cir. 136), when Paganism was triumphant, and Jerusalem rebuilding as flia Gea Reeves apse) aha te a * Lydda (as ascertained by leveling) is somewhat over 11 miles from Joppa (Ordnance Survey of Jerw salem, p. 21). H. 1702 LYDDA Capitolina, would not be an improbable time for this, and for the bestowal on Lydda of the new name of Diospolis¢— City of Zeus— which is stated by Jerome to have accompanied the rebuild- ing. (See Quaresmius, Peregr. i., lib. 4, cap. 3.) We have already seen that this new name, as is so often the case in Palestine, has disappeared in favor of the ancient one. [ACCHO; KENATH, etc. | When Eusebius wrote (A. D. 3820-330) Dios- polis was a well-known and much-frequented town, tc which he often refers, though the names of neither it nor Lydda occur in the actual catalogue of his Onomasticon. In Jerome’s time (Epitaph. Paule, § 8),o A. p. 404, it was an episcopal see, [radition reports that the first bishop was ‘+ Zenas the lawyer” (Tit. iii. 13), originally one of the seventy disciples (Dorotheus, in Reland, 879); but she first historical mention of the see is the signa- ture of ‘ Aétius Lyddensis’’ to the acts of the Council of Niczea (A. D. 825; Reland, 878). After this the name is found, now Diospolis, now Lydda, amongst the lists of the Councils down to A. D. 518 (Rob. ii. 245; Mislin, ii. 149). The bishop of Lydda, originally subject to Ceesarea, became at a later date suffragan to Jerusalem (see the two lists in Von Raumer, 401); and this is still the ease. In the latter end of 415 a Council of 14 bishops was held here, before which Pelagius ap- peared, and by whom, after much tumultuous LYDDA debate, and in the absence of his two accuser: was acquitted of heresy, and received as a Chri brother ¢ (Milner, Hist. of Ch. of Christ, Cent ch. iii). St. George, the patron saint of Engl was a native of Lydda. After his martyrdon remains were buried there (see quotations by ] inson, ii. 245), and over them a ehurch was a wards built and dedicated to his honor. The tion of this church is commonly ascribed to tinian, but there seems to be no real ground fot assertion,” and at present it is quite uncertait whom it was built. When the country was t: possession of by the Saracens in the early par the 8th century, the church was destroyed; an this ruined condition it was found by the Crusa in A. D. 1099, who reinstituted the see, and a to its endowment the neighboring city and | of Ramleh. Apparently at the same time church was rebuilt and strongly fortified (Rot 247). It appears at that time to have been side the city. Again destroyed by Saladin after battle of Hattin in 1191, it was, again rebuil we are to believe the tradition, which, howeve not so consistent or trustworthy as one would sire, by Richard Ceeur-de-lion (Will. Tyr.; bu Rob. ii. 245, 246). The remains of the ch still form the most remarkable object in the mo village. A minute and picturesque account, of 1 will be found in Robinson (ii. 244), ana 2 vie oS wee Lydda — Ruins of the Ch Van de Velde’s Pays d’ Jsrael (plate 55). The town is, for a Mohammedan place, busy and prosperous (see Thomson, Land and Book; Van de Velde, S. g¢ P. i. 244). Buried in palms, and with a -arge well close to the entrance, it looks from a distance inviting enough, but its interior is very repulsive on account of the extraordinary number of persons, old and young, whom one encounters at every step, either totally blind or afflicted with loathsome diseases of the eyes. Indeed it is pro- a Was this the Diospolis mentioned by Josephus (Ant. xv. 5, § 1, and B. J. i. § 6)? But it is difficult to discover if two places are not intended, possibly neither of them identical with Lydda. Can there be any connection, etymological or other, between the twonames? In the Dict. of Geogr. i. 778, a modern Egyptian village is mentioned named Lydda, of which the ancient name was also Diospolis. 6 Jerome is wrong here in placing the raising of Dorcas at Lydda. ascribes the miracle to St. Paul. urch of Za St. George. — Van de Velde. verbial for this; and the writer was told or spot in 1858, as a common saying, that in. every man has either but one eye or none at a Lydda was, for some time previous to th struction of Jerusalem, the seat of a very fal Jewish school, scarcely second to that of Jak About the time of the siege it was presided ov Rabbi Gamaliel, second of the name (Light Chor. Cent. xvi.). Some curious anecdotes short notices from the Talmuds concerning i e¢ “Tila miserabilis Synodus Diospolitanus ” rome, Ep. ad Alyp. et Aug. § 2). d The church which Justinian built to St. @ was in Bizana (ey Bugavois), somewhere in Arn (Procopius, de Ed. Just. 8, 4; in Rob. p. 246). Se remarks of Robinson against the possibility of stantine having built the church at Lydda, But there not probably two churches at Lydda, one cated to St. George, and one to the Virgin? Se So also Ritter (Paldstina, p. 551)| land, p. 878. LYDIA ved by Lightfoot. One of these states that en Helena celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles a] the city of St. George, who is one with the is personage el-Khudr, Lydda is held in much ‘by the Muslims. In their traditions the gate e city will be the scene of the final combat en Christ and Antichrist (Sale’s Koran, note 43, and Prel. Disc. iv. § 4; also Jalal ad- Temple of Jerusalem, p. 484). G. YD’IA (Avadia: [Lydi]), a maritime province e west of Asia Minor, bounded by Mysia on ., Phrygia on the E., and Caria on the S. ame occurs only in 1 Mace. viii. 8 (the ren- g of the A. V. in Ez. xxx. 5 being incorrect udim); it is there enumerated among the dis- which the Romans took away from Antiochus reat after the battle of Magnesia in B. c. 190, ransferred to Eumenes II., king of Pergamus. . difficulty arises in the passage referred to the names “ India and Media” found in con- m with it: but if we regard these as incor- ‘given either by the writer or by a copyist for ia and Mysia,” the agreement with Livy’s nt of the same transaction (xxxvii. 56) will be iently established, the notice of the maritime aces alone in the book of Maccabees being able on the ground of their being best known @ inhabitants of Palestine. For the connec- yetween Lydia and the Lud and Ludim of the . see Lupim. Lydia is included in the 1” of the N. T. W. L. B. (DIA (Avila: [Lydia]), the first European tt-of St. Paul, and afterwards his hostess z his first stay at Philippi (Acts xvi. 14, 15, 0). She was a Jewish proselyte (ceBouévn Jedv) at the time of the Apostle’s coming; twas at the Jewish Sabbath-worship by the fa stream (ver. 13) that the preaching of the l reached her heart. She was probably only porary resident at Philippi. Her native place MHYATIRA, in the province of Asia (ver. 14; di. 18); and it is interesting to notice that th her, indirectly, the Gospel may have come hat very district, where St. Paul himself had ‘ly been forbidden directly to preach it (Acts ). Thyatira was famous for its dyeing-works ; ydia was connected with this trade (ropupé- ), either as a seller of dye, or of dyed goods. afer that she was a person of considerable 1, partly from the fact that she gave a home ) Paul and his companions, partly from the 1m of the conversion of her ‘ household,”’ ‘which term, whether children are included /t, slaves are no doubt comprehended. Of ('s character we are led to form a high esti- \from her candid reception of the Gospel, her }3 hospitality, and her continued friendship jul and Silas when they were persecuted. Hier she was one of * those women who labored aul in the Gospel ” at Philippi, as mentioned fards in the Epistle to that place (Phil. iv. jis impossible to say. As regards her name, )1 it is certainly curious that Thyatira was in strict anciently called ‘“ Lydia,’’ there seems son for doubting that it was simply a proper Nor for supposing with Grotius that she was J. S. H. SA/NIAS (Avcavlas: [Lysanias]), men- E by St. Luke in one of his chronological es (iii. 1) as being tetrarch of ABILENE | 2 LYSIAS 1702. (i. e. the district round Abila) in the 15th year of Tiberius, at the time when Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee, and Herod Philip tetrarch of Itursea and Trachonitis. It happens that Josephus speaks of a prince named Lysanias who ruled over a territory in the neighborhood of Lebanon in the time of Antony and Cleopatra, and that he also mentions Abilene as associated with the name of a tetrarch Lysanias, while recounting events of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius. These circum- stances have given to Strauss and others an oppor- tunity for accusing the Evangelist of confusion and error: but we shall see that this accusation rests on a groundless assumption. What Josephus says of the Lysanias who was contemporary with Antony and Cleopatra (?. e. who lived 60 years before the time referred to by St. Luke) is, that he succeeded his father Ptolemy, the son of Mennzeus, in the government of Chalcis, under Mount Lebanon (B. J. i. 13, § 1; Ant. xiy. 7, § 4); and that he was put to death at the in- stance of Cleopatra (Ant. xv. 4, § 1), who seems to have received a good part of his territory. It is to be observed that Abila is not specified here at all, and that Lysanias is not called tetrarch. What Josephus says of Abila and the tetrarchy in the reigns of Caligula and Claudius (7. e. about 20 years after the time mentioned in St. Luke’s Gospel) is, that the former emperor promised the “tetrarchy of Lysanias’ to Agrippa (Ant. xviii. 6, § 10), and that the latter actually gave to him “ Abila of Lyganias”’ and the territory near Leba- non (Ant. xix. 5, § 1, with B. J. ii. 12, § 8). Now, assuming Abilene to be included in both cases, and the former Lysanias and the latter to be identical, there is nothing to hinder a prince of the same name and family from having reigned as tetrarch over the territory in the intermediate period. But it is probable that the Lysanias men- tioned by Josephus in the second instance is actu- ally the prince referred to by St. Luke. Thus, instead of a contradiction, we obtain from the Jewish historian a confirmation of the Evangelist ; and the argument becomes very decisive if, as some think, Abilene is to be excluded from the territory mentioned in the story which has reference to Cleo- patra. Fuller details are given in Davidson’s Jntroduc- tion to the N. T. i. 214-220; and there is a good brief notice of the subject in Rawlinson’s Bampton Lectures for 1859, p. 203 [p. 200, Amer. ed.], and note 113. JS. H. LYS’IAS (Avatas), @ nobleman of the blood- royal (1 Mace. iii. 832; 2 Macc. xi. 1), who was entrusted by Antiochus Epiphanes (cir. B. c. 166) with the government of southern Syria, and the guardianship of his son Antiochus Eupator (1 Mace. iii. 82; 2 Mace. x. 11). In the execution of his office Lysias armed a very considerable force against Judas Maccabeeus. Two detachments of this army under Nicanor (2 Mace. vi‘i.) and Gorgias were defeated by the Jews near Emmaus (1 Mace. iv.), and in the following year Lysias himself met with a much more serious reverse at Bethsura (B. Cc. 165), which was followed by the purification of the Tem- ple. Shortly after this, Antiochus Epiphanes died B. C. 164, and Lysias assumed the government as guardian of his son, who was yet a child (App. Syr. 46, évaerés maidiov; 1 Macc. vi. 17). The war against the Jews was renewed, and, after a severe struggle, Lysias, who took the young king 1704. LYSIAS with him, captured Bethsura, and was besieging Jerusalem, when he received tidings of the approach of Philip, to whom Antiochus had transferred the guardianship of the prince (1 Mace. vi. 18 ff; 2 Mace. xiii.). He defeated Philip (B. c. 163), and was supported at Rome; but in the next year, to- gether with his ward, fell into theshands of Deme- trius Soter [DemErEIus I.], who put them both to death (1 Mace. vii. 2-4; 2 Macc. xiv. 2; Jos. Ant. xii. 12, §§ 15, 16; App. Syr. ec. 45-47; Polyb. eet 1519): There are considerable differences between the first and second books of Maccabees with regard to the campaigns of Gorgias and the subsequent one of Lysias: the former places the defeat of Lysias in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes before the purification of the Temple (1 Mace. iv. 26-35), the latter in the reign of Antiochus Eupator after the purification (2 Mace. x. 10, xi. 1, &c.). There is no sufficient ground for believing that the events recorded are different (Patricius, De Consensu Mace. §§ xxvii. xxxvii.), for the mistake of date in 2 Maccabees is one which might easily arise (comp. Wernsdorf, De jide Macc. § Ixvi.; Grimm, ad 2 Macc. xi. 1). The idea of Grotius that 2 Macc. xi. and 2 Mace. xiii. are duplicate records of the same event, in spite of Ewald’s support (Geschichte, iv. 865 note), is scarcely tenable, and leaves half the difficulty unexplained. BW: * LYS’IAS (Avctas) surnamed CLAUDIUS (KAavéios) was the Roman chiliarch (‘chief cap- tain,’’ A. V.) who commanded the garrison at Jeru- salem in the procuratorship of Felix (A. D. 50). See Wieseler's Chronologie, p. 88. It was he who rescued Paul from the Jewish mob when they were about to kill him for alleged profanation of the Temple (Acts xxi. 32 ff). Of his two names, Lysias reminds us of his Greek origin, and Claudius of his assumption of the rights of a Roman citizen, which (see Acts xxii. 28) he had acquired by pur- chase. ([CrrizENsuip.] We have no knowledge of this Lysias out of the Acts; but what we learn there is not, on the whole, unfavorable to him. He arrested the scourging of Paul as soon as he knew that he was a Roman citizen. He allowed him to speak to his countrymen in self-defense, and rescued him from their rage on hearing his declaration that God had sent him to preach the Messiah to the heathen. He lodged him for safety in the castle, took him out of the hands of the Jewish Council when they were about to tear him in pieces, and on being informed of a con- spiracy to kill him, sent him by night, under an escort of Romani soldiers, to Felix at Ceesarea. Luke has preserved to us the letter which Lysias wrote to Felix on that occasion (Acts xxiii. 26-30). The letter contains, on one point, a palpable mis- statement, proceeding of course not from Luke who copied the letter, but from Lysias by whom it was written. Lysias states as his reason for rescuing Paul with such promptness from the Jews that he learned (uaddy ori, etc.) that he was a Roman citizen ; whereas, in fact, he knew nothing of Paul’s rank till after he had taken him into custody,* and was even on the point of putting him to torture. Meyer very properly points out this deceit as a mark of the genuineness of the letter (Apostel- LYSTRA geschichte, p. 450). It was natural that the gy tern should wish to gain as much credit as poss with his superior. It might be presumed that minute circumstances would be unknown to Ie We detect the inconsistency because we haye our hands Luke’s narrative as well as the letter. It is impossible to say how Luke obtained a¢ of this document. It pertained to a judicial pro concerning which Felix might have to give aecor It would therefore be preserved. Luke no doubt: at Ceesarea during the two years that Paul was ¢ fined there. He would naturally wish to know! the Apostle’s case had been represented to the j curator, and may even at that time have formed purpose to write the Acts. Considering his ingu tive habits (mentioned at the beginning of his G pel) we can easily believe that he would find mez in some way, to see the letter, or at all events learn its purport (Acts xxili. 25). Luke’s expr ion (€mior. meptéxovcay Toy TUroy TovTOY) ii mates that it is the substance rather than the words of the letter, that he reports tous. Anit dental value of the document is that it transn to us an official Roman testimony to the integ of Paul’s character. LYSIM’ACHUS (Avoiuaxos, [ender strife, peace-maker: Lysimachus]). 1, “A | of Ptolemezus of Jerusalem’ (A, TiroAcuaton ev ‘IepovoaAnm), the Greek translator of the b of Esther (émiatoAy. Comp. Esth. ix. 20), acco ing to the subscription of the LXX. ‘There however, no reason to suppose that the transla was also the author of the additions made to Hebrew text. [EsTHER.] 2. A brother of the high-priest Menelaus, y was left by him as his deputy (S:d5oxos) dur his absence at the court of Antiochus. His tyrar and sacrilege excited an insurrection, during wh he fell a victim to the fury of the people cir. B. 170 (2 Mace. iv. 29-42). The Vulgate, by a n translation (“‘Menelaus amotus est a sacerdo’ succedente Lysimacho fratre suo’’ 2 Mace. iy. ! makes Lysimachus the successor instead of © deputy of Menelaus. B. F. W. LYS’TRA (Adorpa [neuter pl. Acts xiv. 8 ¢ 2 Tim. iii. 11, but fem. sing., Acts xiv. 6, 21, xvi. 1: Lystra, also sing. and pl.]) has two poi of extreme interest in connection respectively w St. Paul’s first and second missionary journeys (1) as the place where divine honors were offered him, and where he was presently stoned; (2) as’ home of his chosen companion and fellow-mission: TIMOTHEUS. ag We are told in the 14th chapter of the Acts, tl Paul and Barnabas, driven by persecution ff Icontum (ver. 2), proceeded to Lystra and | neighborhood, and there preached the Gospel. the course of this service a remarkable miracle ¥ worked in the healing of a lame man (ver. 8). T occurrence produced such an effect on the mil of the ignorant and superstitious people of 1 place, that they supposed that the two gods, Mt cuRY and JUPITER, who were said by the poets have formerly visited this district in human fo [LycaontrA] had again bestowed on it the sa favor, and consequently were proceeding to 0! sacrifice to the strangers (ver. 13). The Apost a* To evade this conclusion some resolve padov into cat guafov, as if the chiliarch learned the fact of the citizenship after the arrest. But there is no example of such a use of the participle in the N. (See Winer, V. T. Gram. § 46, 2.) 0 LYSTRA ected this worship with horror (ver. 14), and Paul addressed a speech to them, turning their nds to the true Source of all the blessings of ‘ure. The distinct proclamation of Christian rine is not mentioned, but it is implied, inas- ich as a church was founded at Lystra. The yration of the Lystrians was rapidly followed by hange of feeling. The persecuting Jews arrived m Antioch in Pisidia and Iconium, and bad such fluence that Paul was stoned and left for dead r. 19). On his recovery he withdrew, with mabas, to DERBE (ver. 20), but before long raced his steps through Lystra (ver. 21), encour- ng the new disciples to be steadfast. ft is evident from 2 Tim. iii. 10, 11, that notheus was one of those who witnessed St. ul’s sufferings and courage on this occasion: and can hardly be doubted that his conversion to ristianity resulted partly from these circum- nees, combined with the teaching of his Jewish ther and grandmother, Eunrcr and Lots (2 Tim. ). Thus, when the Apostle, accompanied by Silas, ne, on his second missionary journey, to this ‘ce again (and here we should notice how accu- ely Derbe and Lystra are here mentioned in the erse order), Timotheus was already a Christian cts xvi. 1). Here he received circumcision, “ be- ise of the Jews in those parts” (ver. 3); and im this point began his connection with St. Paul's ad We are doubly reminded here of Jewish idehts in and near Lystra. Their first settle- int, and the ancestors of Timotheus among them, 'y very probably be traced to the establishment (Babylonian Jews in Phrygia by Antiochus three ‘turies before (Joseph. Ant. xii. 38,§ 4). Still s evident that there was no influential Jewish julation at Lystra: no mention is made of any lagogue; and the whole aspect of the scene ribed by St. Luke (Acts xiv.) is thoroughly |then. With regard to St. Paul, it is not ab- fitely stated that he was ever in Lystra again, ‘from the general description of the route of the ‘d missionary journey (Acts xviii. 23) it is almost tain that he was. juystra was undoubtedly in the eastern part of { great plain of Lycaonia; and there are very mg reasons for identifying its site with the ruins (ed Bin-bir-Kilisseh, at the base of a conical Yauntain of volcanic structure, named the Kara- Gh (Hamilton, Res. in A. M. ii. 313). Here are {remains of a great number of churches: and it fuld be noticed that Lystra has its post-apostolic (tistian history, the names of its bishops appear- i in the records of early councils. Pliny (v. 42) places this town in Galatia, and Memy (v. 4, 12) in Isauria: but these statements quite consistent with its being placed in Ly- ia by St. Luke, as it is by Hierocles (Synecd. i | Gesenius (Thes. 811 a) suggests that the name 'r have been originally m2, the > having nged into Y, in accordance with Phoenician custom. also Fiirst, Hidwb. 766 6; though he derives the le itself from a root signifying depression — low- ares Is it not also possible that in 2 Sam. viii. 12 “malek’? may more accurately be Maacah? At t, no campaign against Amalek is recorded in these 3—none since that before the death of Saul MAACAH 1705 p- 675). As to its condition in heathen times, it is worth while to notice that the words in Acts xiv. 13 (rot Aids Tod bvros mpd Tis méAcws) would lead us to conclude that it was under the tutelage of Jupiter. Walch, in his Spicilegium Antiquitatun Lystrensium’ (Diss. in Acta Apostolorum, Jena, 1766, vol. iii.), thinks that in this passage a statue, not a temple, of the god is intended. J.S. H. * The Apostle in his speech to the Lystrians addressed heathen and idolaters. It is interesting to compare the line of thought hinted here in regard to the means of knowledge furnished by the light of nature concerning the existence of God and his attributes with the fuller reasoning on this subject in Rom. i. 19 ff. The similarity (see also Acts xvii. 24 ff) is precisely such as we should expect on the supposition that he who wrote the epistle delivered the speech. There is also some diversity, but of the kind which arises from applying the same system of truth to different occasions. Luke as- signs the speech to its proper place in the history. Among the Lycaonians whose local traditions were so peculiar, it is less surprising that the gross anthropomorphism should show itself, which called ‘forth the Apostle’s remonstrance and led him to correct the error, The reader will find a good analysis of the argument, with exegetical remarks, in Stier’s Reden der Apostel, ii. 1-29. H. M. MA’ACAH (T3Y2 [perh. depression, Fiirst]: Maayd; Alex. Maaxad: Maacha). 1. The mother of Absalom = MAacnuaun 6 (2 Sam. iii. 3). 2. MAAcAn, and (in Chron.) MAACHAH: in Samuel *Auwadhe,* and so Josephus; in Chron. [Vat. FA.] Mooxa and Mwya; Alex. in both [rather, in 2 Sam.] Maaya, [in Chron. Maya, Mwxa:] Machati, Maacha. A small kingdom in close proximity to Palestine, which appears to have lain outside Argob (Deut. iii. 14) and Bashan (Josh. xii. 5). These districts, probably answering to the Lejah and Jaulin of modern Syria, occupied the space from the Jordan on the west to Salcah (Sulkhad) on the east and Mount Hermon on the north. There is therefore no alternative but to place Maacah somewhere to the east of the Leah, in the country that lies between that remarkable district and the Sufd, namely the stony desert of el-Kré (see Kiepert’s map to Wetzstein’s Haurdn, etc., 1860), and which is to this day thickly studded with villages. In these remote eastern regions was also probably situated Tibchath, Tebach, or Betach, which occurs more than once in connection with Maacah ¢ (1 Chr. xviii. 8; Gen. xxii. 24; 2 Sam. (1 Sam. xxx.), which can hardly be referred to in this catalogue. * The reading Maayd instead of MaAaxd is adopted by Larsow and Parthey in their edition of the Onomas ticon of Eusebius (Berlin, 1862) on the authority of the Codex Leidensis. A. b This is probably the origin of the name Crau attached to the great stony plain north of Marseilles. e The ancient versions do not assist us much in fixing the position of Maacah. The Syriac Peshito in 9 1 Chr. xix. has Choron, yee If this could be identified with ¢l-Charra, the district east of Sulkhac, 1706 MAACHAH viii. 8). Maacah is sometimes assumed to have been situated about ABEL-BETH-MAACAH; but, if Abil be the modern representative of that town, this is hardly probable, as it would bring the king- dom of Maacah west of the Jordan, and. within the actual limits of Israel. It is possible that the town was a colony of the nation, though even this is rendered questionable by the conduct of Joab to- wards it (2 Sam. xx. 22). That implacable soldier would hardly have left it standing and unharmed had it been the city of those who took so prominent a part against him in the Ammonite war. That war was the only occasion on which the Maacathites came into contact with Israel, when their king assisted the Bene-Ammon [sons of A.] against Joab with a force which he led himself (2 Sam. x. 6, 8; 1 Chr. xix. 7. In the first of these passages “‘of’’ is inaccurately omitted in the A. V.). The small extent of the country may be inferred from a comparison of the number of this force with that of the people of Zobah, Ishtob, and Rehob (2 Sam. x. 6), combined with the expression “his people ”’ in 1 Chr. xix. 7, which perhaps im- ply that a thousand men were the whole strength of his army. [MAACHATHI. d To the connection which is always implied be- tween Maacah and Geshur we have no clew. It is perhaps illustrated by the fact of the daughter of the king of Geshur— wife of David and mother of Absalom — being named Maacah. G. MA’/ACHAH (TMV [as above]: Moxd; Alex. Mwya: Maacha). 1. The daughter of Nahor by his concubine Reumah (Gen. xxii. 24). Ewald connects her name with the district of Ma- achah in the Hermon range (Gesch. i. 414, note 1). 2. (Maaxd; [Vat. Aunoa.]) The father of Achish, who was king of Gath at the beginning of Solomon’s reign (1 K. ii. 89). [MaAocu.] 3. [Vat. in 1 Chr. xi. 21, Maaxyav.] The daughter, or more probably grand-daughter, of Absalom, named after his mother; the third and favorite wife of Rehoboam, and mother of Abijah (1 K. xv. 2; 2 Chr. xi. 20-22). According to Josephus (Ant. viii. 10, § 1) her mother was Tamar, Absalom’s daughter. But the mother of Abijah is elsewhere called “ Michaiah, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah’’ (2 Chr. xiii. 2). The LXX. and Syriac, in the latter passage, have Maachah,, as in xi. 20. If Michaiah were a mere variation of Ma- achah, as has been asserted (the resemblance in English characters being much more close than in Hebrew), it would be easy to understand that Uriel of Gibeah married Tamar the daughter of Absalom, whose grand-daughter therefore Maachah was. But it is more probable that ‘ Michaiah”’ is the error of a transcriber, and that ‘‘ Maachah ”’ is the true reading in all cases (Capelli Crit. Sacr. vi. 7, § 3). Houbigant proposed to alter the text, and to read ‘‘ Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom (or Ab- salom), the son of Uriel.’’? During the reign of her grandson Asa she occupied at the court of Judah and south of the Sufé (see Wetzstein, and Cyril Graham), it would support the view taken in the text, and would also fall in with the suggestion of Ewald ( Gesch. iii. 197), that the Suf@ is connected with Zobah. In Josh. xiii. the Peshito has Kuwros, 0092.0, of which the writer can make nothing. The Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, and Jerusalem have Aphikeros, DATOS (with some slight variations in spelling). MAACHATHI the high position of * King’s Motlier”’ (comp. | K. ii. 19), which has been compared with that o} the Sultana Valide in Turkey. It may be thata Abijah’s death, after a short reign of three years Asa was left a minor, and Maachah acted as regent like Athaliah under similar circumstances. If thi conjecture be correct, it would serve to explain th influence by which she promoted the practice o} idolatrous worship. The idol or “horror”? whiei she had made for Asherah (1 K. xv. 18; 2 Chi xv. 16) is supposed to have been the emblem o Priapus, and was so understood by the Vulgate [{poL, vol. ii. p. 1118 6.] It was swept away ij Asa’s reformation, and Maachah was removed fron her dignity. Josephus calls Maachah Mayavy perhaps a corruption of Maxd, and makes Asa th son of Maxaia. See Burrington’s Genealogies, | 222-228, where the two Maachahs are considere distinct. 4. (Mwyd.) The concubine of Caleb the so of Hezron (1 Chr. ii. 48). 5. (Mwxd-) The daughter of Talmai, kins 0 Geshur, and. mother of Absalom (1 Chr. iii. 2) also called MAACAH in A. V. of 2 Sam. iii. ¢ Josephus gives her name Maydun (Ant. vil. 1, §4 She is said, according to a Hebrew tradition 1 corded by Jerome ( Qu. Hebr. in Reg.), to hay been taken by David in battle and added to th number of his wives. 6. (Mowxd; Alex. Mooxya-) The wife of M: chir the Manassite, the father or founder of Gileac and sister of Huppim and Shuppim (1 Chr. yi 15, 16), who were of the tribe of Benjamin qd Chi vii. 12). In the Peshito Syriac Maachah is mad the mother of Machir. 7. (Moaxd, [Mowxd;] Alex. [in 1 Chr. viii Maaxya.) The wife of Jehiel, father or found of Gibeon, from whom was descended the fami] of Saul (A Chr. viii. 29, ix. 35). 8. (Mowxe } hee Max a:) The father ¢ Hanan, one of the heroes of David's body-guar (1 Chr. xi. 43), who is classed among the warrioi selected from the eastern side of the Jordan. is not impossible that Maachah in this instan¢ may be the same as Syria-Maachah in 1 Chr. xi 6, & 9. (Maaxd [Vat. Maxa.-]}) A Simeonite, fathi of Shephatiah, prince of is tribe in the reign ¢ David (1 Chr. xxvii. 16). W.A. W. | * MA’ACHATH (NDE: Maxart (Va -ret); Alex. Maxaéi : Machati), Josh. xiii. 1 probably a variation of MAAcAH (which see though Fiirst suggests that it may be abbreviate neDR. as patronymic (in the A. V., from It occurs only as above, and the ‘‘ Maachethites ”’). . H. MAACH’ATHI, and MAACH’ THITES, THE (WD)'57) [patronymic [Rom. Maxaél, Maxari, ete. ; Vat. Maxi, This is probably intended for the ’Emixatpos ‘ Ptolemy, which he mentions in company with Livia Callirrhoé, and Jazer (?) (See Reland, Pal. p. 462; al compare the expression of Josephus with reo Macherus, B. J. vii. 6, § 2.) But this would sure be too far south for Maacah. The Targum Pseudojo has Antikeros, DIMI, which remains obsew) It will be observed, neue that every one of ik names contains Kr or Chr. | MAADAI MAASEIAH 1707 its uame is mentioned by them (Onomasticon, ‘¢ Maroth’’). By Gesenius (Thes. 1069 a) the name is derived from a root signifying openness or bareness, but may it not with equal accuracy and greater plausibility be derived from that which has pro duced the similar word, meurah, a cave? It would thus point to a characteristic feature of the mountainous districts of Palestine, one of which, the Mearath-Adullam, or cave of Adullam, was probably at no great distance from this very lo- cality. G. * MA’ASAT (3 syl.) is the correct form of the word which appears in the A. V. (1 Chr. ix. 12) as Maasiai or Maasia. See addition to MAAsral. A. MAASE‘’IAH [4 syl.] (TWD [work of Jehovah]: Maacta: Maasia). 1. ([Vat. Meeo- ond;} Alex. Maacnia; FA. Maacna.) A descent- ant of Jeshua the priest, who in the time of Ezra had married a foreign wife, and was divorced from her (Ezr. x. 18). He ig called MAtTruesas in 1 Esdr. ix. 19, but in the margin, MAAsIAs. 2. (Macana; Alex. Maccias; [Comp. Maacta. ]) A priest, of the sons of Harim, who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s command (Hzr. x. 21). Ma- ASIAH in margin of 1 Esdr. ix. 19. oe ({Vat.] FA. Maacaa: ) A priest of the sons of Pashur, who had married a foreign wife in the time of Ezra (Ezr. x. 22). He is called Mas- Sts in 1 Esdr. ix. 22. 4. (Alex. Maaona; [ Vat. ] FA. Maon; [Comp. Maaclas:| Muasias.) One of the laymen, a de- scendant of Pahath-Moab, who put away his foreign wife in the time of Ezra (Ezr. x. 30). Apparently the same as Moostas in 1 Esdr. ix. 31. 5. (Maacias; [ Vat. | KA. MadacnaA: Maa- sias.) ‘The father of Azariah, one of the priests from the oasis of the Jordan, who assisted Nehe- miah in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 23). 6. ({[Vat. M. Maacoaia;] FA. Maacaa.) One of those who stood on the right hand of Ezra when he read the law to the people (Neh. viii. 4). He was probably a priest, but whether one of those mentioned in ch. xii. 41, 42, is uncertain. The corresponding name in 1 Hsdr. ix. 43 is BALSA- MUS. j 7. (Om. in LXX.; [but Comp. Maactas.]) A Levite who assisted on the same occasion in ex- pounding the Law to the people (Neh. viii. 7). He is called MAIANEAS in 1 Esdr. ix. 48. 8. (Alex. Maadoia; FA, Maacaia.) One of the heads of the people whose descendants signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 25). 9. ({Vat. Maaceia; FA. Mecesa;] Alex. Maa- gia.) Son of Baruch and descendant of Pharez, the son of Judah. His family dwelt in Jerusalem after the return from Babylon (Neh. xi. 5). In the corresponding narrative of 1 Chr. ix. 5 he is called ASAIAH. 10. (Maactas; [FA- Marana:] Masia.) A Benjamite, ancestor of Sallu, who dwelt at Jerusa- lem after the Captivity (Neh. xi. 7). 11, (Om. in Vat. MS.; [also Rom. Alex. FA.1] Alex. [rather FA.3] Maactas-) Two priests of this name are mentioned (Neh. xii. 41, 42) as taking part in the musical service which accompanied the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem under Ezra. One of them is probably the same as 6. ixabet, 1 Maxe, 0 Maxares, [etc.;] Alex. yabt, [Maxari, ete. :] Machathi, Machati, aachati|]), two words—the former taking the a of the Hebrew — which denote the inhabitants he small kingdom of MAAcHAH (Deut. iii. 14; 4. xii. 5, xiii. 11,13). Individual Maachathites 2 not unknown among the warriors of Israel. 1, recorded simply as ‘+ son of the Maachathite,” yssibly ‘“ Eliphelet, son of Ahasbai the Maach- te ” (see Kennicott, Dissertation, 205, 206), was rember of David’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 34). ‘ther, Jezaniah, was one of the chiefs who rallied 1d Gedaliah the superintendent, after the first ‘ruction of Jerusalem (Jer. xl. 8; 2 K. xxv. 23). temoa the Maachathite (1 Chr. iv. 19) more jably derives that title from the concubine of »b, (ii. 48) than from the Syrian kingdom. AACAH, 2.] G. AA‘ADAL [3 syl.] QTY [ornament of ovah, see Ges.]: Moodia; [Vat. Modede3] «. Moodera; FA. Acedia: Maaddi), one of the , of Bani who returned with Ezra and had in- qarried with the people of the land (zr. x. 34). is called Momopts in 1 Esdr. ix. 34. fTAADVAH (MIYD [as above]: om. in . MS. [and so in Rom. Alex. FA.1]; Alex. vher FA.3] Maadias: Wadia), one of the priests, jumilies of priests, who returned with Zerubbabel i Jeshua (Neh. xii. 5); elsewhere (ver. 17) called ADIAH. TWAI [2 syl.] (YY%D [perh. compassionate, J: [Vat. Alex. FA.1 omit; Rom.] ata; [FA ¥ii:] Maat) one of the Bene-Asaph [sons of A.] ‘took part in the solemn musical service by Wh the wall of Jerusalem was dedicated after it 1 been rebuilt by Nehemiah (Neh. xii. 36). TIWALEH - ACRAB’/BIM (my YDPY [ascent of scorpions]: 7 mpocavdBaots braBelv [Rom. -Biv; Alex. AxpaBBeu]: ascen- Scorpionis ). The full form of the name which in t\ther occurrences (in the original identical with above) is given in the A. V. as “ the ascent of” im. xxxiv. 4], or “the going up to [Judg. i. Akrabbim.’? It is found only in Josh. xv. 3. the probable situation of the pass, see AKRAB- In Judg. i. 36 the marginal reading (A. V.) i aale-Akrabbim, with “the going up to Akrab- i in the text. The same place is always meant, ‘the expression is as much a proper name in passage as another. H. [AVANT (Buavt [Vat. -ver; Ald. Maavt:] Eni), 1 Esdr. ix. 34 identical with BANI, 4. L’ARATH (AIR [naked place, i. e. ) out trees, etc.]: Mayap#0%; [Alex. Ald. Ma- 1; Comp. Maapwd:] Mareth), one of the towns udah, in the district of the mountains, and in Wsame group which contains HALHUL, BEeTH-|- Z\,and GEDor (Josh. xv. 59). The places which rin company with it have been identified at a émiles to the north of Hebron, but Maarath has erto eluded observation. It does not seem to + been known to Eusebius or Jerome, although ‘the LXX. here represert the Hebrew Ain by y; “are Gomorrah. 1708 MAASIAI 12. (Bacatas; [Vat. Mavacoaas, Alex. Mao- gatas, Comp. Maacwas,] FA. Mageas in Jer. reivds Maacalas, Alex. Macaias, Jer. xxxvii. 3; [Maacaas, Alex. Macomas, FA. Maceas, Jer. xxix. 25.]) Father of Zephaniah, who was a priest in the reign of Zedekiah (Jer. xxix. 29). 13. (Om. in LXX.) The father of Zedekiah the false prophet, in the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah (Jer. xxix. 21). 14. GmMwyrd : Maacata, [Maacalas; Vat. Maagoia, Macooas;] Alex. Maacia, [Maactas ; FA. in ver. 20, Macouas:] Jaasias), one of the Levites of the second rank, appointed by David to sound “with psalteries on Alamoth,’’ when the ark was brought from the house of Obed-edom. He was also one of the “porters’’ or gate-keepers for the ark (1 Chr. xv. 18, 20). 15. ([Rom. Maacaia; Vat. Macoaa; | Alex. Maowa.) The son of Adaiah, and one of the cap- tains of hundreds in the reign of Joash king of Judah. He assisted Jehoiada in the revolution by which Joash was placed on the throne (2 Chr. xxiii. 1). . 16. (Maacias; [Vat. Awacaas;] Alex. Mao- catas.) An officer of high rank (shétér) in the reign of Uzziah (2 Chr. xxvi. 11). He was prob- ably a Levite (comp. 1 Chr. xxiii. 4), and engaged in a semi-military capacity, corresponding to the civic functions of the judges, with whom the shdter- im are frequently coupled. 17. (Maactas; [Vat. Maacaias;] Alex. Ma- cis.) The “king’s son,’ killed by Zichri the Ephraimitish hero in the invasion of Judah by Pekah king of Israel, during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr. xxviii. 7). The personage thus designated is twice mentioned in connection with the “ governor of the city” (1 K. xxii. 26; 2 Chr. xviii. 25), and appears to have held an office of importance at the Jewish court (perhaps acting as viceroy during the absence of the king), just as the queen dowager was honored with the title of “king’s mother” (comp. 2 K. xxiv. 12 with Jer. xxix. 2), or gebirah, i. €. “ mistress,’’ or “ powerful lady.’’? [MALCHIAH, 8.] For the conjecture of Geiger, see JOASH, 4, 18. (Maacd; [Alex. Maacias.]) The governor of Jerusalem in the reign of Josiah, appointed by the king, in conjunction with Shaphan and Joah, to superintend the restoration of the Temple (2 Chr. xxxiv. 8). 19. (Maacatas; Alex. Macaas; [FA. Maceas-]) The son of Shallum, a Levite of high rank, and one of the gate-keepers of the Temple in the reign of Jehoiakim (Jer. xxxv. 4; comp. 1 Chr. ix. 19). 20. (THOM [refuge of Jehovah, i. e. which he affords | : Maacaias ; Alex. Maccatas: Maasias, Jer. xxxii. 12; Alex. Maacoaas: Masias, Jer. li. 59.) A priest; ancestor of Baruch and Seraiah, the sons of Neriah. W.A. W. MAASAI [properly Ma’asat, 3 syl.] (WY [Jehovah's work]: Maacata; Alex. Maca: Maasai), a priest who after the return from Baby- lon dwelt in Jerusalem (1 Chr. ix. 12). He is apparently the same as AMASHAI in Neh. xi. 13. * The forms Maasiai and Maasia (the latter being the reading of the A. V. in the original edition of 1611 and other early editions) are doubt- less both misprints for Maasai. This is the read- ing of the Genevan version, and corresponds with the Hebrew wd, the word being thus pointed MACCABEES, THE in four MSS. collsted by Michaelis (see his Z Hebr. in loc.), and also by Gesenius and Furst. A MAASI’AS (Maacalas: Maasias). The s: as MASSEIAH, 20, the ancestor of Baruch (] Lenk); * MA’ATH (Mad@: Mahath), an ancestor Jesus, according to the genealogy in Luke 26). MA AZ (YY [anger]: Mads: Moos), of Ram, the firstborn of Jerahmeel (1 Chr. ii. 2 MAAZVAH (TTY [ Jehovah's cons tion]: Maa¢ia; [Vat. Nadera;] FA. Agia: J zia). 1. One of the priests who signed the e nant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 8). From coincidence between many of the names of priests in the lists of the twenty-four courses es lished by David, of those who signed the cover with Nehemiah (Neh. x.), and those who retu with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii.), it would seem ei that these names were hereditary in familie: that they were applied to the families themse This is evidently the case with the names of ‘heads of the people’? enumerated in Neh 14-27. 2. (MTV [see above]: Maacal; Alex. ] (ar: Maaziaii.) A priest in the reign of Ds head of the twenty-fourth course (1 Chr. xxiv. See the preceding. MAB’DAI [2 syl.] (MaBdat; [ Vat. lo popdat, by union with the preceding word;] / MavSa:: Baneas). The same as BENAIAE Esdr. ix. 34; see Ezr. x. 35). MAC’ALON (Maxaddy, in both MSS.:. taro), 1 Esdr. v.21. This name is the equiv: of MicHMASH in the lists of Ezra and Nehem ( MAC’CABEES, THE (of MarraB [Maccabeci]). This title, which was originally surname of Judas, one of the sons of Matta (infr. § 2), was afterwards extended to the hb family of which he was one of the noblest repr tatives, and in a still wider sense to the Palesti martyrs in the persecution of Antiochus Epipl [4 MaccaBEEs], and even to the Alexandrine who suffered for their faith at an earlier tim MaccaBEks]. The original term Maccabi (61 kaBatos) has been variously derived. Some maintained that it was formed from the com! tion of the initial letters of the Hebrew sent «« Who among the gods is like unto thee, Jehoya (Ex. xv. 11, Hebr. , 3, 2, 5), which is sup to have been inscribed upon the banner of th triots; or, again, of the initials of the simpl scriptive title, “ Mattathias, a priest, the so Johanan.” But even if the custom of for such words was in use among the Jews at early time, it is obvious that, such a title woul be an individual title in the first instance, as - cabee undoubtedly was (1 Mace. ii. 4), and remains among the Jews (Raphall, Hist. of . j. 249). Moreover the orthography of the wo Greek and Syriac (Ewald, Geschiehte, iv. 352, points to the form ‘2%, and not be Another derivation has been proposed, W although direct evidence is wanting, seems sat tory. According to this, the word is formed MACCABEES, THE >, «a hammer ” (like Malachi, Ewald, 353, ,), giving a sense not altogether unlike that in eh Charles Martel derived a surname from his ite weapon, and still more like the d/alleus forum and Mulleus Hereticorum of the Middle 28. Although the name Maccabees has gained the est currency, that of Asmoneans, or Hasmo- ums, is the proper name of the family. The in of this name also has been disputed, but the jous derivation from Chashmon (Vw, MACCABEES, THE 1709 *Acauwvaios, comp. Ges. Thes. 5346), great- grandfather of Mattathias, seems certainly correct How it came to pass that a man, otherwise obscure, gave his name to the family, cannot now be dis- covered; but no stress can be laid upon this diffi- culty, nor upon the fact that in Jewish prayers (Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Jud. i. 264) Mattathias himsek is called Hashmonai.¢ The connection of the various members of the Maccabeean family will be seen from the accompany- ing table: — : Tur ASMONZAN FAMILY. Chasmon (‘ of the sons of Joarib,’ comp. 1 Chron. xxiv. 7). Johanan (‘Iwavvys)- Simeon (Svpedv, Simon. | Mattathias (Matthias, Joseph. Comp. 2 Pet. i. 1). B. J.i1, § 8). t 167 B. c. : é Johanan (Johannes) Simon Judas Eleazar Jonathan (Gaddis), (Thassi), (Maccabeeus), (Avaran), (Apphus), Joseph ” in 2 Macc. viii. 22), +185 B. ©. + 161 B. oc. + 163 B. oO. t 148 B. c. + 161 B. o. | Judas, Johannes Halle I. Mattathias Daughter — Ptolemzeus + 185 B. ©. 7 106 B.c. + 135 B. 0. (1 Mace. xvi. 11, 12). : | ome (Alexandra) — Aristobulus I.. Antigonus. Jannzus Alexander — Alexandra. Son. sn + 105 B. o. 7 105 B. ©. + 783. c. OP Ss Se es ee ee mpnedr iy JD Aristobulus IT. + 30 B. ©. + 49 B. ©. } | Oise! 2 UR ete Alexandra = ntaateah Antigonus. + 28 B. Cc. | + 49 B. ©. 7 37 B. Oo. ; a J ee eee Eee } Mariamne — Herod the Great. Aristobulus. + 29 B. c. 7 85 B. OC. (The original authorities for the history of the aecabees are extremely scanty; but for the course the war itself the first book of Maccabees is a »st trustworthy, if an incomplete witness. [Mac- BEES, Books oF.] The second book adds some portant details to the history of the earlier part the struggle, and of the events which immediate- preceded it; but all the statements which it con- ins require close examination, and must be leeived with caution. Josephus follows 1 Macc., >the period which it embraces, very closely, but ‘ght additions of names and minute particulars dicate that he was in possession of other materials, jobably oral traditions, which have not been else- ere preserved. On the other hand there are , in which, from haste or carelessness, he has isinterpreted his authority. From other sources tle can be gleaned. Hebrew and classical litera- /re furnishes nothing more than a few trifling /igments which illustrate Maccabzean history. So ig an interval elapsed before the Hebrew tra- tions were committed to writing, that facts, when ‘t embodied in rites or precepts, became wholly storted. Classical writers, again, were little likely chronicle a conflict which probably they could not have understood. Of the great work of Polyb- ius — who alone might have been expected to ap- preciate the importance of the Jewish war — only fragments remain which refer to this period; but the omission of all mention of the Maccabzean cam- paign in the corresponding sections of Livy, whe follows very closely in the track of the Greek his- torian, seems to prove that Polybius also omitted them. The account of the Syrian kings in Appian is too meagre to make his silence remarkable; but indifference or contempt must be the explanation of a general silence which is too wide-spread to be accidental. Even when the fall of Jerusalem had directed unusual attention to the past fortunes of its defenders, Tacitus was able to dismiss the Mac- cabsean conflict in a sentence remarkable for scorn- ful carelessness. ‘During the dominion of the Assyrians, the Medes, and the Persians, the Jews,” he says, “ were the most abject of their dependent subjects. After the Macedonians obtained the supremacy of the East, King Antiochus endeavored Set RS ES @ Herzfeld derives the name from ODT, “to tem- per steel; so that it becomes in sense a synonym of “ Maccabee.”’ 1710 MACCABEES, THE to do away with their superstition, and introduce Greek habits, but was hindered by a Parthian war from reforming a most repulsive people ’’ (teter77- mam gentem Tac. Hist. vy. 8).4 . The essential causes of the Maccabsean War have been already pointed out [ANTIocHUs IV. vol. i. p. 116 a]. The annals of the Maccabeean family, “‘ by whose hand deliverance was given unto Israel’? (1 Mace. v. 62), present the record of its progress. ‘The standard of independence was first raised by MATTATHIAS, a priest > of the course of Joarib, which was the first of the twenty-four courses (1 Chr. xxiv. 7), and consequently of the noblest blood (comp. Jos. Vié. i.; Grimm, on 1 Mace. ii. 1). The persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes had already roused his indignation, when emis- saries of the king, headed by Apelles (Jos. Ant. xii. 6, § 2), came "to Mop1n, where he dwelt, and required the people to offer idolatrous sacrifice (1 Mace. ii. 15, ete.). Mattathias rejected the over- tures which were made to him first, and when a Jew came to the altar to renounce his faith, slew him, and afterwards Apelles, ‘as Phinees — from whom he was descended — did unto Zambri.”’ After this he fled with his sons to the mountains (B. Cc. 168), whither he was followed by numerous bands of fugitives. Some of them, not in close connection with Mattathias, being attacked on the Sabbath, offered no resistance, and fell to the num- ber of a thousand. When Mattathias heard of the disaster he asserted the duty of self-defense, and continued the war with signal success, destroying the idolatrous altars, and restoring the observance of the Law. He seems, however, to have been already advanced in years when the rising was made, and he did not long survive the fatigues of active service. He died B. c. 166, and “ was buried in the sepulchre of his fathers at Modin.”’ The speech which he is said to have addressed to his sons before his death is remarkable as contain- ing the first distinct allusion to the contents of Daniel, a book which seems to have exercised the most powerful influence on the Maccabeean conflict (1 Mace. ii. 60; comp. Jos. Ant. xii. 6, § 3). 2. Mattathias himself named JuDAs — appar- ently his third son — as his successor in directing the war of independence (1 Mace. ii. 66). The energy and skill of “THE MACCABEE”’ (6 Mak- KaBatos), as Judas is often called in 2 Macc., fully justified his father’s preference. It appears that he had already taken a prominent part in the first secession to the mountains (2 Macc. v. 27, where Mattathias is not mentioned); and on receiving the chief command he devoted himself to the task of combining for common action those who were still faithful to the religion of their fathers (2 Mace. vili..1). His first enterprises were night attacks and sudden surorises. which were best suited to the troops at his disposal (2 Mace. viii. 6, 7); and when his men were encouraged by these means, he ven- tured on more important operations, and defeated Apollonius (1 Macec. iii. 10-12) and Seron (1 Mace. iii. 13-24), who hearing of his success came against @ The short notice of the Jews in Diodorus Siculus (ab. xl., Ecl. 1) is singularly free from popular mis- representations, many of which, however, he quotes as used by the counsellors of Antiochus to urge the king to extirpate the nation (£2). xxxiv., Ecl. 1). 6 The later tradition, by a natural exaggeration, made him high-priest. Comp. Herzfeld, Gesca. i. 264, $79. we MACCABEES, THE him with very superior forces at Beth-horon, scene of the most glorious victories of the Jey earlier and later times. [BETH-HORON.’] Shortl | terwards Antiochus Epiphanes, whose resources been impoverished by the war (1 Mace. iii. 27- left the government of the Palestinian province Lysias, while he himself undertook an expedi against Persia in the hope of.recruiting his treas Lysias organized an expedition against Judas; his army, a part of which had been separated f the main body to effect a surprise, was defeated Judas at Emmaus with great loss (B. c. 166), a the Jews had kept a solemn fast at Mizpeh (1 M iii. 46-53), and in the next year Lysias him: was routed at Bethsura. After this success Jt was able to occupy Jerusalem except tle “ tow (1 Mace. vi. 18, 19), and he purified the Ten (1 Mace. iv. 36, 41-53) on the 25th of Cisleu, actly three years after its profanation (1 Mae 59 [DEDICATION]; Grimm, on 1 Mace. iv. ; The next year was spent in wars with frontier tions (1 Mace. v.); but in spite of continued umphs the position of Judas was still precari In B. Cc. 163 Lysias, with the young king A ochus Eupator, took Bethsura, which had been tified by Judas as the key of the Idumean bo (1 Mace. iv. 61), after having defeated the patr who came to its relief; and next laid siege to J salem. The city was on the point of surrender when the approach of Philip, who claimed guardianship of the king, induced Lysias to g antee to the Jews complete liberty of relig The compact thus made was soon broken, shortly afterwards Lysias fell into the hands Demetrius, a new claimant of the throne, and put to death.. The accession of Demetrius brot with it fresh troubles to the patriot Jews. Ak party of their countrymen, with ALcrmus at t head, gained the ear of the king, and he sent canor against Judas. Nicanor was defeated, at Capharsalama, and again in a decisive battl Adasa, near to the glorious field of Beth-h (B. Cc. 161, on the 138th Adar; 1 Mace. vii. 48 Mace. xv. 86), where he was slain. This vie was the greatest of Judas’s successes, and pre .cally decided the question of Jewish independe but it was followed by an unexpected reverse. Jt employed the short interval of peace which follo in negotiating a favorable league with the Rom But in the same year, before the answer of senate was returned, a. new invasion under | chides took place. The Roman alliance seem: have alienated many of the extreme Jewish p: from Judas (Midr. Hhanuka, quoted by Rapl Hist. of Jews, i. 325), and he was able only gather a small force to meet the sudden dan; Of this a large part deserted him on the eve of hattle: but the eourace of Judas was unshal and he fell at Eleasa, the Jewish Thermop} fighting at desperate odds against the invad His body was recovered by his brothers, and bu at Modin “in the sepulchre of his fathers ” ° 161).¢ e Judas (like Mattathias) is represented in |] times as high-priest. Even Josephus (Ant. xii. 11, speaks of the high-priesthood of Judas, and also ! that he was elected by * the people ” on the deatl Alcimus (xii. 10, § 6). But it is evident from 1M ix. 18, 56, that 5 udas died some time before Alecia and elsewhere (Ant. xx. 10, § 8) Josephus himself that the high-priesthood was vacant for seven y MACCABEES, THE MACCABEES, THE 1711 3. After the death of Judas the patriotic party | who were already beginning to despond, and effec- ems to have been for a short time wholly dis-|tually opposed the progress of the Syrians. His ganized, and it was only by the pressure of |skill in war had been proved in the lifetime of pparalleled sufferings that they were driven to|Judas (1 Mace. v. 17-23), and he had taken an new the conflict. For this purpose they offered | active share in the campaigns of Jonathan, when e command to JONATHAN, surnamed Apphus he was intrusted with a distinct command (1 Mace. ADT, the wary), the youngest son of Matta- avs rae soon enabled to consummate the 4ias. The policy of Jonathan shows the greatness ao ve plik re pe sea ons ene gis’ d f the loss involved in his brother’s death. He} spout Doisede saan pe oh a meee ade no attempt to maintain himself in the open ype Aa i cei spears mk rea he suntry, but retired to the lowlands of the (he death, and then, having murdered Antiochus, seized ni Macc ix. 42), where he gained some advan- the throne. On this Simon made overtures to ge over Bacchi ads (3. 161) rete, in Demetrius II. (B. c. 143), which were favorably fempt to hem in an d ieatton ‘his PS hs received, and the independence of the Jews was at fot long afterwards Alcimus died (B. c. 160), and rie anothatenaced wa cipare epee aeune chides losing, as it appears, the active support was now triumpliantly ended, and it remained only € the Bicbolshanr wry retire Ree Palestina to reap the fruits of victory. This Simon hastened a ’ x od 6 ” feanwhile Jonathan made such use of the interval i. oe hei ass sEbendipeahen seed fet ae a f rest as to excite the fears of his Jewish enemies; Set ap Letty aeniory poe sae eta bei nd after two years Bacchides, at their request, r d a we y re SO eee teed Mo: oak the field: against Jonathan .(B. c. 158). remainder of his comman extended and confirmed eis ah? ats ee vat feeb! ee the power of his countrymen on all sides, in spite RE a aiterdaacunmeccssful an e of the hostility of Antiochus Sidetes, who after Rete Bese chich ten, ee sat a time abandoned the policy of Demetrius. [CEN- fter his departure Jonathan “judged the people amie fii Slaiiewtes oJ eget has + Michmash ’? (1 Mace. ix. 73), and gradually ra tisy reat ed sere he i = ae are ny xtended his power. The claim of Alexander Balas ae he ier stipbe i: re S Aaltust co ? “eee meet : ie - aatueseraedain dibs cn, 16-21), in addition to the confirmation of earlier BN vniccs ar: array ss Penick sehich ie Pr treaties. After settling the external relations of }? é as 10l-|the new state upon a sure basis, Simon regulated is y eh a aera the ih tha ai its internal administration. He encouraged trade ei ear ya + ii Spam ie Hi and agriculture, and secured all the blessings of : ee ’ ~| peace (1 Mace. xiv. 4-15). But in the midst of a cealvod, oe se ie Ke successes abroad and prosperity at home, he fell a 153). The success of Alexan Sia tans shes) victim to domestic treachery.»: Ptolemzus, the il _ the eleva- | sovernor of Jericho, his son-in-law, aspired to erin en he eh ely fry the, expe poner, hero ae Miicnacles (1 Aaa EAL othe prent < ant Simon and two of his sons to a banquet in his holiest feast.” Woednh yer viii 4 5 A \: 4s 4 ee agit at ae ne murdered them there (B. C. 135, e . . q 9 qc le is ‘ long after he placed the king under fresh obliga- POR “a Ptolemzeus failed in its object. tions by the defeat of Apollonius, a general of the | Jou annes HyRCANUS, one of the sons of Simon younger Demetrius (1 Mace. x.). [APOLLONIUS.] | escaped from the plot by which his life was threat On the death of Alexander, Demetrius II., in spite ened, and at She assumed the government (B. C. Ms a a ot the ee ee aah pee At FW: eg rh pressed ne near a ‘tes “oe ’ : idetes, and only able to preserve Jerusalem on | tet Bes adean the ee aude: condition of dismantling the fortifications and sub- poe ’ nena Dp es of| mitting to a tribute, B. c. 133. The foreign and Bey and beh Paden aCe ORS eae an He: of the Seleucide gave Ba nig ee g Hee petil gained an important victory over the generals er ieakiacched) tae cae ' sae, °F 1) ee . . . a s wy b] 7 a... - sneha Lome degten pune firmed the alliance with Rome, and at length suc- ins Y iBpiswans]; abd gained Din A sditional ceeded in destroying Samaria, the hated rival of Bi ressea in the fel fire - 144 ati atednat. fell Jerusalem, B. Cc. 109. The external splendor of his Westin to the ral me sa : a mt i 44) government was marred by the growth of internal ; ee ak | divisions (Jos. Ant. xii. 10, §§ 5,6); but John es- hich ne cee aka ma caped the fate of all the older members of his family, alex and died in peace B. C. 106-5. His eldest son oe the ponte of the young Antiochus (1 Mace. | Aristobulus I., who succeeded, was the first who ‘4. hy, 1 Peo ta, bataremaining assumed the kingly we Lig Simon had en- brother of the Maccabsean family, heard of the hee Sec isthast consent ofl the Macca- etn i rare . Ptolemais by Try phon, | pean family still remain to be mentioned. These, he placed himself at the head of the patriot party, | though they did not attain to the leadership of b He was surnamed “Thassi” (agai, Qaccis); but the meaning of the title is uncertain. Michaelis (Grimm, on 1 Mace. ii.) thinks that it represents the ite the death of Alcimus, and that Jonathan was the first of the Asmonzean family who held the office. , ty It does not appear that any direct claimant to the | high-priesthood remained. Onias the younger, who tS be tes ‘inherited the claim of his father Onias, the last legit- Ona ldge wy. ‘imate high-priest, had retired to Egypt. 1712 MACCABEES, THE their countrymen like their brothers, shared their fate — Eleazer [ELEAZAR, 8} by a noble act of self-devotion, John [JOHN, 2], apparently the eldest brother, by treachery. The sacrifice of the family was complete, and probably history offers no parallel to the undaunted’ courage with which such a band dared to face death, one by one, in the maintenance of a holy cause. The result was worthy of the sacrifice. The Maccabees inspired a subject-people with independence; they found a few personal fol- lowers, and they left a nation. 7. The great outlines of the Maccabeean contest, which are somewhat hidden in the annals thus briefly epitomized, admit of being traced with fair distinctness, though many points must always re- main obscure from our ignorance of the numbers and distribution of the Jewish population, and of the general condition of the people at the time. The disputed succession to the Syrian throne (B. Cc. 153) was the political turning-point of the strug- gle, which may thus be divided into two great periods. During the first period (B. c. 168-153) the patriots maintained their cause with varying success against the whole strength of Syria: during the second (B. c. 153-189), they were courted by rival factions, and their independence was acknow]l- edged from time to time, though pledges given in times of danger were often broken when the danger was over. ‘The paramount importance of Jerusalem is conspicuous throughout the whole war. The loss of the Holy City reduced the patriotic party at once to the condition of mere guerilla bands, issuing from “the mountains’? or “the wilder- ness,’ to make sudden forays on the neighboring towns. This was the first aspect of the war (2 Mace. viii. 1-7; comp. 1 Mace. ii. 45); and the scene of the early exploits of Judas was the hill- country to the N. E. of Jerusalem, from which he drove the invading armies at the famous battle- fields of BErH-HoROoN and Emmaus (Nicopolis). The occupation of Jerusalem closed the first act of the war (B. C.165); and after this Judas made rapid attacks on every side —in Idumea, Ammon, Gilead, Galilee — but he made no permanent settle- ment in the countries which he ravaged. Bethsura was fortified as a defense of Jerusalem on the S.; but the authority of Judas seems to have been limited to the immediate neighborhood of Jeru- salem, though the influence of his name extended more widely (1 Mace. vii. 50, 4 yf Iovdu). On the death of Judas the patriots were reduced to as great distress as at their first rising; and as Bac- chides held the keys of the ‘mountains of Ephraim ’”’ (ix. 50) they were forced to find a refuge in the lowlands near Jericho, and after some slight suc- cesses Jonathan was allowed to settle at Michmash undisturbed, though the whole country remained absolutely under the sovereignty of Syria. So far it seemed that little had been gairfed, when the contest between Alexander Balas and Demetrius I. opened a new period (B. C. 153), Jonathan was empowered to raise troops: the Jewish hostages were restored; many of the fortresses were aban- doned; and apparently a definite district was as- signed to the government of the high-priest. The former unfruitful conflicts at length produced their full harvest. The defeat at Eleasa, like the Swiss St. Jacob, had shown the worth of men who could face all odds, and no price seemed too great to secure their aid. When the Jewish leaders had MACCABEES, THE checkered by some reverses. The solid power the national party was seen by the slight eff which was produced by the treacherous murder. Jonathan. Simon was able at once to occupy | place, and carry out his plans. The Syrian g: rison was withdrawn from Jerusalem; Joppa ¥ occupied as a seaport; and “ four governments (réccapes vouol, xi. 57, xiii. 87) — probably # central parts of the old kingdom of Judah, wi three districts taken from Samaria (x. 38, 39). were subjected to the sovereign authority of t high-priest. : 8. The war, thus brought to a noble issue, if Ie famous is not less glorious than any of those which a few brave men have successfully maintain the cause of freedom or religion against overpowe ing might. The answer of Judas to those wl counseled retreat (1 Macc. ix. 10) was as tru hearted as that of Leonidas; and the exploits: his followers will bear favorable comparison wi those of the Swiss, or the Dutch, or the Americar It would be easy to point out parallels in Mace bean history to the noblest traits of patriots a1 martyrs in other countries; but it may be enous here to claim for the contest the attention which rarely receives. It seems, indeed, as if the indiffe ence of classical writers were perpetuated in o own days, though there is no struggle — not ev the wars of Joshua or David — which is more pr foundly interesting to the Christian student. F it is not only in their victory over external dif culties that the heroism of the Maccabees is coi spicuous: their real success was as much imperill by internal divisions as by foreign force. Th had to contend on the one hand against opén ai subtle attempts to introduce Greek customs, ar on the other against an extreme Pharisaic part which is seen from time to time opposing the counsels (1 Mace. vii. 12-18; comp. § 2, end And it was from Judas and those whom he inspire that the old faith received its last development an final impress before the coming of our Lord. 9. For that view of the Maccabzean war whic regards it only as a civil and not as a religiot conflict, is essentially one-sided. If there were r other evidence than the book of Daniel — whatev opinion be held as to the date of it — that alor would show how deeply the noblest hopes of tl theocracy were centred in the success of the stru gle. When the feelings of the nation were tht again turned with fresh power to their ancient faitl we might expect that there would be a new creatit epoch in the national literature; or, if the form ¢ Hebrew composition was already fixed by sacre types, a prophet or psalmist would express th thoughts of the new age after the models of ol time. Yet in part at least the leaders of Mace: beean times felt that they were separated by a re: chasm from the times of the kingdom or of tb exile. If they looked for a prophet in the futur they acknowledged that the spirit of prophecy wé not among them. The volume of the prophet writings was completed, and, as far as appears, 0 one ventured to imitate its contents. But th Hagiographa, though they were already long fixe as a definite collection [CANON], were not equal far removed from imitation. The apocalyptic vis ions of Daniel [DANTEL, § 1] served as a patter for the visions incorporated in the book of Enoe [Enocu, Boox oF]; and it has been commonl once obtained legitimate power they proved able to| supposed that the Psalter contains compositions 0 maintain it, though their general success was! the Maccabeean date. This supposition, which | MACCABEES, THE ariance with the best evidence which can be ined on the history of the Canon, can only be ived upon the clearest internal @ proof; and it ‘well be questioned whether the hypothesis is as much at variance with sound interpretation vith the history of the Canon. ‘The extreme is of the hypothesis, as that of Hitzig, who esents Ps. 1, 2, 44, 60, and all the last three cs of the Psalms (Ps. 73-150) as Maccabzean imm, 1 Macc. Linl. § 9, 3), or of Just. Ols- sen (quoted by Ewald, Jahrb. 1853, p. 250 ff), is inclined to bring the whole Psalter, with few exceptions, to that date, need only be tioned as indicating the kind of conjecture ch finds currency on such a subject. The real roversy is confined to a much narrower field; the psalms which have been referred with the test show of reason to the Maccabeean age are 44, 60, 74, 79, 80, 83. It has been argued , all these speak of the dangers to which the se and people of God were exposed from heathen nies, at a period later than the Captivity; and one ground for referring them to the time of Maccabees is the general coincidence which they ent with some features of the Greek oppression. if it be admitted that the psalms in question of a later date than the Captivity, it by no ns follows that they are Maccabean. On the rary they do not contain the slightest trace of se internal divisions of the people which were most, marked features of the Maccabzean strug- The dangers then were as much from within rom without; and party jealousies brought the ne cause to the greatest peril (Ewald, Psalmen, 55). It is incredible that a series of Macca- n psalms should contain no allusion to a system nforced idolatry, or to a temporizing priesthood, to a faithless multitude. And while the ob- ‘ity which hangs over the history of the Persian remacy from the time of Nehemiah to the inva- -of Alexander makes it impossible to fix with ‘precision a date to which the psalms can be rred, the one glimpse which is given of the eof Jerusalem in the interval (Joseph, Anzé. xi. is such as to show that they may well have id some sufficient occasion in the wars and dis- rs which attended the decline of the Persian er (comp. Ewald). It may, however, be doubted ‘ther the arguments for a post-Babylonian date ‘conclusive. There is nothing in the psalms mselves which may not apply to the circum- ices which attended the overthrow of the king- 45 and it seems incredible that the desolation ‘he Temple should have given occasion to no ins of pious” sorrow. 0. The collection of the so-called Psalms of mon furnishes a strong confirmation of the af that all the canonical psalms are earlier than Maccabzean era. This collection, which bears clearest traces of unity of authorship, is, almost ia i | The historical argument for the completion of the ent collection of the Psalms before the compilation hhronicles is very well given by Ewald (Jahrb. 1853, |). 20-82). In 1 Chr. xvi. 7-86 passages occur which \Jerived from Ps. cv., evi., xcvi., of which the first \are among the latest hymns in the Psalter. ‘It must, however, be noticed that the formula of tation prefixed to the words from Ps. Ixxix. in 1 . vii. 17 is not that in which Scripture is quoted ater books, as is commonly said. It is not ws Mat, OF Kata TO yeypaupevoy, but cara Tov Adyor MACCABEES, THE 1713 beyond question, a true Maccabeean work. There is every reason to believe (lwald, Geschichte, iv. 343) that the book was originally composed in Hebrew; and it presents exactly those character- istics which are wanting in the other (conjectural) Maccabean Psalms. “The holy ones” (of 8ox01, DTOTT [AssIDANS] ; ol poBovpevor TOV KU- ptov) appear throughout as a distinct class, strug- gling against hypocrites and men-pleasers, who make the observance of the Law subservient to their own interests (Ps. Sol. iv., xiii—xv.). The sane- tuary is polluted by the abominations of professing servants of God before it is polluted by the heathen (Ps. Sol. i. 8, ii. 1 ff, viii. 8 ff., xvii. 15 ff.). Na- tional unfaithfulness is the cause of national pun- ishment; and the end of trial is the “justification” of God (Ps. Sol. ii. 16, iii. 3, iv. 9, viii. 7 ff, ix.). On the other hand there is a holiness of works set up in some passages which violates the divine mean of Scripture (Ps. Sol. i. 2, 3, iii. 9); and, while the language is full of echoes of the Old Testament, it is impossible not to feel that it wants something which we find in all the canonical writings. The historical allusions in the Psalms of Solomon are as unequivocal as the description which they give of the state of the Jewish nation. An enemy “ threw down the strong walls’’ of Jerusalem, and “ Gen- tiles went up to the altar’’ (Ps. Sol. ii. 1-3; comp. 1 Mace. i. 31). In his pride “‘he wrought all things in Jerusalem, as the Gentiles in their cities do for their gods’’ (Ps. Sol. xvii. 16). * Those who loved the assemblies of the saints (cvvaywyas édatwv) wandered (lege étAava@yro) in deserts ”’ (Ps. Sol. xvii. 19; comp. 1 Mace. i. 54, ii. 28); and there “was no one in the midst of Jerusalem who did mercy and truth’’ (Ps. Sol. xvii. 17; comp. 1 Mace. i. 88). One psalm (viii.) appears to refer to a somewhat later period. The people wrought wickedly, and God sent upon them a spirit of error. He brought one “ from the extremity of the earth” (viii. 16; comp. 1 Mace. vii. 1, — ‘ Demetrius from Rome”). ‘The princes of the land met him with joy’ (1-Mace. vii. 5-8); and he entered the land in safety (1 Mace. vii. 9-12, — Bacchides his general), ‘“¢as a father in peace’’ (1 Mace. vii. 15). Then “he slew the princes and every one wise in counsel’? (1 Mace. vii. 16) and “poured out the blood of those who dwelt in Jerusalem ’’ (1 Mace. vii. 17).¢ The purport of these evils, as a retribu- tive and purifying judgment, leads to the most remarkable feature of the Psalms, the distinct ex- pression of Messianic hopes. In this respect they offer a direct contrast to the books of Maccabees (1 Mace. xiv. 41). The sorrow and the triumph are seen together in their spiritual aspect, and the ex- pectation of “an anointed Lord” (ypiords Kupios, Ps. Sol. xvii. 86 (xviii. 8); comp. Luke ii. 11) fol- lows directly after the description of the impious assaults of Gentile enemies (Ps. Sol. xvii.; comp. Dan. xi. 45, xii.). “ Blessed,”’ it is said, “are they i ee eee ee dv &ypaye, which is variously altered by different au- thorities. ¢ The prominence given to the slaughter of the Assidzeans both in 1 Macc. and in the psalm, and the share which the Jews had directly in the second pol- lution of Jerusalem, seem to fix the events of the psalm to the time of Demetrius; but the close simi larity (with this exception) between the invasions of Apollonius and Bacchides may leave some doubt as to the identification. (Compare 1 Mace. i. 29-38, with Ps. Sol. viii. 16-24.) 1714 MACCABEES, THE who are born in those days, to see the good things { event by some months. which the Loid shall do for the generation to come. [When men are brought] beneath the rod of cor- rection of an anointed Lord (07 the Lord’s anointed, ind papdov madelas Xpiorov Kupiov) in the fear of his God, in wisdom of spirit and of righteous- ness and of might" . then there shall be a * good generation in the fear of God, in the days of mercy’ (Ps. Sol. xviii. 6-10).¢ 11. Elsewhere there is little which marks the distinguishing religious character of the era. The notice of the Maccabeean heroes in the book of Daniel is much more general and brief than the corresponding notice of their great adversary; but it is not on that account less important as illus- trating the relation of the famous chapter to the simple history of the period which it embraces. Nowhere is it more evident that facts are shadowed forth by the prophet only in their typical bearing on the development of God’s kingdom. In this aspect the passage itself (Dan. xi. 29-35) will super- sede in a great measure the necessity of a detailed eomment. ‘ At the time appointed [in the spring of 168 B. c.] he [Antiochus Epiph.] shall return and come towards the south [Egypt]; but 2 shall) not be as the first time, so also the last time [though his first attempts shall be successful, in the end he shall fail]. For the ships of Chittim [the Romans] shall come against him, and he shall be cast down, and return, and be very wroth against the holy covenant ; and he shall do [his will]; yea he shall return, and have intelligence with them that for- sake the holy covenant (comp. Dan. viii. 24, 25). And forces from him [at his bidding] shall stand [remain in Judza as garrisons; comp. 1 Mace. i. 33, 34]; and they shall pollute the sanctuary, the stronghold, and shall take away the daily (sacrifice ] ; and they shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate [1 Macc. i. 45-47]. And such as do wickedly against (or rather such as condemn) the covenant shall he corrupt [to apostasy] by smooth words; but the people that know their God shall be strong and do [exploits]. And they that under- stand [know God and his law] among the people, shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword and by flame, by captivity and by spoil [some] days (1 Mace. i. 60-64). Now when they shall Sal, they shall be holpen with a little help (1 Mace. i. 28; 2 Mace. v. 27, Judas Mace. with nine others .)3 and many shall cleave to them [the faith- ful followers of the Law] with ha jypocris y [dreading the prowess of Judas, 1 Mace. ii. 46, and yet ready to fall away at the first opportunity, 1 Mace. vii. 6]. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to make trial among them, and to purge and to make them white, unto the time of the end; because [the end is] yet for a time appointed.’ From this point the prophet describes in detail the godless- ness of the great oppressor (ver. 86-39), and then his last fortunes and death (ver. 40-45), but says nothing of the triumph of the Maccabees or of the restoration of the Temple, which preceded the last a * The Psalms of Solomon were first published in Greek with a Latin translation by the Jesuit La Cerda at the end of his Adversaria Sacra, Lugd. 1626, after- wards by Fabricius in his Codex Apocr. Vet. Test. i. 917 ff. There is an English translation in the first volume of Whiston’s Authentic Records (Lond. 1727). Hilgenfeld has recently published a critical edition of the text (Die Psalmen Salomo’s u. die Himmelfahrt des Moses, griechisch hergestellt u. erklart) in his Zettschr.f. MACCABEES, THE ’ This omission is sear intelligible unless we regard the facts as sy mb ing a higher struggle—a truth wrongly held these who from early times referred verses 36 only to Antichrist, the antitype of Antiochus - which that recovery of the earthly temple had place. And at any rate it shows the imperfec of that view of the whole chapter by which j regarded as a mere transcription of history. 12. The history of the Maccabees does not tain much which illustrates in detail the relig or social progress of the Jews. It is obvious the period must not only have intensified old liefs, but also have called out elements which | latent in them. One doctrine at least, that | resurrection, and even of a material resurrec (2 Mace. xiv. 46), was brought out into the 1 distinct apprehension by suffering. “It is goo look for the hope from God, to be raised up a by Him” (rdAw dvacthsecba im’ avrod), the substance of the martyr’s answer to his ju ‘‘as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrectio life ”’ (avdoracts €is (why, 2 Mace. vii. 14; co vi. 26, xiv. 46). “Our brethren,” says anot “have fallen, having endured a short pain leac to everlasting life, being under the covenant of G (2 Mace. vii. 86, wévov devvdou (whys). And ; was believed that an interval elapsed between d and judgment, the dead were supposed to b some measure still capable of profiting by the ix cession of the living. Thus much is certainly pressed in the famous passage, 2 Mace. xii. 43 though the secondary notion of a purgatorial s is in no way implied in it. On the other han is not very clear how far the future judgment supposed to extend. If the punishment of wicked heathen in another life had formed a def article of belief, it might have been expected t put forward more prominently (2 Mace. vii. 19, 85, &e.), though the passages in question 1 be. understood of sufferings after death, and only of earthly sufferings; but for the apos Jews there was a certain judgment in reserve 26). The firm faith in the righteous provid of God shown in the chastening of his peopl contrasted with his neglect of other nations another proof of the widening view of the spiri world, which is characteristic of the epoch (2 M iv. 16, 17, v. 17-20, vi. 12-16, &c.). The les of the Captivity were reduced to moral teach: and in the same way the doctrine of the mini of angels assumed an importance which is witl parallel except in patriarchal times [2 MACCABE It was perhaps from this cause also that the ] sianic hope was limited in its range. The 3 perception of spiritual truths hindered the sp of a hope which had been cherished in a mat form; anda pause, as it were, was made, in WI men gained new points of sight from which to ( template the old promises. 13. The various glimpses of national life w can be gained during the period show on the w wiss. Theol. 1868, p. 188 ff. He supposes the Ps to have been written in Greek, not Hebrew, soon ! the death of Pompey (B. c. 48); comp. Ps. Sol. ii. | Movers, Delitzsch, Langen and Keim agree with in referring them to a date subsequent to the cap of Jerusalem by Pompey (B. ¢. 68); on the other bi Ewald, Grimm, and Dillmann (in Herzog’s Real-En xii. 305) assign them to the time of Antiochus W anes. ‘ . MACCABEES, THE dv adherence to the Mosaic Law. Probably AW was never more rigorously fulfilled. .‘The tance of the Antiochian persecution in fixing anon of the Old Testament has been already d. [CANON, vol. i. p. 358.] The books of aw were specially sought out for destructien ace. i. 56, 57, iii, 48); and their distinctive was in consequence proportionately increased. e the words of 1 Macc., “the holy books ” iBAla Td ayia Ta ev xepaly judy) were felt ke all other comfort superfluous (1/ Macc. ). The strict observance of the Sabbath ie. il. 32; 2 Mace. vi. 11, viii. 26, &e.) and Sabbatical year (1 Macc. vi. 53), the law of azarites (1 Macc. iii. 49), and the exemptions military service (1 Macc. iii. 56), the solemn sand fasting (1 Mace. iii. 47; 2 Mace. x. 25, sarry us back to early times. The provision ymaimed, the aged, and the bereaved (2 Macc. 3, 30), was in the spirit of the Law; and the east of the Dedication was a homage to the es (2 Mace. i. 9) while it was a proof of in- lent life. The interruption of the succession » high-priesthood was the most important ition which was made, and one which pre- the way for the dissolution of the state. After s arbitrary changes the office was left vacant en years upon the death of Alcimas. The scendant of Jozadak (Onias), in whose family been for nearly four centuries, fled to Egypt, tablished a schismatic worship; and at last, the support of the Jews became important, accabeean leader, Jonathan, of ‘the family of , was elected to the dignity by the nomina- ithe Syrian king (1 Mace. x. 20), whose will nfirmed, as it appears, by the voice of the (comp. 1 Macc. xiv. 35). Little can be said of the condition of litera- id the arts which has not been already antici- In common intercourse the Jews used the ie dialect which was established after the : this was “their own language” (2 Mace. 21, 27, xii. 37); but it is evident from the ive quoted that they understood Greek, which have spread widely through the influence of Officers. There is not, however, the slightest ve that Greek was employed in Palestinian are till a much later date. The description “monument which was erected by Simon at ‘in memory of his family (1 Mace. xiii. 27- _the only record of the architecture of the The description is obscure, but in some 8 the structure appears to have presented a lance te the tombs of Porsena and the li (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 13), and perhaps to Il found in Idumea. An oblong basement, th the two chief faces were built of polished marble (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 6, § 5), supported ‘pyramids in a line ranged one against an- / equal in number to the members of the pean family, including Simon himself. To @ added « other works of art (unyavhuara), ; Yound (on the two chief faces?) great 18 (Josephus adds, each of a single block), $ trophies of arms, and sculptured ships, might be visible from the sea below.” The ye of 1 Macc. and Josephus implies that columns were placed upon the basement, ise it might be supposed that the columns y to the height of the basement, supporting phies on the same level as the pyramids. So ut least is evident, that the characteristics MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 1715 of this work —and probably of later Jewish arch- itecture generally — bore closer affinity to the stylea of Asia Minor and Greece than of Egypt or the Kast, a result which would follow equally from the Syrian dominion and the commerce which Simon opened by the Mediterranean (1 Mace. xiv. 5). 15. The only recognized relics of the time are the coins which bear the name of « Simon,” or “Simon Prince (Nast) of Israel’? in Samaritan letters. The privilege of a national coinage was granted to Simon by Antiochus VII. Sidetes (1 Mace. xv. 6, kéuua %Si0y vouiona TH xdpa)s and numerous examples occur which have the dates of the first, second, third, and fourth years of the liberation of Jerusalem (Israel, Zion); and it is a remarkable confirmation of their genuineness, that in the first year the name Zion does not occur, as the citadel was not recovered till the second year of Simon’s supremacy, while after the second year Zion alone is found (Bayer, de Nummis, 171). The privilege was first definitely accorded to Simon in B. C. 140, while the first year of Simon was B. c. 143 (1 Mace. xiii, 42); but this discrepancy causes little difficulty, as it is not unlikely that the con- cession of Antiochus was made in favor of a practice already existing. No date is given later than the fourth year, but coins of Simon occur without a date, which may belong to the four last years of his life. The emblems which the coins bear have generally a connection with. Jewish history —a vine-leaf, a cluster of grapes, a vase (of manna ?), a trifid flowering red, a palm branch surrounded by a wreath of laurel, a lyre (1 Mace. xiii. 51), a bundle of branches symbolic of the feast of taber- nacles. ‘The coins issued in the last war of inde- pendence by Bar-cochba repeat many of these emblems, and there is considerable ditticulty in dis- tinguishing the two series. The authenticity of all the Maccabean coins was impugned by T'ychser (Die Unichtheit d. sid. Miinzen . ... bewiesen ... O. G. Tychsen, 1779), but on insufficient grounds. He was answered by Bayer, whose ad- mirable essays (De Nummis Hebr. Samaritanis, Val. Ed. 1781; Vindicie . . . 1790) give the most complete account of the coins, though he reckons some apparently later types as Maccabzean. Eckhel (Doct, Numm. iii. p. 455 ff.) has given a good account of the controversy, and an accurate description of the chief types of the coins. Comp. De Saulcy, Numism. Judaique ; Ewald, Gesch. vii. 366, 476. [Money.] The authorities for the Maccabeean history have been given already. Of modern works, that of Ewald is by far the best. Herzfeld has collected a mass of details, chiefly from late sources, which are interesting and sometimes valuable; but the student of the period cannot but feel how ditticult it is to realize it as a whole. Indeed, it seems that the instinct was true which named it from one chief hero. In this last stage of the history of Israel, as in the first, all life came from the leader; and it is the greatest glory of the Maccabees that, while they found at first all turn upon their personal fortunes, they left a nation strong enough to preserve an in- dependent faith till the typical kingdom gave place to a universal Church. Bo PEW. MACCABEES, BOOKS OF (Makxa8alov a’ pf’ etc.). Four books which bear the conimon title of ** Maccabees’? are found in some MSS. of the LXX. Two of these were included in the early current Latin versions of the Bible, and thence We 1716 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF MACCABEES, BOOKS OF © x and describes at greater length the oppressic Antiochus Epiphanes, culminating in his d Sp attempt to extirpate Judaism. ‘The great st of the book begins with the enumeration o} Maccabean family (ii. 1-5), which is followe an account of the part which the aged Matta took in rousing and guiding the spirit of his ¢ trymen (ii. 6-70). The remainder of the narr is occupied with the exploits of his five sons, of whom in succession carried on with varying tune the work which he began, till it reache triumphant issue. Each of the three divis into which the main portion of the book thus urally falls, is stamped with an individual char derived from its special hero. First Judas, series of brilliant successes, and scarcely less | reverses, fully roused his countrymen to their 1 and then fell at a Jewish Thermopyle (iil. 22, B. c. 167-161). Next Jonathan confirm policy the advantages which his brother had g by chivalrous daring, and fell not in open fiele by the treachery of a usurper (ix. 23-xil. 53; 161-143). Last of all Simon, by wisdom vigor, gave shape and order to the new state was formally installed in the princely office. also fell, but by domestic and not by foreign son; and his son sueceeded to his power (xiii B. C. 143, 135). The history, in this aspect sents a kind of epic unity. The passing allusi the achievements of after-times (xvi. 23, 24) re the impression caused by the murder of 8) Bub at his death the victory was already w the life of Judaism had mastered the tyrant Greece. 2. While the grandeur and unity of the s invests the book with almost an epic beau never loses the character of history. The ¢ part of the narrative, including the exploi Judas, is cast in a more poetic mould thai other part, except the brief eulogy of Simon 4-15); but when the style is most poetical ( 40, ii. 7-13, 49-68, iii, 3-9, 18-22, iv. 8-11 33, 88, vi. 10-18, vii. 37, 38, 41, 42)—am poetical form is chiefly observable in the sp — it seems to be true in spirit. The great of trustworthiness are everywhere conspi Victory and failure and despondeney are, 0 whole, chronicled with the same candor. — is no attempt to bring into open display the ing of Providence. In speaking of Ant Epiphanes (i. 10 ff.) the writer betrays n0~ violence, while he marks in one expressive | (i. 10, pla duaprwrds) the character of the ' type of Antichrist (cf. Is. xi. 10; Dan. = and if no mention is made of the reckless pro of Alexander Balas, it must be rememberet his relations to the Jews were honorable and | and these alone fall within the scope of the h So far as the circumstances admit, the gene curacy of the book is established by the evide other authorities; but for a considerable pe is the single source of our information. A deed, it has little need of external testimony worth. Its whole character bears adequate \ to its essential truthfulness; and Luther —) vile judge — expressed himself as not disin on internal grounds, to see it “ reckoned ame books of Holy Scripture” (‘+ Diess Buch_ fast, eine gleiche Weise hiilt mit Reden und ¥ wie andere heilige Biicher und nicht um gewest wire, hineinzurechnen, weil es ell nithig und niitzlich Buch ist zu versteh passed into the Vulgate. As forming part of the Vulgate they were received as canonical by the Council of Trent, and retained among the apocrypha by the reformed churches. The two other books obtained no such wide circulation, and have only a secondary connection with the Maccabean history. But all the books, though they differ most widely in character and date and worth, possess points of interest which make them a fruitful field for study. If the historic order were observed, the so-called third book would come first, the fourth would be an appendix to the second, which would retain its place, and the jirst would come last; but it will be more conyenient to examine the books in the order in which they are found in the MSS., which was probably decided by some vague tradition of their relative antiquity. The controversy as to the mutual relations and historic worth of the first two books of Maccabees has given rise to much very ingenious and partial criticism. The subject was very nearly exhausted by a series of essays published in the last century, which contain in the midst of much unfair reason- ing the substance of what has been written since. The discussion was occasioned by E. Frélich’s An- nals of Syria (Annales... . Syri@..- . numis veteribus illustrati. Vindob. 1744). In this great work the author, aJesuit, had claimed paramount authority for the books of Maccabees. ‘This claim was denied by E. F. Wernsdorf in his Prolusio de fontibus historice Syrice in Libris Macc. (Lips. 1746). Frélich replied to this essay in another, De fontibus hist. Syrie in Libris Mace. prolusio . . in examen vocata (Vindob. 1746); and then the argument fell into other hands. Wernsdorf’s prother (Gli. Wernsdorf) undertook to support his cause, which he did in a Commentatio historico- critica de fide Librorum Mace. (Wratisl. 1747); and nothing has been written on the same side which can be compared with his work. By the vigor and freedom of his style, by his surprising erudition and unwavering confidence — almost worthy of Bentley — he carries his reader often beyond the bounds of true criticism, and it is only after reflection that the littleness and sophistry of many of his arguments are apparent. But in spite of the injustice and arrogance of the book, it con- tains very much which is of the greatest value, and no abstract can give an adequate notion of its power. The reply to Wernsdorf was published anonymously by another Jesuit: Auctoritas utri- usque Libri Mace. canonico-historica adserta .... a@ quodam Soc. Jesu sacerdote (Vindob. 1749). The authorship of this was fixed upon J. Khell (Welte, Lind. p. 23, note) ; and while, in many points Khell is unequal to his adversary, his book contains some yery useful collections for the history ofthe canon. In more recent times, F. X. Patri- tius (another Jesuit) has made a fresh attempt to establish the complete harmony of the books, and, on the whole, his essay (De Consensu ulriusque Libri Macc. Rome, 1856), though far from satis- factory, is the most able defense of the books which has been published. I. Tue Frrst Book or Maccaners. — 1. The first book of Maccabees contains a history of the patriotic struggle, from the first resistance of Mattathias to the settled sovereignty and death of Simon, a period of thirty-three years (B. Cc. 168- 135). The opening chapter gives a short summary of the conquests of Alexander the Great as laying the foundations of the Greek empire in the East, heten Daniel im 11 Kapitel.” Werke, von ch, xiv. 94, ap. Grimm, p. xxii.). “There are, however, some points in which the er appears to have been imperfectly informed, sially in the history of foreign nations; and , again, in which he has been supposed to have nified the difficulties and successes of his coun- nen. Of the former class of objections two, +h turn upon the description given of the founda- of the Greek kingdoms of the East (1 Mace. i. ), and of the power of Rome (vill. 1-16) deserve ee from their intrinsic interest. After giving ypid surimary of the exploits of Alexander — reading and interpretation of ver. 1 are too stain to allow of objections based upon the mon text —the writer states that the king, scious of approaching death, “divided his king- , among his servants*who had been brought up 1 him from his youth ” (1 Mace. i. 6, S:etAev ois Thy BactAclay avrod, rt (avros auTov), _. and after his death they all put on vns.”’ Various rumors, it is known (Curt. x. | prevailed about a will of Alexander, which ided the distribution of the provinces of his gdom, but this narrative is evidently a different independent tradition. It may rest upon some ner indication of the king’s wishes, but in the ence of all corroborative evidence it can scarcely accepted as a historic fact (Patritius, De Cons. ce. pref. viii.), though it is aremarkable proof of desire which men felt to attribute the constitu- 1 of the Greek power to the immediate counsels its great founder. In this instance the author _ probably accepted without: inquiry the opinion ris countrymen; in the other it is distinetly said t the account of the greatness of Rome was ught to Judas by common report (1 Mace. viii. 2, jKovcev ... > Sinyhoavro). ‘The state- nts made give a lively impression of the popular imate of the conquerors of the West, whose char- er and victories are described chiefly with open or ert allusion to the Greek powers. The subjuga- aof the Galatians, who were the terror of the hboring people (Liv. xxxviii. 37), and the con- st of Spain, the Tarshish (comp. ver. 3) of ‘enician merchants, are noticed, as would be sural from the immediate interest of the events ; 5 the wars with Carthage are wholly omitted ssephus adds these in his narrative, Av. xii. 10, ). The errors in detail—as the capture of 'tiochus the Great by the Romans (ver. 7), the aibers of his armament (ver. 6), the constitution ‘the Roman Senate (ver. 15), the one supreme \itly officer at Rome (ver. 16; comp. Xv. 16)— -only such as might be expected in oral accounts; Athe endurance (ver. 4, waxpoOuuia), the good th (ver. 12), and the simplicity of the republic Ww. 14, ode éréGero ovdels abTay Biddnua Kal | mepteBdAovro mophtpay hate adpuvOjvar ev rh, contrast i. 9), were features likely to arrest :attention of Orientals. The very imperfection ‘the writer’s knowledge —for it seems likely yr. 11) that he remodels the rumors tv suit his jn time — is instructive, as affording a glimpse of js extent and manner in which fame spread the jutation of the Romans in the scene of their ure conquests. Nor are the mistakes as to the jadition of foreign states calculated to weaken the imony of the book to national history. ‘They »perfeetly consistent with good faith in the nar- ‘jor; and even if there are inaccuracies in record- \r the relative numbers of the Jewish and Syrian * MACCABEES, BOOKS OF MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 1717 forces (xi. 45-47, vii. 46), these need cause little surprise, and may in some degree be due to errors of transcription. 4. Much has been written as to the sources from which the narrative was derived, but there does not seem to be evidence sufficient to indicate them with any certainty. In one passage (ix. 22) the author implies that written accounts of some of the actions of Judas were in existence (ra mepiao& . . . « Ot Kateypapy); and the poetical character of the first section of the book, due in a great measure to the introduction of speeches, was probably bor- rowed from the writings on which that part was based. It appears, again, to be a reasonable con- clusion from the mention of the official records of the life of Hyrcanus (xvi. 24, ratdra yéypantas ém) BiBAl Aucpav apxiepwotvys avrod), that similar records existed at least for the high-priest- hood of Simon. There is nothing certainly to indicate that the writer designed to fill up any gap in the history; and the notice of the change of reckoning which attended the elevation of Simon (xiii. 42) seems to suggest the existence of some kind of public register. ‘The constant appeal to ofticial documents is a further proof both of the preservation of public records and of the sense entertained of their importance. Many documents are inserted in the text of the history, but even when they are described as “ copies’ (ayTiypapa), it is questionable whether the writer designed to give more than the substance of the originals. Some bear clear marks of authenticity (viii. 22-28, xii. 6-18), while others are open to grave difficul- ties and suspicion; but it is worthy of notice that the letters of the Syrian kings generally appear tc be genuine (x. 18-20, 25-45, xi. 30-37, xiii. 36-40, xv. 2-9). What has been said will show the extent to which the writer may have used written authorities, but while the memory of the events was still recent it is not possible that he should have confined himself to them. If he was not himself engaged in the war of independence, he must have been familiar with those who were, and their information would supplement and connect the narratives which were already current, and which were probably confined to isolated passages in the history. But whatever were the sources of different parts of the book, and in whatever way written, oral, and personal information was com~- bined in its structure, the writer made the materials which he used truly his own; and the minute exactness of the geographical details carries the conviction that the whole finally rests upen the evidence of eye-witnesses. 5. The language of the book does not present any striking peculiarities. Both in diction and structure it is generally simple and unafiected, with a marked and yet not harsh Hebraistic character. The number of peculiar words is not very con- siderable, especially when compared with those in 2 Mace. Some of these are late forms, as: Woyéw (oyitw), xi. 5, 115 etovdévwors, 1. 395 brAod0Téw, XIV. 32; aomdiokn, iv. 57; SecAdouar iv. 8, 21, xvi. 6; Ounpa, viii. 7, ix. 53, &c.; dpatpewa, Xv. 5% rehwvetobat, xiii. 39; eEovord- CeoOat, x- 70; or compounds, such as gmocKopi (ay xi. 5D; emiovorpépw, xiv. 443 decddPuxos, Vil. 15, xvi. 5; povorrovia, i. 24, Other words are ig (=f a The relation of the history ot Josephus to that 0. 1 Mace. is carefully discussed by Grimm, Exeg, Handb. Einl. § 9 ()- ' if f — . ig By 1718 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF MACCABEES, BOOKS OF e used in new or strange senses, as adpiyw, viii. 14;}O0. T. It seems almost ineredible that any mapaoracis, XV. 82; SiagroAh, viii. 7. Some|should have imagined that the worthless Megil phrases clearly express a Semitic idiom (ii. 48} Antiochus, of which Bartolocei’s Latin transla Oovva Kepas TG duapr. vi. 23, x. 62, xii. 23), and | is printed by Fabricius (Cod. Pseud. V. 7 the influence of the LXX. is continually per-| 1165-74), was the Hebrew original of wh ceptible (e. g. i. 54, ii. 63, vii. 17, ix. 23, xiv. 9);} Origen and Jerome spoke.? ‘This tract, wh but in the main (comp. § 6) the Hebraisms which | occurs in some, of the Jewish services for the Fj exist are such as might haye been naturalized in| ef Dedication (Fabricius, J. c.), is a perfectly the Hebrew-Greek of Palestine. Josephus un-| historical narrative of some of the incidents of doubtedly made use of the Greek text (Ant. xii. 5 | Maceabsean War, in which John the high-pri ff.); and apart from external evidence, this might }and not Judas, plays by far the most conspicu have been supposed to be the original. But, part. ‘The order of events is so entirely disregar 6. The testimony of antiquity leaves no doubt} im it that, after the death of Judas, Mattathias but that the book was first written in Hebrew. represented as leading his other sons to the d Origen, in his famous catalogue of the books of | Sive victory which precedes the purification of Scripture (ap. Euseb. H. Z. vi. 25), after enumer- | Temple. a ating the contents of the O. T. according to the|_ 7: The whole structure of 1 Mace. points Hebrew canon, adds: “ But without (é. e. excluded | Palestine as the place of its composition. This { from the number of ) these is the Maccabean _his- | itself is a strong proof for a Hebrew original, tory (r& MakkaBaird), which is entitled Sarbeth there is no trace of a Greek Palestinian literat Sabanaiel.”” 4 In giving the names of the books | during the Hasmonzan dynasty, though the WwW of the O. T. he had subjoined the Hebrew to the | use of the LXX. towards the close of the peri Greek title in exactly the same manner, and there | Prepared the way for the apostolic writings. I can be therefore no question but that he was ac- though the country of the writer can be thus fix quainted with a Hebrew original for the Macca-| With certainty, there is considerable doubt as to. baica, as for the other books. The term Macca-|date. At the close of the book he mentions, buica is, however, somewhat vague, though the | general terms, the acts of Johannes Hyrcanus analogy of the other parts of the list requires that written “in the chronicles of his priesthood fr it should be limited to one book; but the state-|the time that he was made high-priest after | ment of Jerome is quite explicit: “The first book | father’? (xvi. 23, 24). From this it has been e of Maccabees,’’ he says, “I found in Hebrew: the| cluded that he must have written after the des second is Greek, as can be shown in fact from its|0f Hyrcanus, B. ¢. 106; and the note in xiii. style aluue’” (Prol. Gal. ad Libr, Reg.). Ad-| (Ews ris fiuépas tabrns) implies the lapse o mitting the evidence of these two fathers, who | considerable time since the accession of Simon (B. were alone able to speak with authority on a sub-| 143). On the other hand, the omission of all me ject of Hebrew literature during the first four cen- | tion of the close of the government of Hyream turies, the fact of the Hebrew original of the book | When the note of its commencement Is given, m may be supported by several internal arguments be urged as an argument for placing the book kz which would be in themselves insufficient to estab- | in his long reign, but before his death, It se) lish it. Some of the Hebraisms are such as sug- | certainly have been composed long after his deat gest rather the immediate influence of a Hebrew | for it would have been almost impossible to wri text than the free adoption of a Hebrew idiom a history 80 full of simple faith and joyous trium| (i. 4, éyévovro eis pdpov; 16, Froimudcbn 4 Bac-;| in the midst of the troubles which, early in t 29, S00 ern jpepav; 36, fs didBorov rovnpéy; | Succeeding reign, threatened too distinetly t 58, év mavtl pnvi Kad pyri, etc.; ii. 57, ii. 9, coming dissolution of the state. Combining the dmoAduuevous 3 iv. 2, v. 87, pera rd phpara | two limits, we may place the date of the origin TrauvTa, etc.), and difficulties in the Greek text are | book between B. c. 120-100. The date and pers renioved by a recurrence to the words which may | of the Greek translator are wholly undetermine Le supposed to have been used in the original (i. 28, | but it is unlikely that such a book would rema RSE! j .. |long unknown or untranslated at Alexandria. — emt Tous OTE UE as for Paw 2; i. 36, fi.| gg Ina religious aspect the book is more remar! 8, iv. 19, xvi. 8). A question, however, might be | able negatively than positively. The historical it raised whether the book was written in Biblical stinct of the writer confines him to the bare recit Hebrew, or in the later Aramaic (Chaldee); but it | of facts, and were it not for the words of othe seems almost certain that the writer took the which he records, it might seem that the true the canonical histories as his model; and the use of cratic aspect of national life had been lost. N the original text of Scripture by the learned class only does he relate no miracle, such as occur | would preserve the Hebrew as a literary language | 9 Mace., but he does not even refer the triumphat when it had ceased to be the language of common successes of the Jews to divine interposition.¢ . life. But it is by no means unlikely (Grimm, is a characteristic of the same kind that he pass Exeg. Handb. § 4) that the Hebrew was corrupted | over without any elear notice the Messianic hope by later idioms, as in the most recent books of the which, as appears from the Psalms of Solomon an ¥ + @ Sap8nO SaBavaier. This is undoubtedly the true reading without the 5. All the explanations of the word with which I am acquainted start from the false reading — SapBavé—“ The rod of the renegades” Copsganp, Herzfeld), * The sceptre of the prince of the sons of God” (“32 “YW, Ewald), * The his- tory of the princes (f the sons of God” (“IN SW); and I cannot propose any satisfactory transcription ¢ the true reading. b The book is found not only in Hebrew, but als in Chaldee (Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. V. T. i. 441 note). c The passage xi. 71, 72, may seem to contradiet th assertion ; but though some writers, even from ear! times, have regarded the event as miraculous, the tor of the writer seems only to be that of one describin a noble act of successful valor. us : MACCABEES, BOOKS OF Book of Enoch, were raised to the highest pitch the successful struggle for independence. Yet preserves faint traces of the national belief. He itions the time from which “ a prophet was not 1 among them’ (L Mace. ix. 27, odk apOn phTns) as a marked epoch; and twice he an- pates the future coming of a prophet as of one ) should make a direct revelation of the will of lto his people (iv. 46, uéxps Tod maparyevnd- mpopnrny Tov amoxpiOjvat wep avray), and ersede the temporary arrangements of a merely Idynasty (xiv. 41, rod elvar Siuwva jyovmevoy Gpxiepéa eis ThY aid@va Ews Tod avacrhva pntny mictdy). But the hope or belief occu- ;no prominent place in the book; and, like the k of Esther, its greatest merit is, that it is oughout inspired by the faith to which it gives definite expression, and shows, in deed rather nin word, both the action of Providence and istaining trust in his power. |. The book does not seem to have been much 1 in early times. It offered far less for rhetor- purposes than the second book; and the history If lay beyond the ordinary limits of Christian ly. Tertullian alludes generally to the conduct he Maccabzan war (adv. Jud. 4). Clement of xandria speaks of “the book of the Maccabzean ory”’ (7d [Bi:BAtov] ray MakxaBaikay, Strom. 123), as elsewhere (Strom. v. § 98) of * the ome”’ (7) Trav MakxaBaikwy émitouh). Euse- 3assumes an acquaintance with the two books lap. Lv. viii. 9, devrépa Tay MaxkaBalwy): scanty notices of the first book, but more of second, occur in later writers. 0. The books of Maccabees were not included Jerome in his translation of the Bible. “ The book,’ he says, “I found in Hebrew”? (Prol. . m Reg.), but he takes no notice of the Latin jon, and certainly did not revise it. ‘The ver- _of the two books which has been incorpo- din the Romish Vulgate was consequently de- d from the old Latin, current before Jerome’s » This version was obviously made from the 2k, and in the main follows it closely. Besides common text, Sabatier has published a version | considerable part of the first book (ch. i.—xiv. om a very ancient Paris MS. (S. Germ. 15) Yorum saltem nongentorum, in 1751), which bits an earlier form of the text. Grimm, tigely misquoting Sabatier (Lxeg. Handb. \)), inverts the relation of the two versions; a comparison of the two, even for a few verses, leaye no doubt but that the St. Germain MS. asents the most ancient text, following the ‘k words and idioms with a slavish fidelity Natier, p. 1014, «* Quemadmodum autem etiam- i inveniri possunt MSS. codices qui Psalmos 1 omnem Hieronymi correctionem exhibeant, Koariter inventus est a nobis codex qui libri i Machabeorum partem continet majorem, hme quidem correctam, sed qualis olim in non- i's MSS. antiquis reperiebatur ’). Mai (Spicil. 4. Ix. App. 60) has published a fragment of her Latin translation (ch. ii. 49-64), which ts widely from both texts. The Syriac version 1 in the Polyglotts is, like the Latin, a close €ering of the Greek. From the rendering of ‘yroper names, it has been supposed that the Milator lived while the Semitic forms were still ut (Grimm, Hind. § 10); but the arguments h have been urged to show that the Syriac i Jerived directly from the Hebrew original are MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 1719 of no weight against the overwhelming proof of the influence of the Greek text. 11. Of the early commentators on the first two books of Maccabees, the most important are Drusius and Grotius, whose notes are reprinted in the Critict Sacri. The annotations of Calmet (Com- mentaire literal, etc., Paris, 1724) and Michaelis (Uebersetzung der 1 Macc. B.'s mit Anmerk. Leipz. 1778), are of permanent interest; but for practical use the manual of Grimm (Kurzgefasstes exeg. Handb. zu den Apokryphen, ete., Leipz. 1853 -57) supplies everything which the student can re- quire. THE Srconp Book or Maccasers. — 1. The history of the Second Book of the Maccabees begins some years earlier than that of the First Book, and closes with the victory of Judas Macca- baeus over Nicanor. It thus embraces a period of twenty years, from B. C. 180(?) to B. c. 161. For the few events noticed during the earlier years, it is the chief authority; during the remainder of the time the narrative goes over the same ground as 1 Mace., but with very considerable difterences. The first two chapters are taken up by two letters supposed to be addressed by the Palestinian to the Alexandrine Jews, and by a sketch of the author’s plan, which proceeds without any perceptible break from the close of the second letter. The main nar- rative occupies the remainder of the book. This presents several natural divisions, which appear to coincide with the * five books ”’ of Jason on which it was based. The first (c. iii.) contains the history of Heliodorus, as illustrating the fortunes of the Temple before the schism and apostasy of part of the nation (cir. B. Cc. 180). The second (iv.—vii.) gives varied details of the beginning and course of the great persecution — the murder of Onias, the crimes of Menelaus, the martyrdom of Eleazar, and of the mother with her seven sons (B. C. 175-167). The third (viii.-x. 9) follows the fortunes of Judas to the triumphant restoration of the Temple service (B. C. 166, 165). The fourth (x. 10-xiii.) includes the reign of Antiochus Eupator (B. c. 164-162). The fifth (xiv., xv.) records the treachery of Alci- mus, the mission of Nicanor, and the crowning success of Judas (B. C. 162, 161). Each of these divisions is closed by a phrase which seems to mark the end of a definite subject (iii. 40, vii. 42, x. 9, xiii. 26, xv. 387); and they correspond in fact with distinct stages in the national struggle. 2. The relation of the letters with which the book opens to the substance of the book is ex- tremely obscure. The first (i. 1-9) is a solemn invitation to the Egyptian Jews to celebrate ‘the feast of tabernacles in the month Casleu”’ (7. e. the Feast of the Dedication, i. 9), as before they had sympathized with their brethren in Judea in ‘‘the extremity of their trouble’’ (i. 7). The sec- ond (i. 10~ii. 18, according to the received division), which bears a formal salutation from “ the council and Judas ’’ to “‘ Aristobulus . . . and the Jews in Egypt,’’ is a strange. rambling collection of legendary stories of the death of ‘Antiochus,’ of the preservation of the sacred fire and its recovery by Nehemiah, of the hiding of the vessels of the sanc- tuary by Jeremiah, ending — if indeed the letter can be said to have any end — with the same exhortation to observe the Feast of Dedication (ii. 10-18). For it is impossible to point out any Lreak in the con- struction or style after ver. 19, so that the writer passes insensibly from the epistolary form in-ver. 16 to that of the epitomator in yer. 29 (S0x@). For this 1720 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF reason some critics, both in ancient and modern times (Wernsdorf, § 35, 123), have considered that the whole book is intended to be included in the letter. It seems more natural to suppose that the author found the letters already in existence when he un- dertook to abridge the work of Jason, and attached his own introduction to the second letter for the convenience of transition, without considering that this would necessarily make the whole appear to be a letter. The letters themselves can lay no claims to authenticity. It is possible that they may rest upon some real correspondence between Jerusalem and Alexandria; but the extravagance of the fables which they contain makes it impossible to accept them in their present form as the work of the Jewish Council. Though it may readily be ad- mitted that the fabulousness of the contents of a letter is no absolute proof of its spuriousness, yet on the other hand the stories may be (as in this case) so entirely unworthy of what we know of the position of the alleged writers, as to betray the work of an impostor or an interpolator. Some have supposed that the original language of one? or of both the letters was Hebrew, but this can- not be made out by any conclusive arguments. On the other hand there is no ground at all for believing that they were made up by the author of the book. 3. The writer himself distinctly indicates the source of his narrative — “the five books of Jason of Cyrene”? (ii. 23), of which he designed to furnish a short and only epitome for the benefit of those who would be’ deterred from studying the larger work. [JAsSoN.] His own labor, which he describes in strong terms (ii. 26, 7; comp. xy. 38, 39), was entirely confined to condensation and selection; all investigation of detail he declares to be the peculiar duty of the original historian. It is of course impossible to determine how far the coloring of the events is due to Jason, but “ the Divine manifestations ’’ in behalf of the Jews are enumerated among the subjects of which he treated ; and no sufficient reasons have been alleged to show that the writer either followed any other authority in his later chapters, or altered the general char- acter of the history which he epitomized. Of Jason himself nothing more is known than may be gleaned from this mention of him. It has been conjectured (Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. i. 455) that he was the same as the son of Eleazer (1 Macc. viii. 17), who was sent by Judas as envoy to Rome after the defeat of Nicanor; and the circumstance of this mission has been used to explain the limit to which he extended his history, as being that which coincided with the extent of his personal ob- servation. There are certainly many details in the book which show a close and accurate knowledge (iv, .21,:29 ff.,5 vali LW, ix. 29, ix. 12,48) miv.4), and the errors in the order of events may be due wholly, or in part, to the epitomator. The ques- tionable interpretation of facts in 2 Mace. is no objection to the truth of the facts themselves; and when due allowance is made for the overwrought rendering of many scenes, and for the obvious effort of the writer to discover everywhere signs of provi- dential interference, the historic worth of the book appears to be considerably greater than it is com- monly esteemed to be. Though Herzfeld’s con- jecture may be untenable, the original work of a The subscription in Cod. Alex. is *Iovéa Trot Mak- xaBaiov mpagéwy émurToAn. MACCABEES, BOOKS OF Jason prabally extended no farther than thee ome, for the description of its contents (2 Ma ii. 19-22) does not carry us beyond the close 2 Mace. The “brethren”’ of Judas, whose exple he related, were already distinguished during { lifetime of “ the Maccabee’’ (1 Mace. v. 17 ff., 24 vi. 43-46; 2 Mace. viii. 22-29). = 4. The district of Cyrene was most closely an with that of Alexandria. In both, the predo inance of Greek literature and the Greek langu was absolute. The work of Jason — like the poe of Callimachus — must therefore have been ¢o posed in Greek; and the style of the epitome, Jerome remarked, proves beyond doubt that { Greek text is the original (Prol. Gal. “ Seeun¢ [Machabsorum] Graecus est; quod ex ipsa quoc ppacer probari potest ’’). It is scarcely less ¢ tain that 2 Mace. was compiled at Alexand The characteristics of the style and language: essentially Alexandrine; and though the Alex: drine style may have prevailed in Cyrenaiea, 1 form of the allusion to Jason shows clearly tl the compiler was not his fellow-countryman. E all attempts to determine more exactly who 1 compiler was are mere groundless guesses, with eyen the semblance of plausibility. 5. The style of the book is extremely une At times it is elaborately ornate (ili. 15-39, v. vi. 12-16, 23-28, vii. ete.); and again, it is so rt and broken, as to seem more like notes for an ep ome than a finished composition (xiii. 19-26); I it nowhere attains to the simple energy and patl of the first book. The vocabulary corresponds the style. It abounds in new or unusual wor Many of these are’ forms which belong to the dec of a language, as: a\AopuAiouds, iv. 13, vi. 2 ‘EAAnviouds, iv. 13 (€udavopuds, iii. 9); er ouds, Vil. 37; Owpakiouds, V- 33 orAayxviom vi. 7, 21, vii. 42; or compounds which betray false pursuit of emphasis or precision: Qseumi mAnut, iv. 40; emevaaBetobat, xiv. 18; Kare Oixreiv, xiv. 433 mpooavaréyeoOa, Vill. 1 TpoovTommvngkw, XV. 9; ouverkeyTely, v. § Other words are employed in novel senses, deur eporoyeiy, xiii. 22; cioxuKActobat, ii, 2 evamdvTnTos, xiv. 9; meppevamevos, Xi. 43 Wy Kas, iv. 37, xiv. 24. Others bear a sense which common in late Greek, as: wipe ads xiv. 8; a (uyh, ix. 2, xiii. 26; didAnyis, il iii. 32; evan petdw, ix. 4; ppudoooua, vil. 34; repo vii. 4. Others appear to be peculiar to this boc as! dudoraAats, xiii. 25; Svomwérnua, Vv 2 mpoonupodv, xiv. 11; woAeuorpopeiy, x. 14, 1 émAoAoyelv, Vill. 27, ‘81; amevOavaricew, Ve 2 dokikds, viii. 35; Rubponay ite xii. 43. Hebrais are very rare (viii. 15, ix. 5, xiv. 24). Idioma Greek phrases are much more common (iv. 40, 22, xv. 12, &e.); and the writer evidently had considerable command over the Greek langua: though his taste was deformed by a love of rheto cal effect. 6. In the absence of all evidence as to the pers of Jason — for the conjecture of Herzfeld (§ 3) wholly unsupported by proof —there are no ds which fix the time of the composition of his or inal work, or of the epitome given in 2 Mae within very narrow limits. The superior limit the age of the epitome, though not of Jason’s wo is determined by the year 124 B. c., which i is m¢ b F, Schliinkes, Epistole que 2 Mac. i. 1-9 le explicatio, Colon. 1844. 4 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF d in one of the introductory letters (i. 10); there is no ground for assigning so great an juity to the present book. It has, indeed, been luded from xv. 37, am éxelywy T@Y Kalpay nbeions THs méAews bmd Tav “EBpalwy — h is written in the person of the epitomator, it must have been composed before the defeat death of Judas; but the import of the words ars to be satisfied by the religious supremacy the uninterrupted celebration of the ‘Temple ce, which the Jews maintained till the final of their city; for the destruction of Jerusalem 1e only inferior limit, below which the book ot be placed. ‘The supposed reference to the ; in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. xi. 35, d others were tortured; ’’ comp. vi. 18-vii. 42) ‘perhaps be rather a reference to the current ition than to the written text; and Josephus in listory shows no acquaintance with its contents. the other hand, it is probable that the author _ Mace. used either 2 Macc., or the work of m; but this at most could only determine that book was written before the destruction of Jeru- n, which is already clear from xv. 37. There ) explicit mention of the book before the time Jement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 14, § 98). rnal evidence is quite insufficient to settle the , which is thus left undetermined within the ts 124 Bs. c.—70 A.c. Ifa conjecture be ad- ible, I should be inclined to place the original < of Jason not later than 100 B. c., and the ome half a century later. It is quite credible a work might have been long current at tandria before it was known to the Jews of ‘stine. , , In order to estimate the historical worth of book it is necessary to consider separately the ‘divisions into which it falls. The narrative in vii. is in part anterior (iii—iv. 6) and in part T-vii.) supplementary to the brief summary in ace. i. 10-64: that in viii—xv. is, as a whole, Jel with 1 Mace. iii—vii. In the first section book itself is, in the main, the sole source of rmation: in the second, its contents can he xd by the trustworthy records of the first book. till be best to take the second section first, for ‘character of the book does not vary much; ‘if this can once be determined from sufficient ‘ence, the result may be extended to those parts th are independent of other testimony. The f differences between the first and second books in the account of the campaigns of Lysias and jotheus. Differences of detail will always arise re the means of information are partial and vate; but the differences alleged to exist as to Je events are more serious. In 1 Mace. iv. 26-35 read of an invasion of Judea by Lysias from | side of Idumea, in which Judas met him at ‘isura and inflicted upon him a severe defeat. | onsequence of this Lysias retired to Antioch to ‘e greater preparations for a new attack, while ‘as undertook the restoration of the sanctuary. [2 Mace. the first mention of Lysias is on the ‘ssion of Antiochus Eupator (x. 11). Not long vr this he is said to have invaded Judea 4 suffered a defeat at Bethsura, in consequence vhich he made peace with Judas, giving him rable terms (xi.), A later invasion is men- ed in both books, which took place in the reign © Antiochus Eupator (1 Mace. vi. 17-50; 2 Mace. ¥ 2 ff), in which Bethsura fell into the hands uysias. It is then necessary either to suppose MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 1721 that there were three distinct invasions, of which the first is mentioned only in 1 Mace., the second only in 2 Mace., and the third in both; or to con- sider the narrative in 2 Macc. x. 1 ff. as a mis- placed version of one of the other invasions (for the history in 1 Mace. iv. 26-61 bears every mark of truth): a supposition which is confirmed by the character of the details, and the difficulty of recon- ciling the supposed results with the events which immediately followed. It is by no means equally clear that there is any mistake in 2 Mace. as to the history of Timotheus. The details in 1 Mace. v. 11 ff. are quite reconcilable with those in 2 Mace. xii. 2 ff., and it seems certain that both books record the same events; but there is no sufficient reason for supposing that 1 Mace. v. 6 ff. is parallel with 2 Macc. x. 24-37. The similarity of the names Jazer and Gazara probably gave rise te the confusion of the two events, which differ in fact in almost all their cireumstances; though the identi- fication of the Timotheus mentioned in 2 Mace. x. 24, with the one mentioned in viii. 30, seems to have been designed to distinguish him from some other of the same name. With these exceptions, the general outlines of the history in the two books are the same; but the details are almost always independent and different. The numbers given in 2 Mace. often represent incredible results: ¢. g. viii. 20, 30; x. 23, 31; xi. 11; xii. 16, 19, 23, 26, 28; xv. 27. Some of the statements are obviously in- correct, and seem to have arisen from an erroneous interpretation and embellishment of the original source: vii. 3 (the presence of Antiochus at the death of the Jewish martyrs); ix. (the death of Antiochus); x. 11, &c. (the relation of the boy- king Antiochus Eupator to Lysias); xv. 31, 35 (the recovery of Acra); xiv. 7 (the forces of Demetrius). But on the other hand many of the peculiar details seem to be such as must have been derived from immediate testimony: iv. 29-50 (the intrigues of Menelaus); vi. 2 (the temple at Gerizim); x. 12, 13; xiv. 1 (the landing of Demetrius at Tripolis) ; viii. 1-7 (the character of the first exploits of Judas). The relation between the two books may be not inaptly represented by that existing between the books of Kings and Chronicles. In each case the later book was composed with a special design, which regulated the character of the materials employed for its construction. But as the design in 2 Mace. is openly avowed by the compiler, so it seems to have been carried out with considerable license. Yet his errors appear to be those of one who interprets history to support his cause, rather than of one who falsifies its substance. The groundwork of facts is true, but the dress in which the facts are presented is due in part at least to the narrator. It is not at all improbable that the error with regard to the first campaign of Lysias arose from the mode in which it was introduced by Jason as an introduction to the more important measures of Lysias in the reign of Antiochus Eupator. In other places (as very obviously in xiii. 19 ff.) the compiler may have disregarded the historical de- pendence of events while selecting those which were best suited for the support of his theme. If these remarks are true, it follows that 2 Mace. viii._xv. is to be regarded not as a connected and complete history, but as a series of special incidents from the life of Judas, illustrating the providential interference of God in behalf of his people, true in substance, but embellished in form; and this view of the book is supported by the character of the 4 1722 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF earlier chapters, in which the narrative is un- checked by independent evidence. ‘There is not any ground for questioning the main facts in the history of Heliodorus (ch. iii.) or Menelaus (iv.); and while it is very probable that the narratives of the sufferings of the martyrs (vi., vil.) are highly colored, yet the grounds of the accusation, the replies of the accused, and the forms of torture, in their essential characteristics, seem perfectly authentic. 8. Besides the differences which exist between the two books of Maccabees as to the sequence and details of common events, there is considerable difficulty as to the chronological data which they give. Both follow the Seleucian era (‘the era of contracts; ’’ “of the Greek kingdom; ’’ 1 Mace. i. 10, év @re: . . . Bactdelas ‘EAAnvwyv), but in some cases in which the two books give the date of the saine event, the first book gives a date one year later than the second (1 Mace. vi. 16 || 2 Macc. xi. 21, 33; 1 Mace. vi. 20 || 2 Mace. xiii. 1); yet on the other hand they agree in 1 Mace. vii 1 || 2 Mace. xiv. 4. This discrepancy seems to be due, not to a mere error, but to a difference of reckon- ing; for all attempts to explain away the discrepancy are untenable. ‘The true era of the Seleucide began in October (Dius) B. c. 312; but there is evidence that considerable variations existed in Syria in the reckoning by it. It is then reasonable to suppose that the discrepancies in the books of MACCABEES, BOOKS OF _ Maccabees, which proceeded from independent < widely-separated sources, are to be referred to t confusion; and a very probable mode of explain (at least in part) the origin of the difference been supported by most of the best chronolog Though the Jews may have reckoned two beg nings to the year from the time of the Exo [CHRONOLOGY, vol. i. p. 436], yet it appears t the Biblical dates are always reckoned by the called ecclesiastical year, which began with M (April), and not by the civil year, which was af wards in common use (Jos. Ant. i. 3, § 3), wh began with 7%sri (October: comp. Patritius, Cons. Macc. p. 33 ff). Now since the writer ¢ Mace. was a Palestinian Jew, and followed ecclesiastical year in his reckoning of months Mace. iv. 52), it is probable that he may have e menced the Seleucian year not in autumn (7% but in spring (Visan).? The narrative of 1 M x. in fact demands a longer period than could obtained (1 Mace. x. 1, 21, fourteen days) on hypothesis that the year began with Tisrv. however, the year began in Nisan (reckoning fi spring 312 B. c.),¢ the events which fell in the half of the true Seleucian year would be date year forward, while the true and the Jewish d would agree in the first half of the year. Ne there any difficulty in supposing that the two ev assigned to different years (Wernsdorf, De 4 Macc. § 9) happened in one half of the year. a The following is the parallelism which Patritius (De cons. utri. lib. Mace. 175-246) endeavors to estab- lish between the common narratives of i. and ii. Mace. When two or more passages are placed opposite to one, it is to be understood that the first only has a parallel in the other narrative : — 1 Macc. 2 Macc. i. 11-16. ... iv. 7-12; 13-20. 11%: .. iv. 2la; 210-50; v. 1-4. i. 18-20 ne — — v. 5-10. i. 21-24a .» Vv. 11-16; 17-20. i, 240. W252, 228. i. 80-382; 33-39. v. 24-26. i. 40a ; 40b-42. vy. 27. i. 43; 44-48. suNile dhe i. 49; 50, 51. MG 2 eS —_ wee Vi. O-7- i. 52-54; 55, 56; 57-62. ... vi. 8, 9. i. 63, 64. ... vi. 10; 12-17. i. 65-67. 5 — te ... Vi. 18-31. ii. 1-80. ais _ ii. 81; 32-37. smiviehlas ii. 38. oon Wis kd. — oe Wii. 1-42 ii. 89-70. hac shes tog «. Vili. 8; 9-11. iii. 1-9; 10-87. iii. 388, 89; 40, 41. ae — »» Vili. 12a; 120-21. iii. 42. : iii. 43-54. eee —_ iii. 55; 56-60. eaivill 22. iv. 1-12. ase — iv. 138-16; 17-22. .. Vili. 23-26. iv. 23-25. «.. Vili. 27 ; 28-86. vi. la; iv. 26, 27. ea — vi. 1b-4. .. ix. 1-8; 4-10. iv. 28-35. i — iv. 85-43a ; 43b-46. .. X. 1-84. iv. 47-61. .. X. 8b-8; 9-13. vi. 5-8 be — y. 1-5a. ... X. 14-18; 19-22. v 5b; 6-8. woe Xe Zoe 1 Macc. 2 Macc. vi. 9-18. .. ix. 11-17; 18-27. — £ . x. 24-88; xi. 1-4. vi. 14, 15. as — vi. 16; 17a. Pe ao a .. Xi. 6-12; 18-L5a. v. 9; 90-18; 14-20. sexed 6.7 vi. 170. Ge — Se we» X1i..6-17 5 1x29: v. 21a; 28a; 24; 25-28. ... Be: .. Xi, 150-26 ; 27-88. y. 29. ws» XG. 17 5 18, 0a: y. 80-34 ; 216-282 ; 35, 36.... — v. 55-62. rads — v. 37-39 ; 40-48a. . xii. 20, 21. vy. 480-44, . xii. 22-26. vy. 45-65a. . xii. 27-88; 34-46. v. 650-68 5 vi. 18-27. — vi. 28-30. wo Kis 1,2 5B vi. 31; 32-48. .-+ xiii, 18-21. vi. 49-54; 55-59. .- xiii, 22, 28a, vi. 60-62a. w» Xiii, 280-24. vi 626-63; vii. 1-24. .- xiii, 25, 26. _ .-- Xiv. 1-2. vii. 25. .. xiv. 3-5; 6-11. vii. 26. ... Xiv. 12,18; 14-29. vii. 27-38. ... xiv. 80-86 ; 87-46; xv] vii. 89, 40a. — vii. 400-50. 22-40. This arrangement, however, is that of an apol for the books ; and the tesselation of passages, no than the large amount of passages peculiar to: book, indicates how little real parallelism ther between them. b In 2 Mace. xy. 86 the same reckoning of mo occurs, but with a distinct reference to the Palesti decree. e It is, however, possible that the years may - been dated from the following spring (311 B. 0.) which case the Jewish and true years would com for the last half of the year, and during the first the Jewish date would fall short by one year (Her Gesch. da. Volkes Isr. i. 449). C « XY. MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 4 er grounds, indeed, it is not unlikely that the erence in the reckoning of the two books is still ater than is thus accounted for. The Chaldeans, is proved by good authority (Ptol. Mey. cuvr. ‘Clinton, #. H. 111, 350, 370), dated their eucian era one year later than the true time m 311 8B C., and probably from October (Dius ; np. 2 Mace. xi. 21, 33). If, as is quite possible, writer of 2 Macc. — or rather Jason of Cyrene, om he epitomized — used the Chaldean dates, re may be a maximum difference between the ) books of a year and half, which is sufficient to lain the difficulties of the chronology of the nts connected with the death of Antiochus iphanes (Ideler, i. 531-534, quoted and sup- ted by Browne, Ordo Sceclorum, 489, 490. mp. Clinton, Fast? Hell. iii. 367 ff., who takes a erent view; Patritius, /. c.; and Wernsdorf, § ff., who states the difficulties with great acute- s). ). The most interesting feature in 2 Mace. is marked religious character, by which it is clearly tinguished from the first book. “ The manifes- ions (émipdverar) made from heaven on behalf those who were zealous to behave manfully in ense of Judaism’? (2 Mace. ii. 21) form the ple of the book. The events which are related torically in the former book are in this regarded ocratically, if the word may be used. The unities of persecution and the desolation of God’s ple are definitely referred to a temporary visita- 1 of his anger (v. 17-20, vi. 12-17, vii. 32, 33), ich shows itself even in details of the war (xii. comp. Josh. vii.). Before his great victory las is represented as addressing “the Lord that ‘keth wonders” (reparomoids) with the prayer t, as once his angel slew the host of the Assyr- 3, so then He would “send a good angel before armies for a fear and dread to their enemies ”’ . 22-24; comp. 1 Mace. vii. 41, 42). *. we 1¥so8 OT ) the contents of this inclosure we have only qost meagre and confused accounts. The spot 30f the most sacred of the Moslem sanctuaries, since the occupation of Palestine by them it een entirely closed to Christians, and partially Jews, who are allowed, on rare occasions only, ok in through a hole. A great part of the is occupied *by a building which is now a ue, and was probably originally a church, but i date or style nothing is known. The sepul- of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, d and Leah, are shown on the floor of the ue, covered in the usual Mohammedan style ich carpets ; but the real sepulchres are, as were in the 12th and 16th centuries, in a below the floor (Benj. of Tudela: Jichus ha- ‘ Monro). In this they resemble the tomb on on Mount Hor. [See p. 1087.] ‘The jaccording to the earliest and the latest testi- ie ' 5 servant in 1833; and Areulf particularly ns the fact that the bodies lay with their the north, as they would do if deposited south. A belief seems to prevail in the the cave communicates with some one tle of Hebron (Loewe, in Zeitung des Judenth. 11, 1839). e accounts of the sacred inclosure at Hebron lye found collected by Ritter (Lrdkunde, Pat- 4), 209, &e., but especially 236-250); Wilson dls, etc., i. 363-367); Robinson (Bibi. Res. ii, ‘ ecording to hap-Parchi (Asher’s Besj. p. 437), (stones had formerly belonged to the Temple.” i (Erdkunde, Palast. p. 240) goes so far as to sug- ieee: "1€ peculiarities of the masonry are these: (1.) of the stones are very large: Dr. Wilson men- Kone 88 ft. long, and 3 ft. 4 in. deep. The lar- {i the Haram wall at Jerusalem is 241 ft. But | the surface — in splendid preservation — is very worked, more so than the finest of the stones at ath and southwest portion of the inclosure at a i MACHPELAH 1731 75-79). The chief authorities are Arculf (A. D. 700); Benjamin of Tudela (A. D. cir. 1170); the Jewish tract Jichus ha- Aboth (in Hottinger, Cippr Hebraict ; and also in Wilson, i. 865); Ali Bey (Travels, A. D. 1807, ii. 232, 233); Giovanni Finati (Life by Bankes, ii. 236 ); Monro (Summer Ramble in 1833, i. 243); Loewe (in Zeitung des Judenth. 1839, pp. 272, 288). In a note by Asher to his edition of Benjamin of Tudela (ii. 92), men- tion is made of an Arabic MS. in the Bibliothéque Royale at Paris, containing an account of the con- dition of the mosque under Saladin. This MS. has not yet been published. The travels of Ibrahim el-Khijari in 1669-70 —a small portion of which from the MS. in the Ducal Library at Gotha, has been published by Tuch, with Translation, ete. (Leipzig, Vogel, 1850)— are said to contain a minute description of the Mosque (Tuch, p. 2). A few words about the exterior, a sketch of the masonry, and a view of the town, showing the in- closure standing prominently in the foreground, will be found in Bartlett’s Walks, etc., 216-219. A photograph of the exterior, from the East (?) i is given as No. 63 of Palestine as tt is, by Rev. G. W. Bridges. A ground-plan exhibiting considerable detail, made by two Moslem architects who lately superintended some repairs in the Haram, and given by them to Dr. Barclay of Jerusalem, is engraved in Osborn’s Pal. Past and Pr esent, p- 36 * Tt is since the above article was written that this Moslem sanctuary over the cave of Machpelah was visited and entered by the Prince of Wales and some of his attendants. We are indebted to Dean Stanley, who accompanied the party on that occa- sion for an interesting report of this visit (Semons. in the Kast, etc., p. 141 ff.) of which we make the following abstract : — To overcome the difficulties which the fanaticism of the inhabitants of Hebron might place in the way of even a royal approach to the inclosure, a kirman was first requested from the Porte. But the government at Constantinople cautiously gave them only a discretionary letter of recommendation to the Governor of Jerusalem. It was necessary therefore to obtain the sanction of this intermediate functionary. This was not easily done. The Turkish governor not only had his own scruples with reference to such a profanation of the sacred place, but feared the personal consequences which he might suffer from the bigotry of the Moham- medans. After a refusal at first and much hesita- tion he consented, as an act of national courtesy, that the Prince should make the attempt to enter the Mosque (to guarantee his safety was out of the question), but unaccompanied except by two or three of his suite who were specially interested as savans and antiquaries. The day of the arrival at Hebron was the 7th of April, 1862. They passed into and through the town strongly escorted, through streets deserted Jerusalem ; the sunken part round the edges (absurdly called the “ bevel”) very shallow, with no resemblance at all to more modern “rustic work.” (8.) The cross- joints are not always vertical, but some are at an angle. (4.) The wall is divided by pilasters about 2 ft. 6 in. wide, and 5 ft. apart, running the entire height of the ancient wall. It is very much to be wished that careful large photographs were taken of these walls from a near point. The writer is not aware that any such yet exist. Too MACHPELAH except by the soldiery, whose presence was necessary fo guard against any fanatical attempt to avenge the supposed sacrilegious act. Arriving within the inclosme, they were ceremoniously received by the representatives of the forty hereditary guardians of the Mosque, into which they were immediately shown. ‘The architecture of this plainly indicates its original use as a Christian church. ‘The tombs, or rather cenotaphs which cover the actual sepulchres of the patriarchs, are inclosed each within a sep- arate shrine closed with gates. On the right of the inner portico before entering the main building, is the shrine of Abraham, and on the left that of Sarah, each closed with silver gates. The shrine of Abraham, after some manifestations of delay and of grief on the part of the guardians, was thrown open. It is described as a coffin-like structure, about six feet high, built of plastered stone or marble, and hung with three green carpets em- broidered with gold. The shrine of Sarah, as of the rest of the women, they were requested not to enter. Within the mosque are the tombs of Isaac and Rebekah, under separate chapels with windows in the walls, and inclosed with iron instead of silver gates. The shrines of Jacob and Leah in recesses corresponding to those of Abraham and Sarah, but opposite to the entrance of the mosque, are in a separate cloister inclosed with iron gates, through which may be seen two green banners resting against Leah’s tomb, the meaning of which is un- known. The general structure of Jacob’s tomb resembles that of Abraham, but the carpets are coarser. The correspondence of these monuments with the Biblical narrative is remarkable, in view of Mussulman ignorance and prejudice, and precludes the idea of a fanciful distribution of them. For, in the first place, the prominence given to Isaac is contrary to their prejudice in favor of Ishmael; and again, if they had followed mere probabilities, Rachel would have occupied the place of the less favored Leah. Besides these six shrines, in a separate chamber reached by an aperture through the wall, is the shrine of Joseph, the situation of which varies from the Biblical account, but is in accordance with the tradition of the country, supported perhaps by an ambiguous expression of Josephus, to the effect that the body of Joseph, though first buried at Shechem, was afterwards brought to Hebron. There are also two ornamental shrines on the northern side of the mosque. But no traces of others were seen within the inclosure. To the cave itself there was no access. One indication of it in the shape of a circular hole at the corner of the shrine of Abraham, about eight inches across, one foot of the upper part built of strong masonry, but the lower part of the living rock, was alone visible. This aperture has been left in order to allow the sacred air of the sepulchre to escape into the Mosque, and also to allow a lamp to be suspended by a chain and burn over the grave. ven this lamp was not lighted because, as they said, the saint did not “like to have a lamp in full daylight.’ Whether the Mussulmans themselves are acquainted with any other entrance is doubtful. The reader will find the same information also in Stanley’s Jewish Church, i, Appendix ii. p. « Note the change of m into b, unusual in the Alex. MS., which usually follows the Hebrew more MADMANNAH 535 ff. A plan of the mosque accompanies narrative. On the purchase of the cave of Ma pelah, see EPHRON (Amer. ed.). Of the an tiqu of the site, says Thomson (Land and Book, ii, 8 «© T have no doubt. . . . We have before us | identical cave, in which these patriarchs, with th wives, were reverently gathered ‘unto their peop one after another by their children. . . . Suc) cave may last as long as the ‘everlasting hills’ which it is a part; and from that to this day it) so come to pass, in the providence of God, that, nation or people has had possession of Machpe who would have been disposed to disturb the as of the illustrious dead within it.” H MAC’RON (Mdkpwv: Macer), the surna of Ptolemeus, or Ptolemee, the son of Doryme (1 Mace. iii. 38) and governor of Cyprus un Ptolemy Philometor (2 Mace. x. 12). tp MA/DAT [2 syl.] (TD: Mabol [Mada Alex. Mada, Madat:] Madar), which oceurs Gen. x. 2 [and 1 Chr. i. 5] among the list of sons of Japhet, has been commonly regarded 2 personal appellation; and most commentators | Madai the third son of Japhet, and the progeni of the Medes. But it is extremely doubtful whetl in the mind of the writer of Gen. x., the t Madai was regarded as representing a pers That the genealogies in the chapter are to s¢ extent ethnic is universally allowed, and may seen even in our Authorized Version (ver. 16— And as Gomer, Magog, Javan, Tubal, and Mesh which are conjoined in Gen. x. 2 with Madai, elsewhere in Scripture always ethnic and not ] sonal appellatives (Ez. xxvii. 13, xxxviii. 6, xx 6; Dan. viii. 21; Joel iii. 6; Ps. exx. 5; Is] 19, &c.), so it is probable that they stand nations rather than persons here. In that case one would regard Madai as a person; and we D remember that it is the exact word used elsewl throughout Scripture for the well-known natiot the Medes. Probably therefore all that the w intends to assert in Gen. x. 2 is, that the Me as well as the Gomerites, Greeks, Tibareni, Mos etc., descended from Japhet. Modern science found that, both in physical type and in langu the Medes belong to that family of the human which embraces the Cymry and the Greco-Rom (See Prichard’s Phys. Hist. of Mankind, iv. 6 Ch. x. § 2-4; and comp. the article on the a G. } MADIABUN (HuadaBodiy ; Alex. h HuadaBouy; [Ald. MadiaBovv]). The sons Madiabun, according to 1 Esdr. v. 58, were an the Levites who superintended the restoratio! the Temple under Zorobabel. The name doef occur in the parallel narrative of Ezr. iii. 9, al also omitted in the Vulgate; nor is it easy to’ jecture the origin of the interpolation. Our # lators followed the reading of the Aldine editic MA/DIAN ([Rom. Ald. Madidy; Vat. Alex.] Madiau: Madian, but Cod. Amiat. of } Madiam), Jud. ii. 26; Acts vii. 29. [Mp1 MADMAN’NAH (aT [dung Rom. Mayapiu, Madunvd ; Vat.) Maxa [Mapunva;] Alex. BedeBnva, [Maxapny' Medemena, [Madmena]), one of the towns 1! south district of Judah (Josh. xv. 31). It ism Rea closely than the ordinary LXX. text: compare MADMENAG. 5 ¢ MADMEN h Hormah, Ziklag, and other remote places, and refore cannot be identical with the MADMENAH saiah. To Eusebius and Jerome ( QOnomasticon, {edemana,’’) it appears to have been well known. yas called in their time Menois, and was not far n Gaza. ‘The first stage southward from Gaza row el-Minydy (Rob. i. 602), which, in default a better, is suggested by Kiepert. (in his JZup, 6) as the modern representative of Menois, and refore of Madmannah. n the genealogical lists of 1 Chron., Madman- ‘ is derived from Caleb-ben-Hezron through his eubine Maachah, whose son Shaaph is recorded she founder of the town (ii. 49). for the termination compare the neighboring xe Sansannah. oe MAD’'MEN (JOT [dunghill]:¢ ravers: ns), a place in Moab, threatened with destruc- 1 in the denunciations of Jeremiah (xlviii. 2), not elsewhere named, and of which nothing is | known. MADME’NAH (7123729 [as above]:4 bSeBnvd: Medemena), one of the Benjamite vil- iss north of Jerusalem, the inhabitants of which e frightened away by the approach of Sen- therib along the northern road (Is. x. 31). Like ters of the places mentioned in this list, Mad- ‘aah is not elsewhere named; for to MADMAN- fa and MApDMEN it can have no relation. Gese- is (Jesaia, p. 414) points out that the verb in the stence is active — “‘ Madmenah flies,”’ not, as in /V., “is removed ’’ (so also Michaelis, Bibel fiir Agelehrten). ‘Madmenah is not impossibly alluded to by Isaiah (v. 10) in his denunciation of Moab, where the vd rendered in A. V. “dunghill’’ is identical hthat name. The original text (or Cethib), by jariation in the preposition (92 and V3), tis the “ waters of Madmenah.”’ If this is so, ‘reference may be either to the Madmenah of Jajamin — one of the towns in a district abound- | with corn and threshing-floors — or more ap- ipriately still to MADMEN, the Moabite town. (enius (Jesaia, p. 786) appears to have overlooked ts, which might have induced him to regard with ice favor a suggestion which seems to have been it made by Joseph Kimchi. G. * The places on the march of Sennacherib to usalem have usually been supposed to occur in tirect line; on this supposition Madmenah must Le stood between Gibeah of Saul and Nob. But army possibly may have moved in parallel (imns, and thus some of the places mentioned ’e been lateral to each other and not successive. oB.] For an elaborate defense of this theory topographical grounds, the reader may see 'YValentiner’s art. entitled Beitrag zur Topo- phie des Stammes Benjamin, in Zeitschr. der isch. Morg. Gesellsch. xii. 164 ff., 169). H. MADNESS. The words rendered by “ mad,” tadman,’’ “ madness,”’ etc., in the A. V., vary siderably in the Hebrew of the O. T. In Deut. ‘ii. 28, 34, 1 Sam. xxi. 13, 14, 15, &e. (uavia, §., in the LXX.), they are derivatives of the root t \' The LXX. have translated the name as if from | same root with the verb which accompanies it — WwW OT, mavow tavoerar: in which they | MADON 1733 lw, “to be stirred or excited; ’’ in Jer. xxv. 16, l. the root Dan “to flash out,’’ applied (like the Greek pAéyewwv) either to light or sound; in Is. xliv. 25, from 520, “to make void or foolish ” (uwpatvew, LXX.); in Zech. xii. 4, from FOE), “to wander” (€eoracis, LXX.). they are generally used to render palveoOar oF pavia (as in John x. 20; Acts xxvi. 24; 1 Cor. xiv. 23); but in 2 Pet. ii. 16 the word is rapagpovia, and in Luke vi. alal d&voua- 38, li. Ns Keel. i. WF &e. (wepipopda, LXX.), from In the N. T. These passages show hat in Scripture “ madness-”’ is recognized as a derangement, proceeding either from weakness and misdirection of intellect, or from ungovernable . of, sometimes as arising from the will and action of man himself, sometimes as inflicted judicially by the hand of God. 20) is madness expressly connected with demoniacal possession, by the Jews in their cavil against our Lord [see DEMONIACS]; in none is it referred to any physical causes. entirely this usage of the word is accordant to the general spirit and object of Scripture, in passing by physical causes, and dwelling on the moral and spiritual influences, by which men’s hearts may be affected, either from within or from without. iolence of passion; and in both cases it is spoken In one passage alone (John x. It will easily be seen how It is well known that among oriental, as among most semi-civilized nations, madmen were looked upon with a kind of reverence, as possessed of a quasi-sacred character. from the feeling, that one, on whom God's hand is laid heavily, should be safe from all other harm; but partly also from the belief that the loss of reason and self-control opened the mind to super- natural influence, and gave it therefore a super- natural sacredness. by the enthusiastic expression of idolatrous worship (see 1 K. xviii. 26, 28), and (occasionally) of real inspiration (see 1 Sam. xix. 21-24; comp. the ap- plication of “mad fellow’ in 2 K. ix. 11, and see Jer. xxix. 26; Acts ii. 13). may be seen in the record of David's pretended madness at the court of Achish (1 Sam. xxi. 13- 15), which shows it to be not inconsistent with a kind of contemptuous forbearance, such as is often manifested now, especially by the Turks, towards real or supposed madmen. This arises partly no doubt This belief was strengthened An illustration of it A. B. MA’DON (V1 [contention, strife: Rom. Mapév; Vat.] Mappwv; Alex. Madwv, Mapwy [?]: Madon), one of the principal cities of Canaan be- fore the conquest. Its king joined Jabin and his confederates in their attempt against Joshua at the waters of Merom, and like the rest was killed (Josh. xi. 1, xii. 19). No later mention of it is found, and beyond the natural inference drawn from its occurrence with Hazor, Shimron, etc., that it was in the north of the country, we have no clew to its position. Schwarz (90) proposes to discover Madon at Kefr Menda, a village with extensive ancient remains, at the western end of the Plain of Buttauf, 4 or 5 miles N. of Sepphoris. His grounds for the identification are of the slightest: (a) the fre- -) pene eS Eee are followed by the Vulgate — but the roots, though similar, are really distinct. (See Gesenius, Thes. 344 a, 345 a.) b For the change of m into 6 comp. MADMANNAG. 1734 MAELUS quent transposition of letters in Arabic, and (b) a statement of the early Jewish trayeller hap-Parchi (Asher’s Benj. of Tudela, 430), that the Arabs identify Kefar Mendi with “ Midian,” or, as Schwarz would read it, Madon. The reader may judge for himself what worth there is in these suggestions. In the LXX. version of 2 Sam. xxi. 20 the He- brew words {117 WS, “a man of stature,” are rendered avip Maddév, “a man of Madon.” This may refer to the town Madon, or may be merely an instance of the habit which these translators had of rendering literally in Greek letters Hebrew words which they did not understand. Other instances will be found in 2 K. vi. 8, ix. 13, xii. J, x¥. 40, &e., &e. ; MAE’LUS (MajjAos; [ Vat. M:Anaos: | Mi- chelus), for Mramin (1 Esdr. ix. 26; comp. | Ezr. x. 25). * MAG’ADAN. [Maepata.] MAG’BISH (W°DND [a gathering, Ges.]: Mayefis; [Vat. MaryeBws:] Megbis). A proper name in Ezr. ii. 30, but whether of a man or of a place is doubted by some; it is probably the latter, as all the names from Ezr. ii. 20 to 34, except Elam and Harim, are names of places. The mean- ing of the name too, which appears to be “ freezing ” or “congealing,” seems better suited to a place than a man. One hundred and fifty-six of its MAGDALA and Jerome the two were in agreement, both ing Magedan, as Mark still does in Codex D, | place it “round Gerasa ” (Onomasticon, sub yo as if the Macep or MAxkep of Maccabees: | this is at variance with the requirements of - narrative, which indicates a place close to the wat and on its western side. The same, as far ag tance is concerned, may be said of Megiddo - its Greek form, Mageddo, or, as Josephus spells Magedo — which, as a well-known locality of Lo Galilee, might not unnaturally suggest itself. bal Dalmanutha was probably at or near Ain a] rideh, about a mile below ¢/-Mejdel, on the west edge of the lake of Gennesaret. L1-Medel doubtless the representative of an ancient Migdol Magdala, possibly that from which St. Mary car Her native place was possibly not far distant fr the Magadan of our Lord’s history, and we ¢ only suppose that, owing to the familiar recurre) of the word Magdalene, the less known nanie y absorbed in the better, and Magdala usurped | name, and possibly also the position of Magad. At any rate it has prevented any search bei made for the name, which may very possibly s be discovered in the country, though. so strang superseded in the records.¢ is The Magdala which conferred her name “Mary the Magdal-ene” (M. 4 Maydadnvq), ¢ of the numerous Migdols, 7. ¢. towers, which sto in Palestine — such as the MIGDAL-EL, or toy inhabitants, called the children of Magbish, are included in the genealogical roll of Ezr. ii., but have fallen out from the parallel passage in Neh. vii. MAGPrIAsH, however, is named (Neh. x. 20) as one of those who sealed to the covenant, where Anathoth and Nebo (Nebai) also appear in the midst of proper names of men. Why in these three cases the names of the places are given instead of those of the family, or house, or individual, as in the case of all the other signatures, it is impossible to say for certain, though many reasons might be guessed. From the position of Magbish in the list in Ezr. ii., next to Bethel, Ai, and Nebo, and be- fore Lod, Hadid, Ono, and Jericho, it would seem to be in the tribe of Benjamin. A. C...H. MAG’DALA (Mayaday in MSS. B, D, and Sinait. — A being defective in this place; but Ree. Text, Maydadd: Syr. Magedun: Vulg. Magedan). The name Magdala does not really exist in the Bible. It is found in the received Greek text and the A. V. of Matt. xv. 39 only; but the chief MSS. and versions exhibit the name as Magadan. Into the limits? of Magadan Christ comes by boat, over the lake of Gennesaret, after his miracle of feeding the four thousand on the mountain of the eastern side (Matt. xv. 39); and from thence, after a short encounter with the Pharisees and Sad- ducees, He returned in the same boat to the oppo- site shore. In the present text of the parallel nar- rative of St. Mark (viii. 10) we find the parts of Dalmanutha,” though in the time of Eusebius —_——— a It is not necessary to do more than mention the hypothesis of Brocardus, who identifies Magedan and Dalmanutha with the well-known circular pool called Phiala (or, as he calls it, Syala), east of Banias, which he says the Saracens call Me-Dan, or water of Dan. (See Brocardus, Descr. cap. iii.) 6 Ta dpuc, Thus the present el-Mejdel — whether identical with Magadan or Magdala or not— is sur- rounded by the Ard el-Mejdel (Wilson, Lands, ii. 136). of God, in Naphtali, the Mr¢pa-GAp and Migd EDAR of Judah — was probably the place of tl name which is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talo as near Tiberias (Otho, Lex. Rabb. 353; Schwa 189), and this again is as probably the mode el-Medel, “a miserable little Muslim village rather more than an hour, or about three mile above Tubariyeh, lying on the water's edge at t southeast corner of the plain of. Gennesaret (Re ii. 396, 397). Professor Stanley’s deseripti seems to embrace every point worth notice. “( all the numerous towns and villages: in what mt have been the most thickly peopled district of Pa estine one only remains. A collection of a f hoyels stands at the southeast corner of the pla of Gennesaret, its name hardly altered from t ancient Magdala or Migdol, so called probably fro a watch-tower, of which ruins appear to remai that guarded the entrance to the plain. Throu; its connection with her whom the long opinion « the church identified with the penitent sinner, # name of that ancient tower has now been incorp rated into all the languages of Europe. A lar, solitary thorn-tree stands beside it. The situatio otherwise unmarked, is dignified by the high lim stone rock which overhangs it on the southwes perforated with caves; recalling, by a ¢urious thoug doubtless unintentional coincidence, the scene ¢ Correggio’s celebrated picture.’? These caves al said by Schwarz (189)—though on no clear ai thority — to bear the name of Teliman, 7. e. Ta manutha. “A clear stream rushes past the roc ¢ The original form of the name may have bee Migron; at least so we may infer from the LXX. ve sion of Migron, which is Magedo or Magdon. ; d The statement of the Talmud is, that a perso passing by Magdala could hear the voice of the cri in Tiberias. At three miles distance this woul not be impossible in Palestine, where sound travels t a distance far greater than in this country. (See Rol iii. 17; Stanley, S. § P.; Thomson, Land and Book MAGDIEL ) the sea, issuing in a tangled thicket of thorn willow from a deep ravine at the back of the n”’ (S. g P. pp 382, 383). Jerome, although he s upon the name Maydalene — “ recte vocatam rdalenen, id est Turritam, ob ejus singularem | ac ardoris constantiam ’’ — does not appear to nect it with the place in question. By the s the word N'?T2D is used to denote a person ) platted or twisted hair, a practice then much Ise amongst women of loose character. to fresh honor under the Sassanid. The sification which was ascribed to Zoroaster was ognized as the basis of a hierarchical system, r other and lower elements had mingled with earlier Dualism, and might be traced even in ‘religion and worship of the Parsees. Accord- to this arrangement the Magi were divided — a classification which has been compared to that bishops, priests, and deacons—into disciples arbeds), teachers (Mobeds “), and the more per- ; teachers of a higher wisdom (Destur Mobeds). is, too, will connect itself with a tradition further (Hyde, c. 28; Du Perron, Zendavesta, ii. 555). I. In the mean time the word was acquiring a y and wider signification. It presented itself to Greeks as connected with a foreign system of ination, and the religion of a foe whom they had quered, and it soon became a by-word for the rst form of imposture. ‘The rapid growth of 3 feeling is traceable perhaps in the meanings ached to the word by the two great tragedians. Aischylus (Perse, 291) it retains its old sig- cance as denoting simply a tribe. In Sophocles ed. Tyr. 387) it appears among the epithets reproach which the king heaps upon Teiresias. e fact, however, that the religion with which word was associated still maintained its ground the faith of a great nation, kept it from falling 0 utter disrepute, and it is interesting to notice y at one time the good, and at another the bad, e of the word is uppermost. Thus the payela Zoroaster is spoken of with respect by Plato as Je@v Oepareia, forming the groundwork of an teation which he praises as far better than that the Athenians (Alcid. i. p. 122.a). Xenophon, like manner, idealizes the character and func- as of the order (Cyrop. iv. 5, § 16; 6, § 6). th meanings appear in the later lexicographers. 2 word Magos is equivalent to amaréwy kal oareuThs, but it is also used for the GeoaeBns OedAovyos Kal lepevs (Hesych.). The Magi as ‘order are of mapa Tepoais piddcopa kat \68eo: (Suid.). The word thus passed into the ids of the LXX., and from them into those of ‘writers of the N. T., oscillating between the ’ meanings, capable of being used in either. 2 relations which had existed between the Jews 1 Persians would perhaps tend to give a promi- tee to the more favorable associations in their of it. In Daniel (i. 20, ii. 2, 10, 27, v. 11) it ised, as has been noticed, for the priestly diviners h whom the prophet was associated. Philo, in » manner (Quod omnis probus liber, p. 792), Ations the Magi with warm praise, as men who themselves to the study of nature and the templation of the Divine perfections, worthy of ‘ng the counsellors of kings. It was perhaps ural that this aspect of the word should com- ad itself to the theosophic Jew of Alexandria. 2re were, however, other influences at work tend- to drag it down. ‘The swarms of impostors t were to be met with in every part of the Man empire, known as ‘“ Chaldzi,’’ “ Mathe- tei,” and the like, bore this name also. ‘Their Swere “artes magice.’’ ‘Though philosophers | The word * Mobed,” a contraction of the fuller fa Magovad, is apparently identical with that which ears in Greek as Méyos. - | * Instead of “sorcerer,” Acts xiii. 6, 8 (A. V.), | , MAGI 1737 and men of letters might recognize the better mean- ing of which the word was capable (Cic. De Divin i. 23, 41), yet in the language of public documents and of historians, they were treated as a class at once hateful and contemptible (Tacit. Ann. i. 32, ii. 27, xii. 22, xii. 59), and as such were the victims of repeated edicts of banishment. III. We need not wonder, accordingly, to find that this is the predominant meaning of the word as it appears in the N. T. The noun and the verb derived from it (uayeta and paryedw) are used by St. Luke in describing the impostor, who is therefore known distinctively as Simon Magus (Acts viii. 9). Another of the same class (Bar-jesus) is described (Acts xiii. 8) as having, in his cognomen Elymas, a title which was equivalent to Magus.? [ELyMas. ] [In one memorable instance, however, the word retains (probably, at least) its better meaning. In the Gospel of St. Matthew, written (according tc the general belief of early Christian writers) for the Hebrew Christians of Palestine, we find it, not as embodying the contempt which the frauds of impostors had brought upon it through the whole Roman empire, but in the sense which it had had, of old, as associated with a religion which they respected, and an order of which one of their own prophets had been the head. In spite of Patristic authorities on the other side, asserting the Ma-you ard avaroA@y of Matt. ii. 1 to have been sorcerers whose mysterious knowledge came from below, not from above, and who were thus translated out of darkness into light (Just. Martyr, Chrysostom, Theophylact, in Spanheim, Dub. Evang. xix. ; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matt. ii.), we are justified, not less by the consensus of later interpreters (in- cluding even Maldonatus) than by the general tenor of St. Matthew’s narrative, in seeing in them men such as those that were in the minds of the LXX. translators of Daniel, and those described by Philo —at once astronomers and astrologers, but not mingling any conscious fraud with their efforts after a higher knowledge. The vagueness of the description leaves their country undefined, and implies that probably the Evangelist himself had no certain information. The same phrase is used as in passages where the express object is to include a wide range of country (comp. amd dvaroAav, Matt. viii. 11, xxiv. 27; Luke xiii. 29). Probably the region chiefly present to the mind of the Pales- tine Jew would be the tract of country stretching eastward from the Jordan to the Euphrates, the land of “the children of the East’? in the early period of the history of the O. T. (Gen. xxix. 1; Judg. vi. 3, vii. 12, viii. 10). It should be remem- bered, however, that the language of the O. T., and therefore probably that of St. Matthew, in- eluded under this name countries that lay consid- erably to the north as well as to the east of Pales- tine. Balaam came from “the mountains of the east,” @. e. from Pethor on the Euphrates (Num. xxiii. 7, xxii. 5). Abraham (or Cyrus?) is the righteous man raised up ‘from the east ”’ (Is. xli. 2). The Persian conqueror is called “from the east, from a far country ”’ (Is. xlvi. 11). We cannot wonder that there should have been very varying interpretations given of words that payos should be rendered Magian ; for it is the man¥ professional title, like Elymas, and implies nothing opprobrious. This Bar-jesus is stigmatized as an im postor in being ealled “a false prophet.” H. 1738 MAGI allowed so wide a field for conjecture. Some of these are, for various reasons, worth noticing. (1.) The feeling of some early writers that the coming of the wise men was the fulfillment of the prophecy which spoke of the gifts of the men of Sheba and Seba (Ps. lxxii. 10, 15; comp. Is. Ix. 6) led them to fix on Arabia as the country of the Magi (Just. Martyr, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Cyprian, in Span- heim, Dub. Evang. 1. ¢.),¢ and they have been followed by Baronius, Maldonatus, Grotius, and Lightfoot. (2.) Others have conjectured Mesopo- tamia as the great seat of Chaldean astrology (Origen, Hom. in Matt. vi. and vii.), or Egypt as the country in which magic was most prevalent (Meyer, ad loc.). (3.) The historical associations of the word led others again, with greater proba- bility, to fix on Persia, and to see in these Magi members of the priestly order, to which the name of right belonged (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cal- vin, Olshausen), while Hyde (Rel. Pers. 1. c.) sug- gests Parthia, as being at that time the conspicuous eastern monarchy in which the Magi were recog- nized and honored. It is perhaps a legitimate infere .e from the narrative of Matt. ii. that in these Magi we may recognize, as the Chureh has done from a very early period, the first Gentile worshippers of the Christ. The name, by itself, indeed, applied as it is in Acts xiii. 8, to a Jewish false prophet, would hardly prove this; but the distinctive epithet ‘from the east ’’ was probably intended to mark them out as different in character and race from the western Magi, Jews, and others, who swarmed over the Roman empire. So, when they come to Jerusalem it is to ask not after “‘our king” or “the king of Israel,’’ but, as the men of another race might do, after “the king of the Jews.’ The language of the O. T. prophets and the traditional interpreta- tion of it are apparently new things to them. The narrative of Matt. ii. supplies us with an outline which we may legitimately endeavor to fill up, as far as our knowledge enables us, with infer- ence and illustration. Some time after the birth of Jesus? there ap- peared among the strangers who visited Jerusalem these men from the far East. They were not idol- aters. ‘Their form of worship was looked upon by the Jews with greater tolerance and sympathy than that of any other Gentiles (comp. Wisd. xiii. 6, 7). Whatever may have been their country, their name indicates that they would be watchers of the stars, seeking to read in them the destinies of nations. They say that they have seen a star in which they recognize such a prognostic. They are sure that one is born King of the Jews, and they come to pay their homage. It may have been simply that the quarter of the heavens in which the star ap- peared indicated the direction of Judea. It may have been that some form of the prophecy of Ba- laam that, a ‘star should rise out of Jacob”’ a This is adopted by most Romish interpreters, and is all but authoritatively recognized in the services of the Latin Church. Through the whole Octave of the Epiphany the ever-recurring antiphon is, ‘t Reges Tharsis et insule munera offerent. Alleluia, Alleluia. Reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent. Alleluia, Alle- luia.”? —- Brev. Rom. in Epiph. b The discordant views of commentators and har- monists indicate the absence of any trustworthy data. The time of their arrival at Bethlehem has been fixed im each case on grounds so utterly insufficient, that it would be idle toexamine them. (1.) Asin the Church MAGI — (Num. xxiv. 17) had reached them, 2ither throw the Jews of the Dispersion, or through traditio running parallel with the O. T., and that this | them to recognize its fulfillment (Origen, c. Ce i.; Hom. in Num. xiii; but the hypothesis neither necessary nor satisfactory; comp. Ellicot Hulsean Lectures, p. 77). Tt may have been, lastl that the traditional predictions. aseribed to the own prophet Zoroaster, leading them to expe a succession of three deliverers, two working © prophets to reform the world and raise up a kin dom (Tavernier, Travels, iv. 8), the third (Zosiosh the greatest of the three, coming to be the head the kingdom, to conquer Ahriman and to raise #] dead (Du Perron, Zendav. i. 2, p. 46; Hyde, ¢. 3 Ellicott, Hulsean Lect. 1. c.), and in strange fa tastic ways connecting these redeemers with # seed of Abraham (Tavernier, /. c. ; and D’Herbek Biblioth. Orient. s. y. ‘ Zerdascht’’), had rous their minds to an attitude of expectancy, and th their contact with a people cherishing like hopes : stronger grounds, may have prepared them tos in a king of the Jews, the Oshanderbegha (Hor Mundi, Hyde, J. ¢.), or the Zosiosh whom th expected. In any case they shared the “ vetus constans opinio’’ which had spread itself over t whole East, that the Jews, as a people, crushed ai broken as they were, were yet destined once aga to give a ruler to the nations. It is not unlike that they appeared, oceupying the position of Destt Mobeds in the later Zoroastrian hierarchy, as t representatives of many others who shared the sar feeling. They came, at any rate, to pay th homage to the king whose birth was thus indicate and with the gold and frankincense and mym which were the customary gifts of subject natio (comp. Gen. xliii. 11; Ps. lxxii. 15; 1 K. x. 2,1 2 Chr. ix. 24; Cant. iii. 6, iv. 14). The arrival such a company, bound on so strange an errai in the last years of the tyrannous and distrust Herod, could hardly fail to attract notice and exc a people, among whom Messianic expectations h already begun to show themselves (Luke ii. 26, 3 ‘“ Herod was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him The Sanhedrim was convened, and the questi where the Messiah was to be born was forma placed before them. It was in accordance with t subtle, fox-like character of the king that he shov pretend to share the expectations of the people order that he might find in what direction th pointed, and then take whatever steps were nec sary to crush them [comp. HERop]. The ans given, based upon the traditional interpretation Mic. v. 2, that Bethlehem was to be the birthpl of the Christ, determined the king’s plans. | had found out the locality. It remained to det mine the time: with what was probably a r belief in astrology, he inquired of them diligent when they had first seen the star. If he assum that that was contemporaneous with the birth, Calendar, on, the twelfth day after the nativity (Ba nius, Ann. i.9). (2.) At some time towards the el of the forty days before the Purification (Spanhe and Stolberg). (8.) Four’ months later (Greswell), the hypothesis that they saw the star at the nativi and then started on a journey which would take tl time. Or (4) as an inference from Matt. ii. 16, at so time in the second year after the birth of Christ (con Spanheim, Dub. Evang. 1. c.). On the attempt to f a chronological datum in the star itself, comp. 51 IN THE East ; also Jesus Carist, vol. ii. p. 1881 0. MAGI Id not be far wrong. The Magi accordingly sent on to Bethlehem, as if they were but the runners of the king’s own homage. As they mneyed they again saw the star, which for a e, it would seem, they had lost sight of, and it ded them on their way. [Comp. Star IN THE st for this and all other questions connected h its appearance.] ‘The pressure of the crowds, ich a fortnight, or four months, or well-nigh » years before, had driven Mary and Joseph to -rude stable of the caravanserai of Bethlehem, | apparently abated, and the Magi entering he house’’ (Matt. ii. 11) fell down and paid ir homage and offered their gifts. Once more y receive guidance through the channel which ir work and their studies had made familiar to m. From first to last, in Media, in Babylon, Persia, the Magi had been famous as the inter- ters of dreams. That which they received now d not have involved a disclosure of the plans of rod to them. It was enough that it directed m to “return to their own country another y.’ With this their history, so far as the N. T. ries us, comes to an end. [t need hardly be said that this part of the spel narrative has had to bear the brunt of the acks of a hostile criticism. The omission of all ntion of the Magi in a gospel which.enters so ly into all the circumstances of the infancy of rist as that of St. Luke, and the dithiculty of har- mizing this incident with those which he narrates, ve been urged as at least throwing suspicion on at St. Matthew alone has recorded. The ad- tate of a ‘“‘ mythical theory”? sees in this almost Beneest confirmation of it (Strauss, Leben su, i. p. 272). ‘There must be prodigies Rene round the cradle of the infant Christ. her heroes and kings had had their stars, and so sf he. He must receive in his childhood the nage of the representatives of other races and eds. The facts recorded lie outside the range of tory, and are not mentioned by any contemporary torian.”’ The answers to these objections may (briefly stated. (1.) Assuming the central fact the early chapters of St. Matthew, no objection [against any of its accessories on the ground of ir being wonderful and improbable. It would in harmony with our expectations that there vuld be signs and wonders indicating its presence. 2 objection therefore postulates the absolute in- ibility of that fact, and begs the point at issue mp. Trench, Star of the Wise Men, p. 124). ) The question whether this, or any other given rative connected with the nativity of Christ, ws upon it the stamp of a mythus, is therefore to be determined by its own merits, on its own dence; and then the case stands thus: A mythi- Story is characterized for the most part by a lye admixture of what is wild, poetical, fantastic. somparison of Matt. ii. with the Jewish or Mo- nmedan legends of a later time, or even with the ristian mythology which afterwards gathered \' It is perhaps not right to pass over the supposed ‘mony of heathen authors. These are found (1), ihe saying of Augustus, recorded by Macrobius (“ It letter to be Herod’s swine than his son’’), as con- ited with the slaughter of a child under two years ie. (2. ) In the remarkable passage of Chalcidius ment. in Timaum, vii. § 125), alluding to the star ich had heralded the birth, not of a conqueror or troyer, but of a divine and righteous king. The ‘8 _'s MAGI 1738S round this very chapter, will show hew wide is the distance that separates its simple narrative, without ornament, without exaggeration, from the overs flowing luxuriance of those figments (comp. IV. below). (3.) The absence of any direct cunfirma- tory evidence in other writers of the time may be accounted for, partly at least, by the want of any full chronicle of the events of the later years of Herod. The momentary excitement of the arrival of such travellers as the Magi, or of the slaughter of some score of children in a small Jewish town, would easily be effaced by the more agitating events that followed [comp. HERopj. ‘The silence of Josephus is not more conclusive against this fact than it is (assuming the spuriousness of Ant. xviii. 4, § 3) against the fact of the Crucifixion and the growth of the sect of the Nazarenes within the walls of Jerusalem. (4.) The more perplexing absence of all mention of the Magi in St. Luke’s Gospel may yet receive some probable explanation. So far as we cannot explain it, our ignorance of all, or nearly all, the circumstances of the composition of the Gospels is a sufficient answer. It is, however, at least possible that St. Luke, knowing that the facts related by St. Matthew were already current among the churches,” sought rather to add what was not yet recorded. Something too may have been due to the leading thoughts of the two Gospels. St. Matthew, dwelling chiefly on the kingly office of Christ as the Son of David, seizes naturally on the first recognition of that character by the Magi of the East (comp. on the fitness of this Mill, Pan- theistic Principles, p. 375). St. Luke, portray ing the Son of Man in his sympathy with common men, in his compassion on the poor and humble, dwells as naturally on the manifestation to the shepherds on the hills of Bethlehem. It may be added further, that everything tends to show that the latter Ei Svangelist derived the materials for this part of his history much more directly from the mother of the Lord, or her kindred, than did the former; and, if so, it is not difficult to understand how she might come to dwell on that which con- nected itself at once with the eternal blessedness of peace, good-will, salvation, rather than on the hom- age and offerings of strangers, which seemed to be the presage of an earthly kingdom, and had proved to be the prelude to a life of poverty, and to the death upon the cross. IV. In this instance, as in others, what is told by the Gospel-writers in plain simple words, has become the nucleus for a whole cycle of legends. A Christian mythology has overshadowed that which itself had nothing in common with it. The love of the strange and marvelous, the eager desire to fill up in detail a narrative which had been left in outline, and to make every detail the representative of an idea —these, which tend everywhere to the growth of the mythical element within the region of history, fixed themselves, naturally enough, precise- ly on those portions of the life of Christ where the written records were the least complete. The stages ED facts of the Gospel history may have been mixed up with (1), but the expression of Augustus does not point to anything beyond Herod’s domestic tragedies. The genuineness of (2) is questionable ; and both are too remote in time to be of any worth as evidence (comp. W. H. Mill, Pantheistic Principles, p. 373). b It will ie noticed that this is altogether a distinct hypothesis from that which assumes that he had the Gospel of St. Matthew in its present form before him, 1740 MAGI of this development present themselves in regular succession. (1.) The Magi are no longer thought of as simply ‘ wise men,’’ members of a sacred order. The proph- ecies of Ps. Ixxii.; Is. xlix. 7, 23, lx. 16, must be fulfilled in them, and they become princes (‘reg- uli,’ Tertull. c. Jud. 9; c. Marc.5). This tends more and more to be the dominant thought. When the arrival of the Magi, rather than the birth or the baptism of Christ, as the first of his mighty works, comes to be looked on as the great Epiphany of his divine power, the older title of the feast receives as a synonym, almost as a substitute, that of the Feast of the Three Kings. (2.) The number of the Wise Men, which St. Matthew leaves alto- gether undefined, was arbitrarily fixed. They were three (Leo Magn. Sem. ad Epiph.), because thus they became a symbol of the mysterious Trinity (Ifilary of Arles), or because then the number cor- responded to the threefold gifts, or to the three parts of the earth, or the three great divisions of the human race descended from the sons of Noah (Bede, De Collect.). (3.) Symbolic meanings were found for each of the three gifts. The gold they ‘offered as to aking. With the myrrh they pre- figured the bitterness of the Passion, the embalm- ment for the Burial. With the frankincense they adored the divinity of the Son of God (Suicer, Thes. 8. V. Mayor; * Brev. Rom. in Epiph. passim). (4.) Later on, in a tradition which, though appearing in a western writer, is traceable probably to reports brought back by pilgrims from Italy or the East, the names are added, and Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthazar, take their place among the objects of Christian reverence, and are honored as the patron saints of travellers. The passage from Bede (de Collect.) is, in many ways, interesting, and as it is not commonly quoted by commentators, though often referred to, it may be worth while to give it.? “ Primus dicitur fuisse Melchior qui senex et canus, barba prolixa et capillis, aurum obtulit regi Domi- no. Secundus, nomine Gaspar, juvenis imberbis, rubicundus, thure, quasi Deo oblatione dign4, Deum honoravit. Tertius fuscus, integre barbatus, Bal- tassar nomine, per myrrham filium hominis mori- turum professus.’’ We recognize at once in this description the received types of the early pictorial art of Western Europe. It is open to believe that both the description and the art-types may be traced to early quasi-dramatic representations of the facts of the Nativity. In any such representations names of some kind would become a matter of necessity, and were probably invented at random. Familiar as the names given by Bede now are to us, there was a time when they had no more au- thority than Bithisarca, Melchior, and Gathaspar (Moroni, Dizion. s. v. “*Magi’’); Magalath, Pan- a This was the prevalent interpretation ; but others read the symbols differently, and with coarser feeling. The gold helped the poverty of the Holy Family. The incense remedied the noisome air of the stable. The myrrh was used, it was said, to give strength and firmness to the bodies of new-born infants (Suicer, Esves))9 6b The treatise De Collectanets is in fact a miscel- laneous collection of memoranda in the form of ques- tion and answer. The desire to find names for those who have none given them is very noticeable in other instances as well as in that of the Magi: e. g., he gives those of the penitent and impenitent thief. The pas- page quoted in the text is followed by a description of their dress, taken obviously either from some early e a MAGI | galath, Saracen; Appellius, Amerius, and Dama cus, and a score of others (Spanheim, Dub. Fae ii, p. 288).¢ In the Eastern Church, where, it would ee: there was less desire to find symbolic meanin, than to magnify the circumstances of the histor the traditions assume a different character. Magi arrive at Jerusalem with a retinue of 10( men, having left behind them, on the further bar of the Euphrates, an army of 7000 (Jacob. Edes and Bar-hebreeus, in Hyde, /. c.). They hay been led to undertake the journey, not by the st: only, or by expectations which they shared wit Israelites, but by a prophecy of the founder of the own faith. Zoroaster had predicted@ that in th latter days there should be a Mighty One and Redeemer, and that his descendants should see tl star which should be the herald of his comin; According to another legend (Opus imperf. | Matt. ii. apud Chrysost. t. vi. ed. Montfaucon) the came from the remotest East, near the borders « the ocean. They had been taught to expect tl star by a writing that bore the name of Setl That expectation was handed down from father 1 son. ‘Twelve of the holiest of them were appointe to be ever on the watch. Their post of observatic was a rock known as the Mount of Victory. Nig] by night they washed in pure water, and praye and looked out on the heavens. At last the st: appeared, and in it the form of a young child bea ing a cross. A voice came from it and bade the proceed to Judzea. They started on their two year journey, and during all that time the meat and #] drink with which they started never failed ther The gifts they bring are those which Abraham ga to their progenitors the sons of Keturah (this, « course, on the hypothesis that they were Arabians which the queen of Sheba had in her turn present to Solomon, and which had found their way ba again to the children of the East (Epiphan. a Com Doctr. in Moroni, Dizion. 1. ¢.). They return fro Bethlehem to their own country, and give ther selves up to a life of contemplation and praye When the Twelve Apostles leave Jerusalem to car on their work as preachers, St. Thomas finds the in Parthia. They offer themselves for baptism, at become evangelists of the new faith (Opus wnper: in Matt. ii. 1. c.). The pilgrim-feeling of the 4 century includes them also within its rang Among other relics supplied to meet the deman of the market which the devotion of Helena hi: created, the bodies of the Magi are discovered som where in the East, are brought to Constantinop and placed in the great church which, as Mosque of St. Sophia, still bears in its name t witness of its original dedication to the Divi Wisdom. The favor with which the people : painting, or from the decorations of a miracle-pli (comp. the account of such a performance in Trene Star of the Wise Men, p. 70). The account of t offerings, it will be noticed, does not agree with t traditional hexameter of the Latin Church : — “ Gaspar fert myrrham, thus Melchior, Balthasar aurum. ¢ Hyde quotes from Bar Bahlul the names of t thirteen who appear in the Eastern traditions. T three which the legends of the West have made fino are not among them. d * Vos autem, 0 filii mei, ante omnes gentes ort ejus percepturi estis.” (Abulpharagius, Dynast. Li in Hyde, c. 81). | a ral MAGIC, MAGICIANS in had received the emperor's prefect Eustorgius d for some special mark of favor, and on his ecration as bishop of that city, he obtained for he privilege of being the resting-place of the ious relics. There the fame of the three kings eased. The prominence given to all the feasts nected with the season of the Nativity — the sfer to that season of the mirth and joy of the Saturnalia — the setting apart of a distinct day the commemoration of the Epiphany in the 4th uury *—all this added to the veneration with ch they were regarded. When Milan fell into hands of Frederick Barbarossa (A. D. 1162) the gence uf the archbishop of Cologne prevailed on Emperor to transfer them to that city. The anese, at a later period, consoled themselves by aing a special confraternity for perpetuating ryeneration for the Magi by the annual per- nance of a ‘Mystery’? (Moroni, /. c.); but the 'y of possessing the relics of the first Gentile shippers of Christ remained with Cologne.? In t proud cathedral which is the glory of Teutonic the shrine of the Three Kings has, for six cen- es, been shown as the greatest of its many isures. The tabernacle in which the bones of ‘e whose real name and history are lost forever enshrined in honor, bears witness, in its gold ‘gems, to the faith with which the story of the iderings of the Three Kings has been received. reverence has sometimes taken stranger and ‘e grotesque forms. As the patron-saints of ellers they have given a name to the inns of ier or later date. eks of epilepsy (Spanheim, Dub. Lvang. xxi.). Jomp., in addition to authorities already cited, neh, Star of the Wise Men; J. ¥. Miiller, in {the representations of the Magi (the Three igs) in works of art, and the legends concerning m, see Mrs. Jameson’s Legends of the Madonna, ed., pp. 210-222. — H.] E. H. P. MAGIC, MAGICIANS. The magical arts sken of in the Bible are those practiced by the Iyptians, the Canaanites, and their neighbors, t Hebrews, the Chaldeans, and probably the s. We therefore begin this article with an ceavor to state the position of magic in relation teligion and philosophy with the several races of lakind. The degree of the civilization of a nation is not “Measure of the importance of magic in its con- jions. The natural features of a country are | the primary causes of what is termed super- ‘ion in its inhabitants. With nations as with (1,—and the analogy of Plato in the “ Republic ”’ nee always false, — the feelings on which magic | The institution of the Feast of the Three Kings is I d to Pope Julius, A. D. 836 (Moroni, Dizion. For the later medizval developments of the tra- yas, comp. Joan. von Hildesheim in Quarterly Rev rill, p. 433. + The names of Melchior, Gas- -and Balthasar were used as a charm against zog's Real-Encykl.,s. v. “ Magi;”’ Triebel, De gis advenient., and Miegius, De Stella, ete., in %. Sacri, Thes. Nov. ii. 111, 118; Stolberg, sert. de Magis ; and Rhoden, De primis Salv. jerat., in Crit. Sacri, Thes. Theol. Phil. ii. 69. ) the Magi and on Magism among the Baby- fans, see especially Rawlinson’s Ancient Mon- hies, iii. 125-136; among the Medes, ibid. iii. | f£; among the Persians, ibid. iv. 891-395. — MAGIC, MAGICIANS 1741 fixes its hold are essential to the mental constitu- tion. Contrary as are these assertions to the com- mon opinions of our time, inductive reasoning for- bids our doubting them. With the lowest race magic is the chief part of religion. The Nigritians, or blacks of this race, show this in their extreme use of amulets and their worship of objects which have no other value in their eyes but as having a supposed magical char- acter through the influence of supernatural agents. With the Turanians, or corresponding whites of the same great family, — we use the word white for a group of nations mainly yellow, in contra- distinction to black, — incantations and witchcraft occupy the same place, shamanism characterizing their tribes in both hemispheres. In the days of Herodotus the distinction in this matter between the Nigritians and the Caucasian population of North Africa was what it now is. In his remark- able account of the journey of the Nasamonian young men, — the Nasamones, be it remembered, were “a Libyan race”’ and dwellers on the north- ern coast, as the historian here says, — we are told that the adventurers passed through the inhabited maritime region, and the tract occupied by wild beasts, and the desert, and at last came upon a plain with trees, where they were seized by men of small stature who carried them across marshes to a town of such men black in complexion. A great river, running from west to east and containing crocodiles, flowed by that town, and all that nation were sorcerers (és rods oUToL amixoyTo avOparous, yontas civat WayTas, ii. 32, 33). It little matters whether the conjecture that the great river was the Niger be true, which the idea adopted by Herod- otus that it was the Upper Nile seems to favor: ¢ it is quite evident that the Nasamones came upon a nation of Nigritians beyond the Great Desert and were struck with their fetishism. So, in our own days, the traveller is astonished at the height to which this superstition is carried among the Nigri- tians, who have no religious practices that are not of the nature of sorcery, nor any priests who are not magicians, and magicians alone. The strength of this belief in magic in these two great divisions of the lowest race is shown in the case of each by its having maintained its hold in an instance in which its tenacity must have been severely tried. The ancient Egyptians show their partly-Nigritian origin not alone in their physical characteristics and language but in their religion. They retained the strange low nature-worship of the Nigritians, forcibly combining it with more intellectual kinds of belief, as they represented their gods with the heads of animals and the bodies of men, and even connecting it with truths which point to a primeval revelation. The Ritual, which was the great treas- ury of Egyptian belief and explained the means of gaining future happiness, is full of charms to be said, and contains directions for making and for using amulets. As the Nigritian goes on a journey hung about with amulets, so amulets were placed on the Egyptian’s embalmed body, and his soul went on its mysterious way fortified with incanta- tions learnt while on earth. In China, although Se DT ee ee e It is perhaps worthy of note that schylus calls the Upper Nile rotapos AiBioy, as though the great Mthiopian river (Prom. Vinct. 809 ; comp. Solin. a 30). 1742 MAGIC, MAGICIANS Buddhism has established itself, and the system of Confucius has gained the power its positivism would insure it with a highly-educated people of low type, another belief still maintains itself which there is strong reason to hold to be older than the other two, although it is usually supposed to have been of the same age as Confucianism; in this religion magic is of the highest importance, the distinguishing characteristic by which it is known. With the Shemites magic takes a lower place. Nowhere is it even part of religion; yet it is looked upon as a powerful engine, and generally unlawful or lawful according to the aid invoked. Among many of the Shemitic peoples there linger the remnants of a primitive fetishism. Sacred trees and stones are reverenced from an old superstition, of which they do not always know the meaning, derived from the nations whose place they have taken. Thus fetishism remains, although in a kind of fossil state. The importance of astrology with the Shemites has tended to raise the character of their magic, which deals rather with the discovery of supposed existing influences than with the pro- duction of new influences. The only direct asso- ciation of magic with religion is where the priests, as the educated class, have taken the functions of magicians; but this is far different from the case of the Nigritians, where the magicians are the only priests. The Shemites, however, when depending on human reason alone, seem never to have doubted the efficacy of magical arts, yet recourse to their aid was not usually with them the first idea of a man in doubt. Though the case of Saul cannot be taken as applying to the whole race, yet, even with the heathen Shemites, prayers must have been held to be of more value than incantations. The Iranians assign to magic a still less impor- tant position. It can scarcely be traced in the relies of old nature-worship, which they with greater skill than the Egyptians interwove with their more in- tellectual beliefs, as the Greeks gave the objects of reverence in Arcadia and Crete a place in poetical myths, and the Scandinavians animated the hard remains of primitive superstition. The character of the ancient belief is utterly gone with the as- signing of new reasons for the reverence of its sacred objects. Magic always maintained some hold on men’s minds; but the stronger intellects despised it, like the Roman commander who threw the sa- cred chickens overboard, and the Greek who defied an adverse omen at the beginning of a great battle. When any, oppressed by the sight of the calam- ities of. mankind, sought to resolve the mysterious problem, they fixed, like Auschylus, not upon the childish notion of a chance-government by many conflicting agencies, but upon the nobler idea of a dominating fate. Men of highly sensitive temper- ainents have always inclined to a belief in magic, and there has therefore been a section of Iranian philosophers in all ages who have paid attention to its practice; but, expelled from religion, it has held but a low and precarious place in philosophy. The Hebrews had no magic of their own. It was so strictly forbidden by the Law that it could never afterwards have had any recognized exist- ence, save in times of general heresy or apostasy, and the same.was doubtless the case in the patri- archal ages. The magical practices which obtained @ The 118th chapter of the Kur-dn was written #hen Mohammad believed that the magical practices MAGIC, MAGICIANS among the Hebrews were therefore borrowed fic the nations around. ‘The hold they gained yw such as we should have expected with a Shem race, making allowance for the discredit throy upon them by the prohibitions of the Law. Fre the first entrance into the Land of Promise until t destruction of Jerusalem we have constant glimps of magic practiced in secret, or resorted to, n alone by the common but also by the great. T Talmud abounds in notices of contemporary mag among the Jews, showing that it survived idolat notwithstanding their original connection, and w supposed to produce real effects. The Kur-an like manner treats charms and incantations capable of producing evil consequences when us against a man.@ It is a distinctive characteris of the Bible that from first to last it warrants : such trust or dread. In the Psalms. the most pe sonal of all the books of Scripture, there is - prayer to be protected against magical influene The believer prays to be delivered from eyery ki of evil that could hurt the body or the soul, b he says nothing of the machinations of sorcere: Here and everywhere magic is passed by, or mentioned, mentioned only to be condemned (com Ps. evi. 28). Let those who affirm that they s in the Psalms merely human piety, and in Job a Ecclesiastes merely human philosophy, explain t absence in them, and throughout the Scriptures, the expression of superstitious feelings that are 1 herent in the Shemite mind. Let them explain t luxuriant growth in the after-literature of the E brews and Arabs, and notably in the Talmud a the Kur-an, of these feelings with no root in tho older writings from which that after-literature w derived. If the Bible, the Talmud, and the Kur- be but several expressions of the Shemite mir differing only through the effect of time, how ¢ this contrast be accounted for ? — the very oppos of what obtains elsewhere; for superstitions ¢ generally strongest in the earlier literature of ara and gradually fade, excepting a condition of bark rism restore their vigor. ‘Those who see in the Bil a Divine work can understand how a God-taug preacher could throw aside the miserable fears his race, and boldly tell man to trust in his Mak alone. Here, as in all matters, the history of t Bible confirms its doctrine. In the doctrinal Ser tures magic is passed by with contempt, in the h torical Scripturés the reasonableness of this ec tempt is shown. Whenever the practicers of mak attempt to combat the seryants of God, they ec spicuously fail. Pharaoh’s magicians bow to t Divine power shown in the wonders wrought Moses and Aaron. Balaam, the great enchant comes from afar to curse Israel and is forced bless them. ‘ In examining the mentions of magic in 1 Bible, we must keep in view the curious inqw whether there be any reality in the art. \ would at the outset protest against the idea, 01 very prevalent, that the conviction that the s and unseen worlds were often more manifestly contact in the Biblical ages than now necessitate belief in the reality of the magic spoken of in { Scriptures. We do indeed see a connection of supernatural agency with magic in such a case that of the damsel possessed with a spirit of divin tion mentioned in the Acts; yet there the ager of certain persous had affected him with a kind rheumatism il te ay es ; j , } f A ri et 4 MAGIC, MAGICIANS ears to have been involuntary in the damsel, shrewdly made profitable by her employers. s does not establish the possibility of man being s at his will to use supernatural powers to gain own ends, which is what magic has always pre- ded to accomplish. Thus much we premise, we should be thought to hold latitudinarian nions because we treat the reality of magic as open question. Without losing sight of the distinctions we have wn between the magic of different races, we shall sider the notices of the subject in the Bible in order in which they occur. It is impossible in ry case to assign the magical practice spoken of a particular nation, or, when this can be done, to ermine whether it be native or borrowed, and . general absence of details renders any other tem of classification liable to error. The theft and carrying away of Laban’s tera- im. (9 7F)) by Rachel seems to indicate the tice of magic in Padan-aram at this early time. appears that Laban attached great value to these ects, from what he said as to the theft, and his rermined search for them (Gen. xxxi. 19, 30, -35). It may be supposed from the manner in ich they were hidden that these teraphim were bvery small. ‘The most important point is that ban calls them his “ gods” (ibid. 30, 32), hough he was not without belief in the true God 4, 49-53); for this makes it almost certain that have here not an indication of the worship of ange gods, but the first notice of a superstition at afterwards obtained among those Israelites who ded corrupt practices to the true religion. The rivation of the name teraphim is extremely ob- ure.. Gesenius takes it from an ‘“ unused ”’ rvot, 2A, which he supposes, from the Arabic, prob- ly signified “to live pleasantly ”’ (Thes. s. v.). “may, however, be reasonably conjectured that ich a root would have had, if not in Hebrew, in e language whence the Hebrews tovk it or its srivative, the proper meaning “to dance,” cor- sponding to this, which would then be its tropical eaning.o We should prefer, if no other deriva- on be found, to suppose that the name teraphim light mean “dancers”? or ‘causers of dancing,” ith reference either to primitive nature-worship ¢ -@ Taban’s expression in Gen. xxx. 27, “I have ‘wwured GFW), may refer to divination; but le context makes it more reasonable not to tuke it in MAGIC, MAGICIANS 1748 or its magical rites of the character of shamanism. rather than that it signifies, as Gesenius suggests, ‘‘oivers of pleasant life.” There seems, however, to be a cognate word, unconnected with the ‘ un- used’ root just mentioned, in ancient Egyptian, whence we may obtain a conjectural derivation. We do not of course trace the worship of teraphim to the sojourn in Egypt. They were probably those objects of the pre-Abrahamite idolatry, put away by order of Jacob (Gen. xxxy. 2~4), yet retained even in Joshua’s time (Josh. xxiv. 14); and, if so, notwithstanding his exhortation, abandoned only for a space (Judg. xvii., xviii.); and they were also known to the Babylonians, being used by them for divination (Ez. xxi. 21). But there is great reason for supposing a close connection between the oldest language and religion of Chaldsa, and the ancient Egyptian language and religion. The Egyptian word TER signifies “a shape, type, transforma- tion,’ ¢ and has for its determinative a mummy: it is used in the Ritual, where the various transfor- mations of the deceased in Hades are described (Todtenbuch, ed. Lepsius, ch. 76,ff.). The small mummy-shaped figure, SHEBTEE, usually made of baked clay covered with a blue vitreous varnish, representing the Egyptian as deceased, is of a na- ture connecting it with magic, since it was made with the idea that it secured benefits in. Hades; and it is connected with the word TER, for it represents a mummy, the determinative of that word, and was considered to be of use in the state in which the deceased passed through transforma- tions, TERU. The difficulty which forbids our doing more than conjecture a relation between TER and teraphim is the want in the former of the third radical of the latter; and in our present state of ignorance respecting the ancient Egyptian and the primitive language of Chaldwa in their verbal relations to the Semitic family it is impos- sible to say whether it is likely to be explained. The possible connection with the Egyptian religious magic is, however, not to be slighted, especially as it is not improbable that the household idolatry of the Hebrews was ancestral worship, and the SHEBTEE was the image of a deceased man or woman, as a mummy, and therefore as an Osiris, bearing the insignia of that divinity, and so ina manner as a deified dead person, although we do not know that it was used in the ancestral worship c In the fragments ascribed 10 Sanchoniatho, which, whatever their age and author, cannot be doubted to be genuine, the Beetulia are characterized in a manner ‘literal sense. . +The Arabic rcot am certainly means “he bounded in the comforts of life,” and the like, but he corresponding ancient Egyptian word TERF or REF, “to dance,” suggests that this is a tropical ‘Gnification, especially as in the Indo-European lan- uages, if our ‘ to trip’? preserve the proper sense and Qe Sanskrit trip and the Greek réprw the tropical mse of the root, we have the same word with the Wo meanings. We believe also that, in point of age, recedence should be given to the ancient Egyptian ‘ord before the Semitic, and that in the former lan- Mage an objective sense is always the proper sense, nd & subjective the tropical, when a word is used in oth significations. We think that this principle is lgually true of the Semitic group, although it may e contested with reference to the Indo-European imguages. a that illustrates this supposition. The Bactulia, it must be remembered, were sacred stones, the reverence of which in Syria in the historical times was a relic of the early low nature-worship with which fetishism or shamanism is now everywhere associated, ‘The words used, "Emevonoe Oeds Ovpavos Bartvata, Adbovs epyprxous unxavyodmevos (Cory, Anc. Frag. p. 12), cannot be held to mean more than that Uranus contrived living stones, but the idea of contriving and the term “ living ”’ imply motion in these stones. d Egyptologists have generally read this word TER. Mr. Birch, however, reads it CHEPER (SHEPER avcord- ing to the writer’s system of transcription). The bal- ance is decided by the discovery of the Coptic equiva- lent TO, © transmutare,” in which the absence of the final R is explained by a peculiar but regular modification which the writer was the first to point out (HrmROGLYPHICS Encyclopedia Britannica, 8th ed. p. 421). 1744. MAGIC, MAGICIANS of the Egyptians. It is important to notice that no singular is found of the word teraphim, and chat the plural form is once used where only one statue seems to be meant (1 Sam. xix. 13, 16): in this case it may be a “plural of excellence.’ If the latter inference be true, this word must have become thoroughly Semiticized. There is no de- scription of these images; but from the account of Michal’s stratagem to deceive Saul’s messengers, it is evident, if only one image be there meant, as is very probable, that they were at least sometimes of the size of a man, and perhaps in the head and shoulders, if not lower, of human shape, ‘or of a similar form (/d. 13-16). The worship or use of teraphim after the occu- pation of the Promised Land cannot be doubted to have been one of the corrupt practices of those Hebrews who leant to idolatry, but did not abandon their belief in the God of Israel. Although the Scriptures draw no marked distinction between those who forsook their religion and those who added to it such corruptions, it is evident that the latter always professed to be orthodox. Teraphim therefore cannot be regarded as among the Hebrews necessarily connected with strange gods, whatever may have been the case with other nations. The account of Micah’s images in the Book of Judges, compared with a passage in Hosea, shows our con- clusion to be correct. In the earliest days of the occupation of the Promised Land, in the time of anarchy that followed Joshua’s rule, Micah, “a man of Mount Ephraim,” made certain images and other objects of heretical worship, which were stolen from him by those Danites who took Laish and called it Dan, there setting up idolatry, where it continued the whole time that the ark was at Shiloh, the priests retaining their post “ until the day of the captivity of the land’’ (Judg. xvii., xviii., esp. 30, 31). Probably this worship was somewhat changed, although not in its essential character, when Jeroboam set up the golden calf at Dan. Micah’s idolatrous objects were a graven image, a molten image, an ephod, and teraphim (xvii. 3, 4, 5, xviii. 17, 18, 20). In Hosea there is a retrospect of this period where the prophet takes a harlot, and commands her to be faithful to him ‘many days.’’ It is added: “For the chil- dren of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image [or “pillar,” TTA2%D], and without an ephod, and teraphim: afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek Jehovah their God, and David their king; and shall fear Jehovah and His goodness in the latter days’? (iii. esp. 4, 5). The apostate people are long to be without their spurious king and false worship, and in the end are to return to their loyalty to the house of David and their faith in the true God. That Dan should be connected with Jeroboam ““who made Israel to sin,’ and with the kingdom which he founded, is most natural; and it is there- fore worthy of note that the images, ephod, and teraphim made by Micah and stolen and set up by the Danites at Dan should so nearly correspond with the objects spoken of by the prophet. It has been imagined that the use of teraphim and the @ Kalisch, in his Commentary on Genesis (pp. 583, 534), considers the use of teraphim as a comparatively harmless form of idolatry, and explains the passage in Hosea quoted above as meaning that the Israelites similar abominations o. ‘‘# heretical Israelites a not so strongly condemmd the Scriptures as th worship of strange gods. ‘tis mistake arises fron. the mention of pious kings who did not suppres the high places, which proves only their timidity and not any lesser sinfulness in the spurious religior than in false systems borrowed from the peoples of Canaan and neighboring countries. The cruel rite of the heathen are indeed especially reprobated, bu the heresy of the Israelites is too emphatically de nounced, by Samuel in a passage to be soon exam: ined, and i in the repeated condemnation of J. eroboan the son of Nebat “ who made Israel to sin,” for i to be possible that we should take a view of it con: sistent only with modern sophistry.¢ We pass to the magical use of teraphim. By thi Israelites they were consulted for oracular answers This was apparently done by the Danites whe asked Micah’s Levite to inquire as to the success of their spying expedition (Judg. xviii. 5, 6). Ty later times this is distinctly stated of the Teraelites| where Zechariah says, “‘ For the teraphim haye| spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie, an¢ have told false dreams’’ (x. 2). It cannot be sup posed that, as this first positive mention of the usé of teraphim for divination by the Israelites is aftr the return from Babylon, and as that use obtained) with the Babylonians in the time of N. ebuchadnez- zar, therefore the Israelites borrowed it from thei| conquerors’ for these objects are mentioned in earlier places in such a manner that their connec: tion with divination must be intended, if we bear’ in mind that this connection is undoubted in a subsequent period. Samuel’s reproof of Saul for his disobedience in the matter of Amalek, asso-| ciates “divination”? with “vanity,” or ‘idols | (7238), and “teraphim,” however we render the difficult passage where these words occur (1 Sam} xv. 22,23). (The word rendered “vanity,” 7s. is especially used with reference to idols, and even in some places stands alone for an idol or idols.) When Saul, having put to death the workers in black arts, finding himself rejected of God in his extremity, sought the witch of Endor, and asked! to see Samuel, the prophet’s apparition denounced his doom as the punishment of this very disobedi- ence as to Amalek. The reproof would seem, therefore, to have been a prophecy that the self. confident king would at the last alienate himself from God, and take refuge in the very abominatio he despised. ‘This apparent reference tends to con: firm the inference we have indicated. As to a latel time, when Josiah’s reform is related, he is said te have put away “the wizards, and the teraphim, and the idols’? (2 K. xxiii. 24); where the mention) of the teraphim immediately after the wizards, and as distinct from the idols, seems to favor the inference that they are spoken of as objects used 4 divination. The only account of the act.of divining by tera- phim is in a remarkable passage of Ezekiel relating to Nebuchadnezzar’s advance against Jerusalem. “« Also, thou son of man, appoint thee two ways. that the sword of the king of Babylon may come! both twain [two swords] shall come forth out of MAGIC, “A SICIANS : 4 | | should be deprived not alone of true religion, bu! even of the resource of their mild household super stitions. He thus entirely misses the sense of th passage and makes the Bible contradictory. M,, [A - land: and choose t, 4. place, choose [it] at aead of the way to. city. Appoint a way, the sword may co.we to Rabbath of the Am- ites, and to Judah in Jerusalem the defenced. the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the at the head of the two ways, to use divina- : he shuffled arrows, he consulted with teraphim, oked in the liver. At his right hand was the ation for Jerusalem ’’ (xxi. 19~22). The men- together of consulting teraphim and looking the liver, may not indicate that the victim was ed to teraphim and its liver then looked into, may mean two separate acts of divining. That ormer is the right explanation seems, however, able from a comparison with the LXX. ren- i of the account of Michal’s stratagem.@ aps Michal had been divining, and on the ng of the messengers seized the image and and hastily put them in the bed. — The ac- ts which the Rabbins give of divining by tera- | are worthless. fore speaking of the notices of the Egyptian cians in Genesis and Exodus, there is one ge that may be examined out of the regular t. Joseph, when his brethren left after their id visit to buy corn, ordered his steward to his silver cup in Benjamin’s sack, and after- s sent him after them, ordering him to claim hus: [Is] not this [it] in which my lord seth, and whereby indeed he divineth ?’ > (Gen. 5). The meaning of the latter clause has contested, Gesenius translating, “he could y foresee it’’ (ap. Barrett, Synopsis, in loc.), the other rendering seems far more probable, ally as we read that Joseph afterwards said 8 brethren, “* Wot ye not that such a man as n certainly divine?” (xliv. 15),—the same being used. If so, the reference would prob- be to the use of the cup in divining, and we ld have to infer that here Joseph was acting is own judgment [JosEPH], divination being alone doubtless a forbidden act, but one of h he when called before Pharaoh had distinctly aimed the practice. Two uses of cups or the for magical purposes have obtained in the East ancient times. In one use either the cup ‘bears engraved inscriptions, supposed to have gical influence,¢ or it is plain and such in- tions are written on its inner surface in ink. oth cases water poured into the cup is drunk tose wishing to derive benefit, as, for instance, ture of diseases, from the inscriptions, which, jitten, are dissolved. This use, in both its 3, obtains among the Arabs in the present day, sups bearing Chaldeean inscriptions in ink have The Masoretic text reads, tt And Michal took the him, and laid [it] upon the bed, and the mattress YD) of she-goats [or goats’ hair] she put at its and she covered [it] with a cloth ” [or garment] Mm. xix. 13). The LXX. has ‘ the liver of goats,” tAaBev ) MeAXdA Ta Kevorddia, Kal Eero emi Thy ¥, Kal Wrap Tav aiyav EeTo mpds Kehadys avrod, 1%, La > ~ S a ahuwey avra imariw.) ’2 tn wr. “he modern Persians apply the word Jém, signi- » * Cup, mirror, or even globe, to magical vessels /s kind, and relate marvels of two which they say ed to their ancient king Jemsheed and to Alex- | 110 ‘8 apparently found 7D instead of apna MAGIC 1745 been discovered by Mr. Layard, and probably show that this practice existed among the Jews in Baby- lonia in about the 7th century of the Christian era.¢ In the other use the cup or bowl was of very sec- ondary importance. It was merely the receptacle for water, in which, after the performance of: magical rites, a boy looked to see what the magician desired. This is precisely the same as the practice of the modern Egyptian magicians, where the dif- ference that ink is employed and is poured into the palm of the boy’s hand is merely accidental. A Gnostic papyrus in Greek, written in Egypt in the earlier centuries of the Christian era, now preserved in the British Museum, describes the practice of the boy with a bowl, and alleges results strikingly similar to the alleged results of the well-known modern Egyptian magician, whose divination would seem, therefore, to be a relic of the famous magic of ancient Egypt.“ As this latter use only is of the nature of divination, it is probable that to it Joseph referred. The practice may have been prevalent in his time, and hieroglyphic inscriptions upon the bowl may have given color to the idea that it had magical properties, and perhaps even that it had thus led to the discovery of its place of concealment, a discovery which must have struck Joseph’s brethren with the utmost astonishment. The magicians of Egypt are spoken of as a class in the histories of Joseph and Moses. When Pharaoh’s officers were troubled by their dreams, being in prison they were at a loss for an inter- preter. Before Joseph explained the dreams he disclaimed the power of interpreting save by the Divine aid, saying, “ [Do] not interpretations [belong] to God? tell me [them], I pray you” (Gen. xl. 8). In like manner when Pharaoh had his two dreams we find that he had recourse to those who professed to interpret dreams. We read: ‘He sent and called for all the scribes of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof: and Pharaoh told them his dream; but [there was] none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh”? (xli. 8; comp. ver. 24). Joseph, being sent for on the report of the chief of the cupbearers, was told by Pharaoh that he had heard that he could interpret a dream. Joseph said, * [It is] not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace’’ (ver. 16). Thus, from the expectations of the Egyptians and Joseph's disavowals, we see that the interpretation of dreams was a branch of the knowledge to which the ancient Egyptian magicians pretended. The failure of the Egyptians in the case of Pharaoh's dreams must probably be regarded as the result of their inability to give a satisfactory explanation, for it is unlikely that they refused to attempt to interpret. The two ander the Great. The former of these, called Jam-i- Jem or Jam-i-Jemsheed, is famous in Persian poetry. D’Herbelot quotes a Turkish poet who thus alludes to this belief in magical cups: ‘‘ When I shall have been illuminated by the light of heaven my soul will be- come the mirror of the world, in which I shall dis- cover the most hidden secrets ” (Bibliothéque Orientale, s. v. * Giam ’’). d Modern Egyptians, 5th edit. chap. xi. e Nineveh and Babylon, p. 509, &c. There is an excellent paper on these bowls by Dr. Levy of Breslau, in the Zeitschrift der Deutsch. Morgenland. Gesellschaft, ix. p. 465, &e. Ft See the Modern Egyptians, 5th edit. chap. xii. for an account of the performances of this magician, and Mr. Lane’s opinion as to the causes of their occasional apparent success. 1746 MAGIC words used to designate the interpreters sent for by Pharaoh are EW: 1, “scribes” (?) and DYN, ‘¢ wise men.’’ @ We again hear of the magicians of Egypt in the narrative of the events before the Exodus. They were summoned by Pharaoh to oppose Moses. The account of what they effected requires to be care- fully examined, from its bearing on the question whether magic be an imposture. We read: “ And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Show a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast [it] before Pharaoh, [and] it shall become a serpent.’ It is then related that Aaron did thus, and afterwards: “ Then Pharaoh also called the wise men¢ and the enchanters: @|§ now they, the scribes® of Egypt, did so by their secret arts:/ for they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents, but Aaron’s rod swal- lowed up their rods’’ (Ex. vii. 8-12). The rods were probably long staves like those represented on the Egyptian monuments, not much less than the height of a man. If the word used mean here a serpent, the Egyptian magicians may have feigned a change: if it signify a crocodile they could scarcely have done so. ‘The names by which the magicians are designated are to be noted. That which we render ‘scribes’? seems here to have a general signification, including wise men and enchanters. The last term is more definite in its meaning, de- noting users of incantations. 2 On the occasion of the first plague, the turning the rivers and waters of Egypt into blood, the opposition of the magicians again occurs. ‘And the scribes of Egypt did so by their secret arts ’’ (vii. 22). When the second plague, that of frogs, was sent, the magicians again made the same opposition (viii. 7). Once more they appear in the history. The plague of lice came, and we read that when Aaron had worked the wonder the magicians opposed him: “ And the scribes did so by their secret arts to bring forth the lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man and upon beast. And.the scribes said unto a The former word is difficult of explanation. It is to be noticed that it is also used for a class of the Babylonian magi (Dan. i. 20, ii. 2); so that it can scarcely be supposed to be an Egyptian word Hebrai- cized. Egyptian equivalents have however been sought EPXUW Le, thaw. maturgus, and Ignatius Rossi C APE CTWQAR “guardian of secret things” (ap. Ges. Thes. 8. v.), both of which are far too unlike the Hebrew to have any probability. To derive it from the Persian 0d, “endued with wisdom,” when occur- for; and Jablonsky suggests ring in Daniel, is puerile, as Gesenius admits. He suggests a Hebrew origin, and takes it either from Or, a pen or stylus,” and &— formative, or supposes it to be a quadriliteral, formed from the triliteral OW, the “ unused” root of (TT, and DT, ‘he or it was sacred.”” The former seems far Se more probable at first sight; and the latter would not have had any weight were it not for its likeness to the Greek icpoypaumateds, used of Egyptian religious scribes ; a resemblance which, moreoyer, loses much of its value when we find that in hieroglyphics there is no exactly vorresponding expression. Notwith- standing these Hebrew derivations, Gesenius inclines MAGIC Pharaoh, This [is] the finger of God: but Phara heart was hardened, and he hearkened not y them, as the Lord had said” (viii. 18, 19, Heb. 15). After this we hear no more of the magiei All we can gather from the narrative is that appearances produced by them were sufficient, deceive Pharaoh on three occasions. It is nowk declared that they actually produced wonders, si the expression “the scribes did so by their sa arts’’ is used on the occasion of their comp failure. Nor is their statement that in the won wrought by Aaron they saw the finger of God, proof that they recognized a power superior to native objects of worship they invoked, for we { that the Egyptians frequently spoke of a supr being as God. It seems rather as though they, said, “‘ Our juggles are of no avail against thew of a ‘divinity. There is one later mention of th transactions, which adds to our information, , does not decide the main question. St. Paul m tions Jannes and Jambres as having “ withst Moses,”’ and says that their folly in doing so came manifest (2 Tim. iii. 8,9). The Egypt character of these names, the first of which is, our opinion, found in hieroglyphics, does not fa the opinion, which seems inconsisterit with | character of an inspired record, that the Apo cited a prevalent tradition of the Jews. [JANI AND JAMBRES. | ; | We turn to the Egyptian illustrations of { part of the subject. Magic, as we have hefore marked, was inherent in the ancient Egypt religion. The Ritual is a system of incantati! and directions for making amulets, with the oh of securing the future happiness of the disembo¢ soul. However obscure the belief of the Egypti as to the actual character of the state of thes after death may be to us, it cannot be doubted t the knowledge and use of the magical amulets j incantations treated of in the Ritual was held te necessary for future happiness, although it was: believed that they alone could ensure it, sineé have done good works, or, more strictly, not to committed certain sins, was an essential condit to the idea that a similar Egyptian word was’ itated: instancing Abrech, Moses, and behem (]AR, me , WD): but no one of tl can be proved to be Egyptian in origin, and the no strong ground for seeking any but a Hebrew | mology for the second and third (Thes. 1. ¢.). most similar word is Hashmannim, Den | Ixviii. 81, Heb. 82), which we suppose to be Egypt meaning Hermopolites, with perhaps, in the one p where it occurs, a reference to the wisdom of | citizens of Hermopolis Magna, the city of Thoth, Egyptian Hermes. |HASHMANNIM.] We prefer to h to the Hebrew derivation simply from TQ7{7, ani read ‘ scribes,” the idea of magicians being probé understood. The other word, 0 DoT, does seem to mean any special class, but merely the men of Egypt generally. } ’ PDR. e DOOM. a DOW e OMANI: fc OMT? | 9 The word mn, elsewhere ond ie viii. 7, 18, Heb. 3, 14), Banifies secret” or hid) arts,” from O99 (ross, 0), he or it oy over, hid, or wrapped up. 13 MAGIC @ acquittal of the soul in the great trial in s. The thoroughly magical character of the 1 is most strikingly evident in the minute jons given for making amulets ( Todtenbuch, M0, 129, 134), and the secresy enjoined in one to those thus occupied (133). The later ers of the Ritual (163-165), held to have been | after the compilation or composition of the vhich theory, as M. Chabas has well remarked, not prove their much more modern date (Le rus Magique Harris, p. 162), contain mysti- ames not bearing an Egyptian etymology. names have been thought to be Ethiopian; either have no signification, and are mere al gibberish, or else they are, mainly at least, eign origin. Besides the Ritual, the ancient jans had books of a purely magical character, as that which M. Chabas has just edited in wk referred to above. The main source of belief in the efficacy of magic appears to have he idea that the souls of the dead, whether ed or condemned, had the power of revisiting rth and taking various forms. This belief is antly used in the moral tale of “ The Two ers,’ of which the text has been recently hed by the Trustees of the British Museum t Papyri, Part IL.), and we learn from this it papyrus the age and source of much of the nety of medieval fictions, both eastern and mn. A likeness that strikes us at once in the fa fiction is not less true of the Ritual; and rils encountered by the soul in Hades are the ide indications of the adventures of the heroes ab and German romance. The regions of traversed, the mystic portals that open alone gical words, and the monsters whom magic 2an deprive of their power to injure, are here yin the book that in part was found in the of king Mencheres four thousand years ago. gin mind the Nigritian nature of Egyptian ‘we may look for the source of these ideas in we Africa. ‘There we find the realities of the ideal form is not greatly distorted, though ‘intensified. The forests that clothe the m slopes of snowy Atlas, full of fierce beasts; it desert, untenanted save by harmful rep- vept by sand-storms, and ever burning under thanging sun; the marshes of the south, § with brutes of vast size and strength, are yeral zones of the Egyptian Hades. The es of the desert and the plains and slopes, sodile, the pachydermata, the lion, perchance ila, are the genii that hold this land of fear. M dread must the first scanty population id dangers and enemies still feared by their ng posterity. No wonder then that the ative Nigritians were struck with a super- “fear that certain conditions of external always produce with races of a low type, vhigher feeling would only be touched by logies of life and death, of time and eternity. ader that, so struck, the primitive race id the evils of the unseen world to be the lee of those against which they struggled earth. That there is some ground for our besides the generalization which led us to own by a usual Egyptian name of Hades, Test;”? and that the wild regions west of | the facts respecting Egyptian magic here fare greatly indebted to M. Chabas’ remark- 'k We do not, however, agree with some of a MAGIC 1747 Egypt might directly give birth to such fancies as form the common ground of the machinery, not the general belief, of the Ritual, as well as of the machinery of medieval fiction, is shown by the fables that the rude Arabs of our own day tell of the wonders they have seen. Like all nations who have practiced magic gen- erally, the Egyptians separated it into a lawful kind and an unlawful. M. Chabas has proved this from a papyrus which he finds to contain an account of the prosecution, in the reign of Rameses III. (B. C. cir. 1220), of an official for unlawfully acquiring and using magical books, the king’s property. The culprit was convicted and punished with death (p. 169 ff.). A belief in unlucky and lucky days, in actions to be avoided or done on certain days, and in the fortune attending birth on certain days, was ex- tremely strong, as we learn from a remarkable ancient calendar (Select Papyri, Part I.) and the evidence of writers of antiquity. A religious prej- udice, or the occurrence of some great calamity, probably lay at the root of this observance of days. Of the former, the birthday of Typhon, the fifth of the Epagomenz, is an instance. Astrology was also held in high honor, as the calendars of certain of the tombs of the kings, stating the positions of the stars and their influence on different parts of the body, show us; but it seems doubtful whether this branch of magical arts is older than the XVIIIth dynasty, although certain stars were held in rev- erence in the time of the [Vth dynasty. The belief in omens probably did not take an important place in Egyptian magic, if we may judge from the ab- sence of direct mention of them. ‘The superstition as to “the evil eye” appears to have been known, but there is nothing else that we can class with phenomena of the nature of animal magnetism, Two classes of learned men had the charge of the magical books: one of these, the name of which has not been read phonetically, would seem to cor- respond to the “scribes,” as we render the word, spoken of in the history of Joseph; whereas the other has the general sense of “ wise men,”’ like the other class there mentioned. There are no representations on the monuments that can be held to relate directly to the practice of this art, but the secret passages in the thickness of the wall, lately opened in the great temple of Dendarah, seem to have been intended for some purpose of imposture. The Law contains very distinct prohibitions of all magical arts. Besides several passages con- demning them, in one place there is a specification which is so full that it seems evident that its object is to include every kind of magical art. The reference is to the practices of Canaan, not to those of Egypt, which indeed do not seem to have been brought away by the Israelites, who, it may be remarked, apparently did not adopt Egyptian idol- atry, but only that of foreigners settled in Egypt. [REMPHAN. ] The Israelites are commanded, in the place re- ferred to, not to learn the abominations of the peo- ples of the Promised Land. Then follows this prohibition: “ There shall not te found with thee one who offereth his son or his daughter by fire, a his deductions; and the theory we have put forth of the origin of Egyptian magic is purely our own. 1748 MAGIC MAGIC: the original meaning of the verb was probab f f prayed,” and the strict sense of this word of hidden arts (j213"9), repeat (WTT2D), 20 | who uses incantations.” 5. JAM “aa enchanter (F277), or a fabricator of charms |to mean “a fabricator of material charms or ap er STs), or an inquirer by a familiar spirit Jets,” if “ArT, when used of practicing sor g si es a ie to bind magical knots, and not to bin COR... 2U)),.on a wizard (oof sia OF ASORE IRE person by spells. 6. 27S Ost) is “an inguin of the dead (O‘VWAT “bs wet)” It is added | by a familiar spirit.” The second term sign Ay ; bottle,¢ a familiar spirit consulted by a sooth and a soothsayer having a familiar spirit. practicer of divinations (EDD)? nop), a worker that these are abominations, and that on account of their practice the nations of Canaan were to be 3 driven out (Deut. xviii. 9-14, esp. 10, 11). It is | LXX. usually render the plural SVAN by eyo remarkable that the offering of children should be | rp:ut601, which has been rashly translated venti mentioned in connection with magical arts. The | oquists, for it may not signify what we understa passage in Micah, which has been supposed to pre- | by the latter, but refer to the mode in which soo serve a question of Balak and an answer of Balaam, | sayers of this kind gaye out their responses: tot when the soothsayer was sent for to curse Israel, | subject we shall recur later. The consulting should be here noticed, for the questioner asks, | familiar spirits may mean no more than inyok after speaking of sacrifices of usual kinds, «Shall | them; but in the Acts we read of a damsel p give my first-born [for] my transgression, the fruit | sessed with a spirit of divination (xvi. 16-18) of my body [for] the sin of my soul?” (vi. 5-8). | very distinct terms. This kind of sorcery — dis Perhaps, however, child-sacrifice is specified on ac- | ation by a familiar spirit — was practiced b count of its aimoclty; eae would connect it with witch of Endor. 7. °29%, which we render secret arts, which we know were frequently in later ; ee times the causes of cruelty. The terms which fol- low appear to refer properly to eight different kinds of magic, but some of them are elsewhere used in wizard,’’ is properly “a wise man,’’ but is alw applied to wizards and false prophets. Geser (Thes. s. y.) supposes that in Ley. xx. 27 it igor SH a of a familiar spirit, but surely the reading “a a general sense. 1. = o? EO} is literally |ard » is there more probable. 8. The last te ‘6a, diviner of divinations.”? The verb Ro? is OTA OS wat, is very explicit, meaning used of false prophets, but also in a general sense | gonsulter of the dead:?? necromancer is ae for divining, as in the narrative of Saul’s consulta- | translation if the original signification of the la tion of the witch of Endor, where the king says | is retained, instead of the more general one it: ‘‘ divine unto me (182 s SI" ID?) I pray usually bears. In the Law it was commanded a te Sle ae 4 man or woman who had a familiar spirit, thee, by the familiar spirit” (1 Sam. xxviii. 8). wizard, should be stoned (Lev. xx. 27). Fe 2. ig conyeys the idea of “one who aes COV: | pad dea? (TDW 315) was not to live (Er. ertly,”” and so “a worker of hidden arts.” The 18; Heb. 17). Using augury and hidden ats meaning of the root rely is covering, and the sup- | also forbidden (Lev. xix. 26). pe posed connection with fascination by the eyes, like The history of Balaam shows the belief of s the notion of “ the evil eye,” as though the original ancient nations in the powers of soothsayers. M ae the Israelites had begun to conquer the Lan root were “the eye” (79Y), seems untenable.“ | promise, Balak the king of Moab and the elde Midian, resorting to Pharaoh’s expedient, sen messengers with “the rewards of divine (? D20)7) in their hands’? (Num. xxii, 7 8. WD, which we render “an augurer,” is from WIT), which is literally “he or it hissed or whispered,”’ and in Piel is applied to the practice ‘ 2 sa of enchantments, but also to divining generally, as | Balaam the diviner (CO pry, Josh. xii in the case of Joseph’s cup, and where, evidently . referring to it, he tells his brethren that he could divine, although in both places it has been read more vaguely with the sense to foresee or make trial (Gen. xliv. 5,15). We therefore render it bya term which seems appropriate but not too definite. whose fame was known to them though he dw Aram. Balak’s message shows what he bel Balaam’s powers to be: ‘“ Behold, there is ap come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the of the earth, and they abide over against me} : ; now therefore, 1 pray thee, curse me this pe The supposed connection of WI72 with Wid, for they [are] too mighty for me: peradvent “a, serpent,” as though meaning serpent-divina- shall prevail, [that] we may smite them, ot tion, must be rejected, the latter word rather com- I may drive them out of the land: for I wa ing from the former, with the signification ‘‘a whom thou blessest [is] blessed: and he ba : b ss pis », |cursest is cursed’? (Num. xxii. 5,6). 1 hisser.” 4. FJWDID signifies “an enchanter:” | told, however, that Balaam, warned of God, a The ancient Egyptians seem to have held the | Bx. vi. 23; Ruth iv. 20, &c.), means bh enchan superstition of the evil eye, for an eye is the determin- | it was probably used as a proper name in ative of a word which appears to signify some kind of | sense. aoe magic (Chabas, Papyrus Magique Harris, p. 170 and c This meaning suggests the probability th note 4). Arab idea of the evil Jinn having been na Spry tles by Solomon was derived from some Jewis b The name Nahshon (W273), of a prince of roe ao Juijah in the second year after the Exodus (Num. i. 7; Dag MAGIC that he could not speak of himself, and then by ration blessed those whom he had been sent 9 curse. He appears to have received inspira- in a vision or a trance. In one place it is said, d Balaam saw that it was good in the eyes of ORD to bless Israel, and he went not, now as e, to the meeting enchantments (Dwi), he set his face to the wilderness ” (xxiv. 1). 1 this it would seem that it was his wont to nchantments, and that when on other occasions ent away after the sacrifices had been offered, yped that he could prevail to obtain the wish ose who had sent for him, but was constantly ted. The building new altars of the mystic ver of seven, and the offering of seven oxen and |rams, seem to show that Balaam had some idea; and the marked manner in which he red “ there is no enchantment (32) against , and no divination (OD/2) against Israel” . 23), that he had come in the hope that they d have availed, the diviner here being made to re his own powerlessness while he blessed those n he was sent for to curse. ‘The'case is a very ult one, since it shows a man who was used as nstrument of declaring God’s will trusting in ices that could only have incurred his dis- ure. The simplest explanation seems to be Balaam was never a true prophet but on this ion, when the enemies of Israel were to be sig- confounded. This history affords a notable nee of the failure of magicians in attempting to ; the Divine will. le account of Saul’s consulting the witch of ris the foremost place in Scripture of those h refer to magic. The supernatural terror which it is full cannot however be proved to ue to this art, for it has always been held by ‘critics that the appearing of Samuel was per- ad for the purpose of declaring the doom of ,and not that it was caused by the incanta- of a sorceress. As, however, the narrative lowed to be very difficult, we may look for a ent at the evidence of its authenticity. The Is are strictly in accordance with the age: : is a simplicity in the manners described that eign toa later time. The circumstances are sable with the rest of the history, and especially all we know of Saul’s character. Here, as he is seen resolved to gain his ends without ig what wrong he does; he wishes to consult yphet, and asks a witch to call up his shade. , Of all, the vigor of the narrative, showing us cene in a few words, proves its antiquity and ineness. We can see no reason whatever for osing that it is an interpolation. Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had nted him, and buried him in Ramah, even in wn city. And Saul had put away those that familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the _ And the Philistines gathered themselves ther, and came and pitched in Shunem; and gathered all Israel together, and they pitched ilboa.” That the Philistines should have ad- ed so far, spreading in the plain of Esdraelon, sarden of the Holy Land, shows the straits to h Saul had come. Here in times of faith ‘a was defeated ly Barak, and the Midianites ‘smitten by Gideon, some of the army of the er perishing at En-dor itself (Ps. Ixxxiii. 9, 10). id when Saul saw the host of the Philistines, MAGIC 1749 he was afraid, and his heart greatly tremblud. And when Saul inquired of the Lorp, the LorpD an- swered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, [there is] a woman that hath a familiar spirit at En-dor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night.’’? En-dor lay in the territory of Issachar, about 7 or 8 miles to the northward of Mount Gilboa. Its name, the “ fountain of Dor,’ may connect it with the Pheenician city Dor, which was on the coast to the westward.¢ If so, it may have retained its stranger-population, and been therefore chosen by the witch as a place where she might with less danger than elsewhere practice her arts. It has been noticed that the mountain on whose slope the modern village stands is hol- lowed into rock-hewn caverns, in one of which the witch may probably have dwelt. [EN-por.] Saul’s disguise, and his journeying by night, seem to have been taken that he might not alarm the woman, rather than because he may have passed through a part of the Philistine force. The Philistines held the plain, having their camp at Shunem, whither they had pushed on from Aphek: the Israelites were at first encamped by a fountain at Jezreel, but when their enemies had advanced to Jezreel they appear to have retired to the slopes of Gilboa, whence there was a way of retreat either into the mountains to the south, or across Jordan. The latter seems to have been the line of flight, as, though Saul was slain on Mount Gilboa, his body was fastened to the wall of Beth-shan. .Thus Saul could have scarcely reached En-dor without passing at least very near the army of the Philistines. « And he said, Divine unto me, I pray thee, by the familiar spirit, and bring me [him] up, whom I shall name unto thee.”” It is noticeable that here witchcraft, the inquiring by a familiar spirit, and necromancy, are all connected as though but a single art, which favors the idea that the prohibition in Deuteronomy specifies every name by which magical arts were known, rather than so many different kinds of arts, in order that no one should attempt to evade the condemnation of such prac- tices by any subterfuge. It is evident that Saul thought he might be able to call up Samuel by the aid of the witch; but this does not prove what was his own general conviction, or the prevalent con- viction of the Israelites on the subject. He was in a great extremity: his kingdom in danger: himself’ forsaken of God: he was weary with a night- journey, perhaps of risk, perhaps of great length to avoid the enemy, and faint with a day’s fasting: he was conscious of wrong as, probably for the first time, he commanded unholy rites and heard in the gloom unholy incantations. In such a strait no man’s judgment is steady, and Saul may have asked to see Samuel in a moment of sudden desper- ation when he had only meant to demand an oracular answer. It may even be thought that, yearning for the counsel of Samuel, and longing to learn if the net that he felt closing about him were one from which he should never escape, Saul had that keener sense that some say comes in the last @ Dor is said to have taken its name from Dorus, a son of Neptune, whose name reminds one of Taras, the founder of Tarentum. 1750 MAGIC hours of life, and so, conscious that the prophet’s|ders at will. The sight of Samuel at once sh shade was near, or was about to come, at once | her who had come to consult her. sought to see and speak with it, though this: had | shade seems to have been preeeded by some maj not been before purposed. Strange things we know | shapes which the witch ealled gods. oceur at the moment when man feels he is about | seems, interrupting her, asked his form, an to die,* and if there be any time when the unseen world is felt while yet unentered, it is when the soul comes first within the chill of its long-projected shadow. ‘“ And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then Jayest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? And Saul sware to her by the Lorn, saying, [As] the Lorp liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.’’ Nothing more shows Saul's desperate resolution than his thus swearing when engaged in a most unholy act—a terrible profanity that makes the horror of the scene complete. Everything being prepared, the final act takes place. « Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up | enough to suppose that he was sent to give Sa And he said, Bring me up Samuel. | the last warning, or that the earnestness of i] And when the woman saw Samuel, she eried with king’s wish had been permitted to disquiet him a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, | his resting-place. Although the word « disquiete Why hast thou deceived me? for thou [art] Saul. | need not be pushed to an extreme sense, and see And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for|to mean the interruption of a state of rest, | And the woman said unto) translators wisely, we think, preferring this rend unto thee ? what sawest thou? Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. And he said unto her, What [is] his form? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he [is] cov mari with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it [was] | Samuel, and he stooped with [his] face to the ground, and bowed jhimself. And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted [or “ disturbed ’’] me, to bring me up? sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do. Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lorp is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy? And the Lorp hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the Lorp hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbor, [even] to David: because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lorn, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lorp done this thing unto thee this day. - Moreover, the Lorp will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to-morrow [shalt] thou and thy sons [be] with me: the Loxp also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines. Then Saul fell straightway all along on the earth, and was sore afraid, because of the words of Samuel: and there was no strength in him; for he had eaten no bread all the day, nor all the night”’ (1 Sam. xxviii. 3-20). The woman clearly was terrified by an unexpected apparition when she saw Samuel. She must therefore either have been a mere juggler, or one who had no power of working magical won- a We may instance the well-known circumstance that men who have been near death by drowning have} asserted that in the last moments of conscfousness all the events of their lives have passed before their minds. A friend of the writer assured him that he experienced this sensation, whenever he had a very bad fall in hunting, while he was actually falling. This is alluded ‘o in the epitaph — “ Between the saddle and the I mercy sought, and merey ound, ound.” And Saul answered, I am | sick wae but if so, what can we make of MAGIC The proph Seal, a described the prophet as he was in his last days earth, an old man, covered either with a mant) such as the prophets used to wear, or wrapped | his winding-sheet. Then Saul knew it was Samui and bowed to the ground, from respect or fear. seems that the woman saw the appearances, ai that Saul only knew of them through her, penta not daring to look, else why should he have ask what form Samuel had? ? The prophet’s complai we cannot understand, in our ignorance as to t! separate state: thus much we know, that state always described as one of perfect rest or slee That the woman should have been able to es h up cannot be hence inferred; her astonishm shows the contrary; and it would be explanati ing to “ disturbed,’’ it cannot be denied that, we hold that Samuel appeared, this is a great d ficulty. If, however, we suppose that the prophet coming was ordered, it is not unsurmountal The declaration of Saul’s doom agrees with wh Samuel had said before, and was fulfilled the ne) day, when the king and his sons fell on Mo Gilboa. It may, however, be asked — Was apparition Samuel himself, or a supernatural me senger in his stead? Some may even object to holding it to have been aught but a phantom of woman’s conviction that it was Samuel, and: king’s horror at the words he heard, or, as would say, that he thought he heard ? 2 It was n only the hearing his doom, but the hearing it in voice from the other world that stretched the fait. the presence of the dead, and heard the sound of sepulchral voice. How else could the doom ha come true, and not the king alone, but his so have gone to the place of disembodied souls on t) morrow? for to be with the dead concerned t) soul, not the body: it is no diffieulty that the ki corpse was unburied till the generous men of Jabes' gilead. mindful of his old kindness, rescued it fro’ the wall of Bethshan. If then the apparition w real, should we suppose it Samuel’s? A reasonal criticism would say it seems to have been so the supposition that a messenger eame in his ster must be rejected, as it would make the speech mixture of truth and untruth;) and if asked wh sufficient cause there was for such a sending fe F. of the prophet from his rest, would reply th If this phenomenon be not involuntary, but the res! of an effort of will, then there is no reason why should be confined to the last moments of co ness. A man sure of his doom might be in this liar and unexplained mental state long before. Pe however, the mind before death experiences a of condition, just as, conversely, every physic tion does not cease at once with what we t solution. ii the Bible, and that perhaps even at the eleventh ur, the door of repentance was not closed against the king, and his impiety might have been par- doned had he repented. Instead, he went forth in despair, and, when his sons had fallen and his army was put to the rout, sore wounded fell on his own sword. _ From the beginning to the end of this strange listory we have no warrant for attributing super- natural power to magicians. Viewed reasonably, it refers to the question of apparitions of the dead, as to which other places in the Bible leave no doubt. ‘The connection with magic seems purely accidental. The witch is no more than a bystander after the first: she sees Samuel, and that is all. The apparition may have been a terrible fulfillment of Saul’s desire, but this does not prove that the measures he used were of any power. We have examined the narrative very carefully, froin its detail and its remarkable character: the result leaves the main question unanswered. "In the later days of the two kingdoms magical ractices of many kinds prevailed among the He- ews, as we especially learn from the condemnation gf them by the prophets. Every form of idola- ry which the people had adopted in succession Joubtless brought with it its magic, which seems always to have remained with a strange tenacity that probably made it outlive the false worship with which it was connected. Thus the use of teraphim, Jating from the patriarchal age, was not abandoned when the worship of the Canaanite, Pheenician, id Syrian idols had been successively adopted. m the historical books of Scripture there is little lotice of magic, excepting that wherever the false jrophets are mentioned we have no doubt an indi- ation of the prevalence of magical practices. We wwe especially told of Josiah that he put away the yorkers with familiar spirits, the wizards, and the eraphim, as well as the idols and the other abomi- tations of Judah and Jerusalem, in performance a commands of the book of the Law which tad been found (2 K. xxiii. 24). But in the rophets we find several notices of the magic of the lebrews in their times, and some of the magic foreign nations. Isaiah says that the people lad become “workers of hidden arts (D°329) ike the Philistines,’ and apparently alludes in the place to the practice of magic by the Bene- Xedem (ii. 6). The nation had not only abandoned tue religion, but had become generally addicted to Jagic in the manner of the Philistines, whose ptian origin [CAPHTOR] is consistent with such ‘condition. The origin of the Bene-Kedem is oubtful, but it seems certain that as late as the me of the Egyptian wars in Syria, under the XIXth mngolian, inhabited the valley of the Orontes,¢ ong whom therefore we should again expect a ional practice of magic, and its prevalence with irneighbors. Balaam, too, dwelt with the Bene- a another place the prophet reproves the people for eking “ unto them that have familiar spirits, and * Let those who doubt this cxamine the representa- ‘nin Rosellini’s Monumenti Storici, i. pl. Ixxxviii. q- of the great battle between Rameses IT. and the ates and their confederates, near KETESH, on the MAGIC 1751 unto the wizards that chirp, and that mutter” (viii. 19). The practices of one class of magicians are still more distinctly described, where it is thus said of Jerusalem: “ And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee. And thou shalt be brought down, [and] shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust ” (xxix. 3, 4). Isaiah alludes to the magic of the Egyptians when he says that in their calamity “they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers [DYN ?],) and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards *’ (xix. 3). And in the same manner he thus taunts Babylon: “ Stand now with thy charms, and with the multitude of thine enchantments, wherein thou hast labored from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the viewers of the heavens for astrologers], the stargazers, the monthly prognos- ticators, stand up, and save thee from [these things] that shall come upon thee’’ (xlvii. 12, 13). The magic of Babylon is here characterized by the prominence given to astrology, no magicians being mentioned excepting practicers of this art; unlike the case of the Egyptians, with whom astrology seems always to have held a lower place than with the Chaldean nation. In both instances the folly of those who seek the aid of magie is shown. Micah, declaring the judgments coming for the crimes of his time, speaks of the prevalence of divination among prophets who most probably were such pretended prophets as the opponents of Jere- miah, not avowed prophets of idols, as Ahab’s seem to have been. Concerning these prophets it is said, ‘“‘ Night [shall be] unto you, that ye shall not have a vision: and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. » Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded: yea, they shall all cover their lip; for [there is] no answer of God” (iii. 6, 7). Later it is said as to Jerusalem, “The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LorD, and say, [Is] not the LorD among us? none evil can come upon us”’ (ver. 11), These prophets seem to have practiced unlawful arts, and yet to have expected revelations, Jeremiah was constantly opposed by false proph- ets, who pretended to speak in the name of the Lord, saying that they had dreamt, when they told false visions, and who practiced various magical arts (xiv. 14, xxiii. 25, ad jin., xxvii. 9, 10, —where the several designations applied to those who coun- selled the people not to serve the king of Babylon may be used in contempt of the false prophets — xxix. 8, 9). Ezekiel, as we should have expected, affords some remarkable details of the magic of his time, in the clear and forcible descriptions of his visions. From him we learn that fetishism was among the idola- tries which the Hebrews, in the latest days of the 5 This word may mean whispe ers, if it be the plural of YON, “a murmur.” 1752 MAGIC kingdom of Judah, had adopted from their neigh- sors, like the Romans in the age of general cor- ruption that caused the decline of their empire. In a vision, in which the prophet saw the abomina- tions of Jerusalem, he entered the chambers of imagery in the Temple itself: ‘‘I went in and saw; and behold every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, portrayed upon the wall round about.” Here seventy elders were offering incense in the dark (viii. 7-12). This idolatry was probably bor- rowed from Egypt, for the description perfectly answers to that of the dark sanctuaries of Egyptian temples, with the sacred animals portrayed upon their walls, and does not accord with the character of the Assyrian sculptures, where creeping things are not represented as objects of worship. With this low form of idolatry an equally low kind of magic obtained, practiced by prophetesses who for small rewards made amulets by which the people were deceived, (xiil. 17, ad jin.). The passage must be allowed to be very difficult, but it can scarcely be doubted that amulets are referred to which were made and sold by these women, and perhaps also worn by them. We may probably read: ‘ Woe to the [women] that sew pillows upon all joints of the hands [elbows or armholes?], and make ker- chiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls!” (xiii. 18). If so, we have a practice analo- gous to that of the modern Egyptians, who hang amulets of the kind called “hegab’”’ upon the right side, and of the Nubians, who hang them on the upper part of the arm. We cannot, in any case, see how the passage can be explained as simply referring to the luxurious dress of the women of that time, since the prophet distinctly alludes to pretended visions and to divinations (ver. 23), using almost the same expressions that he applies in another place to the practices of the false prophets (xxii. 28). The notice of Nebuchadnez- zar’s divination by arrows, where it is said “he shuffled arrows”? (xxi. 21), must refer to a prac- tice the same or similar to the kind of divination by arrows called [l-Meysar, in use among the pagan Arabs, and forbidden in the Kur-an. [See HOSPITALITY. | The references to magic in the book of Daniel relate wholly to that of Babylon, and not so much to the art as to those who used it. Daniel, when taken captive, was instructed in the learning of the Chaldzans and placed among the wise men of Babylon (ii. 18), by whom we are to understand the Magi (a2 72°), for the term is used as including magicians (O27), sorcerers (DWN), enchanters (DYDWEN), astrologers (7°73), and Chaldeans, the last being apparently the most important class (ii. 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 18, 24, 27; comp. i. 20). As in other cases ie true prophet was put to the test with the magicians, and he succeeded where they utterly failed. The case resembles Pharaoh’s, excepting that Nebuchad- nezzar asked a harder thing of the wise men. Having forgotten his dream, “he not only required of them an interpretation, but that they should make known the dreain itself. They were perfectly ready to tell the interpretation if only they heard the dream. The king at once saw that they were impostors, and that if they truly had supernatural powers they could as well tell him his dream as its MAGIC meaning. Therefore he decreed the death of alt the wise men of Babylon; but Daniel, praying that he and his fellows might escape this destruc. tion, had a vision in which the matter was revealed _ to him. He was accordingly brought before the king. Like Joseph, he disavowed any knowledge of his own. ‘The secret which the king hath demanded, the wise men, the sorcerers, the magi-, cians, the astrologers, cannot show unto the king; , but there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets”? . (vv. 27, 28). ‘+ But as for me, this secret is not, revealed to me for [any] wisdom that I have more than any living” (30). He then related the dream. and its interpretation, and was set over the proy- ince as well as over all the wise men of Babylon. | Again the king dreamt: and though he told them the dream the wise men could not interpret it, and. Daniel again showed the meaning (iv. 4, ff). In. he relation of this event we read that the king called him ‘chief of the seribes,’’ the second part, of the title being the same as that applied to the: Egyptian magicians (iv. 9; Chald. 6). A third. time, when Belshazzar saw the writing on the wall, were the wise men sent for, and on their failing, Daniel was brought before the king and the inter-. pretation given (v.). These events are perfectly, consistent with what always occurred in all other cases recorded in Scripture when the practicers of | magic were placed in opposition to true prophets. It may be asked by some how Daniel could take the post of chief of the wise men when he had himself proved their imposture. If, however, as; we cannot doubt, the class were one of the learned: generally, among whom some practiced magical) arts, the case is very different from what it would have been had these wise men been magicians. only. Besides, it seems almost certain that Daniel, was providentially thus placed that, like another: Joseph, he might further the welfare and ultimate, return of his people. [MAcr.] Aftér the Captivity it is probable that the Jews; gradually abandoned the practice of magic. Zecha- riah speaks indeed of the deceit of teraphim and diviners (x. 2), and foretells a time when the very names of idols should be forgotten and false proph-; ets have virtually ceased (xiii. 1-4), yet in neither case does it seem certain that he is alluding to : usages of his own day. In the Apocrypha we find indications that in the later centuries preceding the Christian era magic was no longer practiced by the educated Jews. In the Wisdom of Solomon the writer, speaking of th Egyptian magicians, treats their art as an impos- ture (xvii. 7). The book of Tobit is an exceptiona. case. If we hold that it was written in Persia or a neighboring country, and, with Ewald, date its composition not long after the fall of the Persian) empire, it is obvious that it relates to a different state of society to [from] that of the Jews of Egypt and Palestine. If, however, it was written in Pales- tine about the time of the Maccabees, as others sup- pose, we must still recollect that it refers rather to the superstitions of the common people than to thos¢ of the learned. In either case its pretensions make it unsafe to follow as indicating the opinions of the time at which it was written. It professes to relate to a period of which its writer could have knowr little, and borrows its idea of supernatural agene from Scripture, adding as much as was judged sal of current superstition. Pa In the N. T. we read very little of magic. Thi coming of Magi to worship Christ is indeed relate¢ MAGIC Matt. ii. 1-12), but we have no warrant for sup- osing that they were magicians-from their name, hich the A. V. not unreasonably renders “ wise ren” [MAGr]. Our Lord is not said to have been pposed by magicians, and the Apostles and other arly teachers of the Gospel seem to have rarely neountered them. Philip the deacon, when he reached at Samaria, found there Simon a famous lagician, commonly known as Simon Magus, who ad had great power over the people; but he is not uid to have been able to work wonders, nor, had ; been so, is it likely that he would have soon been dmitted into the Church (Acts viii. 9-24). When it. Barnabas and St. Paul were at Paphos, as they reached to the proconsul Sergius Paulus, Elymas, Jewish sorcerer and false prophet (riva avdpa ayov Wevdorpophjtny), withstood them, and was truck blind for a time at the word of St. Paul (xiii. -12). At Ephesus, certain Jewish exorcists sig- ally failing, both Jews and Greeks were afraid, and bandoned their practice of magical arts. “ And any that believed came, and confessed, and showed heir deeds. Many of them also which used curi- us arts brought their books together, and burned hem before all: and they counted the price of hem, and found [it] fifty thousand [pieces] of ilver’’ (xix. 18, 19). Here both Jews and Greeks sem to have been greatly addicted to magic, even fter they had nominally joined the Church. In Il these cases it appears that though the practicers vere generally or always Jews, the field of their uecess was with Gentiles, showing that among the ews in general, or the educated class, the art had allen into disrepute. Here, as before, there is no vidence of any real effect produced by the magi- jans. We have already noticed the remarkable ase of the “damsel having a spirit of divination ”’ €xovoay mvediua mvdwva) “which brought her aasters much gain by foretelling * (uwavrevouevn), tom whom St. Paul cast out the spirit of divina- ion (xvi. 16-18). This is a matter belonging to nother subject than that of magic. Our examination of the various notices of magic athe Bible gives us this general result: They ‘0 not, as far as we can understand, once state ositively that any but illusive results were pro- juced by magical rites. They therefore afford no vidence that man can gain supernatural powers to ise at his will. This consequence goes some way Owards showing that we may conclude that there 8no such thing as real magic; for although it is langerous to reason on negative evidence, yet in case of this kind it is especially strong. Had ‘ny but illusions been worked by magicians, surely ‘he Scriptures would not have passed over a fact of © much imporiance, and one which would have | @ This is one of a great number of cases in which he readings of Mai’s edition of the Vatican Codex lepart from the ordinary ‘* Vatican Text,” as usually ‘dited, and agree more or less closely with the Alex- ‘drine (Codex A). 6 Von Bohlen (Introd. to Gen. ii. 211) represents jog as the people, and not the prince. ‘There can be 10 doubt that in Rev. xx. 8 the name does apply to + people, but this is not the case in Ezekiel. ' € In the A. V. Gog is represented as “ the chief mince” of Meshech and Tubal: but it is pretty well igreed that the Hebrew words ms Nin cannot Dear the meadhing thus affixed to them. The true ren- lering is “ prince of Rosh,’ as given in the LXX. Gpxovra ‘Pws). The other sense was adopted by the MAGOG 17538 rendered the prohibition of these arts far more necessary. The general belief of mankind in magic, or things akin to it, is of no worth, since the hold- ing such current superstition in some of its branches, if we push it to its legitimate consequences, would lead to the rejection of faith in God’s government of the world, and the adoption of a creed far below that of Plato. From the conclusion at which we have arrived, that there is no evidence in the Bible of real results having been worked by supernatural agency used by magicians, we may draw this important infer- ence, that the absence of any proof of the same in profane literature, ancient or modern, in no way militates against the credibility of the miracles re- corded in Scripture. Bee: MAGID’DO ([Rom.] Mayedié 3 but Mai [t. é. Vat.], werd "Addo0s; and Alex.4 Meracd- daovs: Mageddo), the Greek form of the name Mrcippo. It occurs only in 1 Esdr. i. 29. [Mx- GIDDON. | G. * MAGISTRATES has its generic sense of rulers, civil officers, in Ezr. vii. 25; Luke xii. 11; Tit. iii. 1; but in Acts xvi. 20 ff is a specific term (orpatnyol ) referring to the duwmvirt or preetors at Philippi [see CoLony, Amer. ed.]. H. * MAGNIFICAL = magnificent, according to the present usage, applied to Solomon’s Temple, only in 1 Chr. xxii. 5. It is the rendering of the Hiph. inf. of 773. H. MA/GOG (21ND [see below]: Maydy; [in Kz. xxxix. 6 Téy, Alex. ge; in 1 Chr., Alex. Ma- ywa: Magog|). The name Magog is applied in Scripture both to a person and to a land or people. In Gen. x. 2 [and 1 Chr. i. 5] Magog appears as the second son of. Japheth in connection with Go- mer (the Cimmerians) and Madai (the Medes): in Kz. xxxvili. 2, xxxix. 1, 6, it appears as a country or people of which Gog was the prince,? in con- junction with Meshech ¢ (the Moschici), Tubal (the Tibareni), and Rosh (the Roxolani). In the latter of these senses there is evidently implied an etymo- logical connection between Gog and Ma= gog, the Ma being regarded by Ezekiel as a prefix sig- nificant of a country. In this case Gog contains the original element of the name, which may pos- sibly have its origin in some Persian root.¢ The notices of Magog would lead us to fix a northern locality: not only did all the tribes mentioned in connection with it belong to that quarter, but it is expressly stated by Ezekiel that he was to come up from “the sides of the north’’ (xxxix. 2), from a country adjacent to that of Togarmah or Armenia (xxxviii. 6), and not far from “the isles ’’ or mari- Vulgate in consequence of the name Rosh not occur- ring elsewhere in Scripture. ([Rosu.] d¢ Various etymologies of the name have been sug- gested, none of which can be absolutely accepted. Knobel ( Vélkert. p. 63) proposes the Sanskrit mah or maha, “ great,’ and a Persian word signifying ‘* moun- tain,’? in which case the reference would be to the Caucasian range. ‘The terms ghogh and moghef are still applied to some of the heights of that range. This etymology is supported by Von Bohlen (Introd. to Gen. ii. 211). On the other hand, Hitzig (Com. in Ez.) connects the first syllable with the Coptie ma, t place,” or the Sanskrit maha, “ land,” and the sec- ond with a Persian root, koka, the moon,’ as though the term had reference to moon-worshippers. 1754 MAGOG. _ time regions of Europe (xxxix. 6). The pecple of Magog further appear as having a force of cavalry (xxxviii. 15), and as armed with the bow (xxxix. 3). From the above data, combined with the con- sideration of the time at which Ezekiel lived, the conclusion has been drawn that Magog represents the important race of the Seythians. Josephus (Ant. i. 6, § 1) and Jerome ( Quest. in Gen. x. 2) among early writers adopted this view, and they have been followed in the main by modern writers. In identifying Magog with the Scythians, however, we must not be understood as using the latter term in a strictly ethnographical sense, but as a general expression for the tribes living north of the Cau- casus.¢ We regard Magog as essentially a geo- graphical term, just as it was applied by the Syrians of the Middle Ages to Asiatic Tartary, and by the Arabians to the district. between the Caspian and Euxine seas (Winer, Rwb. 3. v.). The inhabitants of this district in the time of Ezekiel were un- doubtedly the people generally known by the clas- sical name of “Scythians.” In the latter part of the 7th century B. c. they had become well known as a formidable power through the whole of western Aa Forced from their original quar- ters north of the Caucasian range by the inroad of the Massagetz, they descended into Asia Minor, where they took Sardis (B. c. 629), and main- tained a long war with the Lydian monarchs: thence they spread into Media (B. c. 624), where they defeated Cyaxares. They then directed their course to Egypt, and were bribed off by Psam- metichus; on their return © they attacked the tem- ple of Venus Urania at Ascalon. They were finally ejected B. Cc. 596, after having made their name a terror to the whole eastern world (Herod. i. 103 ff.). The Scythians are described by classical writers as skillful in the use of the bow (Herod. i. 73, iv. 132; Xen. Anab. iii. 4, § 15), and even as the inventors of the bow and arrow (Plin. vii. 57); they were specially famous as mounted bowmen (fmmorotérat; Eerod. iv. 46; Thucyd. ii. 96); they also enjoyed Scythian horseman (ican Kertch). an ill-fame for their cruel and rapacious habits (Herod. i. 106). With the memory of these events yet fresh on the minds of his countrymen, Ezekiel selects the Scythians as the symbol of earthly vio- lence, arrayed against the people of God, but meeting with a signal and utter overthrow. He depicts their avarice and violence (xxxvili. 7-13), and the fearful MAHALALEEL vengeance executed upon them (xxxviii. 14-23) — a massacre so tremendous that seven months would hardly suffice for the burial of the corpses in the valley which should thenceforth be named Hamon- gog (xxxix. 11-16). The imagery of Ezekiel has been transferred in the Apocalypse to describe the final struggle between Christ and Antichrist (Rey. xx.00): ‘As a question of ethnology, the origin of the Scythians presents great difficulties: many emi- nent writers, with Niebuhr and Neumann at their head, regard them as a Mongolian, and therefore a non-Japhetic race. It is unnecessary for us to en- ter into the general question, which is complicated by the undefined and varying applications of the name Scythia and Scythians among ancient writers As far as the Biblical notices are concerned, it is suffi- cient to state that the Scythians of Ezekiel’s age — the Scythians of Herodotus — were in all probability a Japhetic race. They are distinguished on the one hand from the Argippei, a clearly Mongolian race (Herod. iv. 23), and they are connected on the other hand with the Agathyrsi, a clearly Indo-European race (iv. 10). The mere silence of so observanta writer as Herodotus, as to any striking features in the physical conformation of the Scythians, must further be regarded as a strong argument in favor of their Japhetic origin. W. L. B. MA’GOR-MISSABIB (225% WN: Méroixos: Pavor undique), literally, ‘terror on every side: ’’ the name given by Jeremiah to Pash- ur the priest, when he smote him and put him in the stocks for prophesying against the idolatry of Jerusalem (Jer. xx. 3). The significance of the appellation is explained in the denunciation with which it was accompanied (ver. 4): “Thus saith Jehovah, Behold I will make thee a terror to thy- self and to all thy friends.’”?’ The LXX. must have connected the word with the original meaning of the root “to wander,’’ for they keep up the play upon the name in ver. 4. It is remarkable that the same phrase occurs in several other passages of Jeremiah (vi. 25, xx. 10, xlvi. 5, xlix. 29; Lam. ii. 22), and is only found besides in Ps. xxxi. 18. MAG’PIASH (wy [perh. moth-killer] : Meyaons; Alex. Maryagns? [Vat.] FA. Bayagns: Megphias), one of the heads of the people who signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 20). The name is probably not that of an individual, but of a family. It is supposed by Calmet and Junius to be the same as MAGBISH in Ezr. ii. 30. MA’HALAH (F12179 [sickness]: Macad3 Alex. MooAa! Mohola), one of the three children of Hammoleketh, the sister of Gilead (1 Chr. vii. 18). The name is probably that of a woman, as it is the same with that of Mahlah, the daughter of Zelophehad, also a descendant of Gilead the Manassite. MAHALA’LEEL (S997 [praise of God]: Madeaeha: Malaleel). 1. The fourth in descent from Adam, according to the Sethite gen- ealogy, and son of Cainan (Gen. v. 12, 13, 15-17; 1 Chr. i. 2). In the LXX. the names of Mahala- leel and Mehujael, the fourth from Adam in the a In the Koran Gog and Magog are localized north of the Caucasus. ‘here appears to have been from the earliest times a legend that the enemies of religion and civilization lived in that quarter (Hazthausen’s Tribes of the Caucasus, p. 55). I b The name of Scythopolis, by which Beth-shean was known in our Saviour’s time, was regarded as 4 trace of the Scythian occupation (Plin. ‘vy. 16): this, however, is doubtful. [Scyrsopomis.] the opinions of most commentators. the word with Dim, machél (Ex. xv. 20; Ps. cl. 4), rendered “ dance” in the A. V., but supposed by many from its connection with instruments of translations of heodotion (érép ris xopelas), | Symmachus (5:4 xopod), and Aquila (ém) xopeia), — quoted by Theodoret (Comm. in Ps. lii.). The title of Ps. liii. in the Chaldee and Syriac Psalm, “In finem pro Amalech intellectus ipsi _ David; ” explaining “ pro Amalech,’’ as he says » the word in the form melech, and interprets it by ‘made some confusion with IY, ’amal, “ sorrow,” MAHALATH genealogy of the descendants of Cain, are identical. Ewald recognizes in Mahalaleel the sun-god, or Apollo of the antediluvian mythology, and_in his son Jared the god of water, the Indian Varuna (Gesch. i. 357), but his assertions are perfectly arbitrary. 2. ({Vat.] FA. MaAeAnu-) A descendant of Perez, or Pharez, the son of Judah, and ancestor of Athaiah, whose family resided in Jerusalem after the return from Babylon (Neh. xi. 4). MA/HALATH (290M [peh. harp, lyre]: Macarcé: Maheleth), the daughter of Ishmael, and one of the wives of Esau (Gen. xxviii.9), In the Edomite genealogy (Gen. xxxvi. 3, 4, 10, 13, 17) she is called BASHEMATH, sister of Nebajoth, and mother of Reuel; but the Hebraeo-Samaritan text has Mahalath throughout. On the other hand Bashemath, the wife of Esau, is described as the daughter of Elon the Hittite (Gen. xxvi. 34). [BASHEMATH. | MA/HALATH (908 [harp, lyre]: [Rom. Mooadé; Vat.] MoAaaé; Alex. Moda: Maha- lath), one of the eighteen wives of king Rehoboam, apparently his first (2 Chr. xi. 18 only). She was her husband’s cousin, being the daughter of king David's son Jerimoth, who was probably the child of a concubine, and not one of his regular family. Josephus, without naming Mahalath, speaks of her as “a kinswoman” (guyyev9 Tiva, Ant. viii. 10, § 1). No children are attributed to the marriage, nor is she again named. The ancient Hebrew text (Cethib) in this passage has “son’’ instead of «dauzhter.” The latter, however, is the correction of the Kri, and is adopted by the LXX., Vulgate, and Targum, as well as by the A. V. G. MA’HALATH (7217 [see below]: Mac- ago: Maéleth). The title of Ps. liii., in which this rare word occurs, was rendered in the Geneva ~yersion, ‘To him that excelleth on Mahalath;” which was explained in the margin to be ‘an in- strument or kind of note.’’ This expresses in short Connecting music to be one itself (DANCE, vol. i. p. 538 6), Jerome renders the phrase “on Mahalath” by « per chorum,”’ and in this he is supported by the . Augus- tine (/narr. in Ps. lii.) gives the title of the from the Hebrew, “for one in labor or sorrow”’ (pro parturiente sive dolente), by whom he under- stands Christ, as the subject of the psalm. But in another passage (narr. in Ps. lxxxvii.) he gives the Latin chorus: having in the first instance which forms part of the proper name “ Amalek.” yersions contains no trace of the word, which is also omitted in the almost identical Ps. xiv. From this fact alone it might be inferred that it was not intended to point enigmatically to the contents of the psalm, as Hengstenberg and othevs are inclined MAHALATH i Gyr to believe. Aben Ezra understands by it the name of a melody to which the psalm was sung, and KR. Solomon Jarchi explains it as “the name of a musical instrument,”’ adding however immediately, with a play upon the word, “another discourse on the sickness (machalah) of Israel when the Temple was laid waste.’ Calvin and J. H. Michaelis, among others, regarded it as an instrument of music or the commencement of a melody. Junius derived it from the root Don, chdlal, “ to bore, perforate,” and understood by it a wind instrument of some kind, like Nehiloth in Ps. vi; but his ety- mology is certainly wrong. Its connection with machél ig equally uncertain. Joel Bril, in the sec- ond preface to his notes on the Psalms in Men- delssohn’s Bible, mentions three opinions as current with regard to the meaning of Mahalath; some regarding it as a feminine form of machél, others as one of the wind instruments (the flute, according to De Wette’s translation of Ps. liii.), and others again as a stringed instrument. Between these conflicting conjectures, he says, it is impossible to decide. That it: was a stringed instrument, played either with the fingers or a quill, is maintained by Simonis (Lex. Hebr.), who derives it from an un- used Arabic root woke, to sweep. But the most probable of all conjectures, and one which Gesenius approves, is that of Ludolf, who quotes the Ethiopic machlet, by which the x:Oapa of the LXX. is ren- dered in Gen. iv. 21 (Simonis, Arcanum Formarum, p- 475). First (Handw. s. v.) explains Mahalath as the name of a musical corps dwelling at Abel- Meholah, just as by Gittith he understands the band of Levite minstrels at Gath Rimmon. On the other hand, the opinion that Mahalath contains an enigmatical indication of the subject of the psalm, which we have seen hinted at in the quotations from Jarchi given above, is adopted by Hengstenberg to the exclusion of every other. He translates “‘on Mahalath’”’ by ‘on sickness,” re- ferring to the spiritual malady of the sons of men (Comm. tiber die Psalm.). Lengerke (die Psalmen) adopts the same view, which had been previously advanced by Arias Montanus. A third theory is that of Delitzsch (Comm. td. d. Psalter), who considers Mahalath as indicating to the choir the manner in which the psalm was to be sung, and compares the modern terms mesio, andante mesto. Ewald leaves it untranslated and unexplained, regarding it as probably an abbrevia- tion of a longer sentence (Dichter d.. Alt. Bundes, i. 174). . The latest speculation upon the subject is that of Mr. Thrupp, who, after dismissing as mere conjecture the interpretation of Mahalath as a musi- cal instrument, or as sickness, propounds, as more probable than either, that it is ‘a proper name borrowed from Gen. xxviii. 9, and used by David as an enigmatical designation of Abigail, in the same manner as, in Psalms vii., xxxiv., the names Cush and Abimelech are employed to denote Shimei and Achish. The real Mahalath, Esau's wife, was the sister of Nebajoth, from whom were descended an Arabian tribe famous for their wealth in sheep; the name might be therefore not unfitly applied to one who, though now wedded to David, had till recently been the wife of the rich sheep-owner of the village of Carmel”’ (Introd. to the Psalms, i. 314). It can scarcely be said that Mr. Thrupp has replaced conjecture by certainty. Ww. A. W. 1756 MAHALATH LEANNOTH MA/HALATH LEAN’NOTH (270% mhay > Maered rod droxpiOjvar: Maheleth ad respondendum). The Geneva version of Ps. Ixxxviii., in the title of which these words occur, has “ upon Malath Leannoth,’’ and in the margin, “ that is, to humble. It was the beginning of a song, by the {une whereof this Psalm was sung.’’ It is a re- markable proof of the obscurity which envelops the former of the two words that the same commenta- tor explains it differently in each of the passages in which it occurs. In De Wette’s translation it is a “flute”? in Ps. liii., a “ guitar’? in Ps. Ixxxviii.; and while Jarchi in the former passage explains it as a musical instrument, he describes the latter as referring to “one sick of love and affliction who was afflicted with the punishments of the Captivity.”’ Symmachus, again, as quoted by Theodoret ( Comm. in Ps. 87), has d:xdpov, unless this be a mistake of the copyist for 61a yopod, as in Ps. iii, Augus- tine and Theodoret both understand leannoth of responsive singing. Theophylact says ‘ they danced while responding to the music of the organ.” Jerome, in his version of the Hebrew, has “ per chorum ad precinendum.’? The Hebrew J1°2Y, in the Piel Conj., certainly signifies “to sing,”’ as in Ex. xxxii. 18; Is. xxvii. 2; and in this sense it is taken by Ewald in the title of Ps. Ixxxvili. In like manner Junius and Tremellius render “ upon Mahalath Leannoth”’ “to be sung to the wind instruments.’’ There is nothing, however, in the construction of the psalm to show that it was adapted for responsive singing; and if leannoth be simply “to sing,’? it would seem, as Olshausen observes, almost unnecessary. It has reference, more probably, to the character of the psalm, and might be rendered “ to humble, or aftlict,’’ in which sense the root occurs in verse 7. In support of this may be compared, “to bring to remembrance,”’ in the titles of Pss. xxxviii. and Ixx.; and “ to thank,” 1 Chr. xvi. 7. Mr. Thrupp remarks that this psalm (Ixxxviii.) “should be regarded as a solemn exercise of humiliation; it is more deeply melan- choly than any other in the Psalter” (/nir. to the Psalins, ii. 99). Hengstenberg, in accordance with the view he takes of Mahalath, regards Ps. Ixxxvili. as the prayer of one recovered from severe bodily sickness, rendering leannoth ‘concerning affliction,” and the whole “on the sickness of distress.’’ Leng- erke has a similar explanation, which is the same with that of Piscator, but is too forced. We Ata MA‘HALI (“OID [sick, infirm]: Moonls [Vat.] Alex. Moode:: Moholi), Manni, the son _ of Merari. His name occurs in the A. V. but once in this form (Ex. vi. 19). MAHANAIM (D°3END = two camps or hosts: [MapeuBorn,] MapeuBoraat, [Rom. Kapir, Vat.] Kaew; Mavaéu, Mavaelu, [Maavaty, etc.;] Joseph. @cod orpatdmedov: | Mahanain,] Manaim, [ Castra]), a town on the east of the Jordan, intimately connected with the early and middle history of the nation of Israel. It purports to have received its name at the most important a This paragraph is added in the LXX. b For this observation the writer is indebted toa sermon by Prof, Stanley (Marlborough, 1853). ¢ Jabbok, ppl wrestled,” AS. MAHANAIM crisis of the life of Jacob. We had parted from Laban in peace after their hazardous encounter on Mount Gilead (Gen. xxxi.), and the next step in the journey to Canaan brings him to Mahanaim: “‘ Jacob went on his way; and he lifted up his eyes and saw the camp of God@ encamped; and the angels (or messengers) of God met him. And when he saw them he said, This is God’s host (mahaneh), and he called the name of that place Mahanaim.”’ It is but rarely, and in none but the earliest of these ancient records, that we meet with the occasion of a name being conferred; and gen- erally, as has been already remarked, such nar- ratives are full of difficulties, arising from the peculiar turns and inyolutions of words, which form a very prominent feature in this primeval literature, at once so simple and so artificial. [BEER LAHAI- ROI, EN-HAKKORE, etc.] The form in which the history of Mahanaim is cast is no exception to this rule. It is in some respects perhaps more charac- teristic and more pregnant with hidden meaning than any other. Thus the “host” of angels — ‘¢God’s host’? — which is said to have been the occasion of the name, is only mentioned in a ¢ur- sory manner, and in the singular number — “the [one] host;’’ while the “two hosts’’ into which Jacob divided his caravan when anticipating an attack from Esau, the host of Leah and the host of Rachel, agreeing in their number with the name Mahanaim (two hosts’), are dwelt upon with constant repetition and emphasis. So also the same word is employed for the “ messengers ’’ of God and the “ messengers’? to Esau; and so, further on in the history, the “face’’ of God and the ‘face’? of Esau are named by the same word (xxiii. 30, xxxili. 10). It is as if there were a correspond- ence throughout between the human and the divine, the inner and outer parts of the event, — the host of God and the hosts of Jacob; the messengers of God and the messengers of Jacob; the face of God and the face of Esau. The very name of the tor- rent on whose banks the event took place seems to be derived from the “ wrestling ”’ ¢ of the patriarch with the angel. The whole narrative hovers be-— tween the real and the ideal, earth and heaven. How or when the town of Mahanaim arose on the spot thus signalized we are not told. We next meet with it in the records of the conquest. The line separating Gad from Manasseh would appear to have run through or close to it, since it is named — in the specification of the frontier of each tribe (Josh. xiii. 26 and 30). It was also on the southern ~ boundary of the district of Bashan (ver. 80). But | it was certainly within the territory of Gad (Josh. | xxi. 38, 39), and therefore on the south side of the — torrent Jabbok, as indeed we should infer from the © history of Genesis, in which it lies between Gilead — probably the modern Jebel Jilad— and the tor- | rent. The town with its ‘“suburbs”’ was allotted — to the service of the Merarite Levites (Josh. xxi, 39; 1 Chron. vi. 80). From some cause— the sanctity of its original foundation, or the strength — of its position ¢— Mahanaim had become in the time of the monarchy a ,place of mark. When, ’ after the death of Saul, Abner undertook the estab- lishment of the kingdom of Ishbosheth, unable to d To the latter Josephus testifies : MapeuBodal— | so he renders the Hebrew Mahanaim —xadAiorn KOs oxvpwtaty TOAIs (Ant. vii. 9, § 8). | MAHANAIM eccupy any of the towns of Benjamin or Ephraim, which were then in the hands of the Philistines, he fixed on Mahanaim as his head-quarters. There the new king was crowned over all Israel, east as well as west of the Jordan (2 Sam. ii. 9). From thence Abner made his disastrous expedition to Gibeon (ver. 12), and there apparently the unfor- tunate Ishbosheth was murdered (iv. 5), the mur- derers making off to Hebron by the way of the yalley of the Jordan. The same causes which led Abner to fix Ish- bosheth’s residence at Mahanaim probably induced Dayid to take refuge there when driven out of the western part of his kingdom by Absalom. He pro- ceeds thither without hesitation or inquiry, but as if when Jerusalem was lost it was the one alternative (2 Sam. xvii. 24; 1 K. ii. 8). It was then a walled town, capacious enough to contain the “ hundreds ” and the “thousands’”’ of David’s followers (xviii. 1, 4; and compare “ ten thousand,” ver. 3); with gates, and the usual provision for the watchman of a fortified town (see the remark of Josephus quoted in the note). But its associations with royal per- sons were not fortunate. One king had already been murdered within its walls, and it was here that David received the news of the death of Ab- salom, and made the walls of the “chamber over the gate ’’ resound with his cries. Mahanaim was the seat of one of Solomon's commissariat officers (1 K. iv. 14); and it is alluded to in the Song which bears his name (vi. 13), in terms which, though very obscure, seem at any rate to show that at the date of the composition of that poem it was still in repute for sanctity, possibly famous for some ceremonial commemorating the original vision of the patriarch: «+ What will ye see in the Shulamite? We see as it were the dance (mecholah, a word usually applied to dances of a religious nature ; see vol. i. p. 539).of the two hosts of Mahanaim.”’ On.the monument of Sheshonk (Shishak) at Karnak, in the 22d cartouch — one of those which -are believed to contain the names of Israelite cities ‘conquered by that king —a name appears which is ‘read as Jf“-ha-n-m4, that is, Mahanaim. The ad- joining cartouches contain names which are read as Beth-shean, Shunem, Megiddo, Beth-horon, Gibeon, and other Israelite names (Brugsch, Geogr. der Nachbarlinder Aiyyptens, etc., p. 61). If this interpretation may be relied on, it shows that the javasion of Shishak was more extensive than we should gather from the records of the Bible (2 Chr. -xii.), which are occupied mainly with occurrences -at the metropolis. Possibly the army entered by the plains of Philistia and Sharon, ravaged Esdraélon and some towns like Mahanaim just beyond Jordan, and then returned, either by the same route or by the Jordan Valley, to Jerusalem, attacking it last. This would account for Rehoboam’s non-resistance, ‘and also for the fact, of which special mention is made, that many of the chief men of the country had taken refuge in the city. It should, however, be remarked that the names occur in most promis- ' cuous order, and that none has been found resem- _ bling Jerusalem. } j though its exact position is not so certain. ‘arliest mention of it appears to be that of the As to the identification of Mahanaim with any 'modern site or remains, little can be said. To Eusebius and Jerome it appears to have been un- known. A place called Mahneh does certainly exist among the villages of. the east of Jordan, The MAHANAIM Liat Jewish traveller hap-Parchi, according to whom Machnajim is Machneh, and stands about half a day’s journey in a due east direction from Beth- san” (Zunz,-in Asher’s Benj. of Tudela, p. 408). Mahneh is named in the lists of Dr. Eli Smith among the places of Jebel Ajlin (Rob. Bibl. Res. 1st ed., iii. App. 166). It is marked on Kiepert’s map (1856) as exactly east of Beth-shan, but about 30 miles distant therefrom — 7. e. not half but a long whole day’s journey. It is also mentioned, and its identity with Mahanaim upheld, by Porter (Handbook, p. 822). But the distance of Mahneh from the Jordan and from both the Wady Zirka and the Yarmik—each of which has claims to represent the torrent Jabbok — seems to forbid this conclusion. At any rate the point may be recom- mended to the investigation of future travellers east of the Jordan. G. * Mr. Porter’s remark (Handbook, ii. 322) is merely that ‘perhaps’? Mfahneh may be the ancient Mahanaim; but he cannot be said to “uphold” that identity (see above). In his more recent article on this name in Kitto’s Cyclop. of Biblical Litera- ture (1866) he suggests that “the ruins of Gerasa, the most extensive and splendid east of the Jor- dan, may occupy the site of Mahanaim.” On the other hand, Mr. Tristram, who visited Mahneh, regards the other as altogether the better opinion. He describes the place as near “a fine natural pond, with traces of many buildings, grass-grown and beneath the soil,’ and “sufficiently exten- sive to have belonged to a considerable place,” though “there is no trace of a wall, such as must have been there when David sat in the gate and wept for his son Absalom.” He admits that the situation of Mahneh so far north of the Jabbok presents some difficulty, but argues that this and other objections are not insuperable. ‘¢Mahneh is on the borders of Bashan (see Josh. xiii. 30), and though to the north, it is also to the east of the Jabbok, and therefore outside of the line where the river was the boundary of Gilead and Bashan. It is probable, also, that in Genesis the ‘Mount of Gilead’ may be used in a general signification — not confined to Jebel Osha, but in- cluding also Ajlan, which was certainly a portion of Gilead. Considering the geography of the region, it would have been more natural for Jacob to take this course in his flight from Laban, than to have gone south to Jebel Osha, and then turned nortn- wards again to cross the deep ravine of the J abbok. There is therefore, I conceive, every probability that the name of Mahanaim has been preserved in Mahneh, and that these grass-grown mounds repre- sent all that is left of the capital of Ishbosheth (2 Sam. ii. 8) and the refuge of David” (Land of Israel, 2d ed., p. 487 f.). Mr. Grove also, who writes the above article, represents Mahneh as probably Mahanaim in his Index to Clark’s Bible Atlas, p. 102. It must be that he would abate something at present from the force of his own objections as urged above. The region is still remarkable for its forests of oaks. It was in the boughs of such a tree that Absalom was caught by his hair, and, thus entangled, was slain. “As L rode under a grand old oak tree,” says Mr. Tristram, “I too lost my hat and turban, which were caught by a bough” (Land of’ Israel, p. 467). The defeat, too, of Absalom and his army was the more complete because “the battle was scattered over the face of ali the country, and the wood 1758 MAHANEH-DAN devoured more people that day than the sword devoured ’’ (2 Sam. xviii. 8). The ruins of Mah- neh are on one of the brenches of Wady el-Hemdn, which is known as Wady Mahneh on that account (Rob. Phys. Geogi. p. 86). H. MA’HANEH-DAN (]TV2S: rapeu- Bod} Adv: Castra Din: Camp-of-Dan: Luth. das Lager Dans), a name which commemorated the last encampment of the band of six hundred Danite warriors before setting out on their expedi- tion to Laish. The position of the spot is specified with great precision, as ‘behind Kirjath-jearim ”’ (Judg. xviii. 12), and as “between Zorah and Eshtaol”’ (xiii. 25; here the name is translated in the A. V.). Kirjath-jearim is identified with toler- able certainty in Kuriet el-Enab, and Zorah in Sur’a, about 7 miles S. W. of it. But no site has yet been suggested for Eshtaol which would be compatible with the above conditions, requiring as they do that Kirjath-jearim should lie between it and Zorah. In Kustul, a “remarkable conical hill about an hour from Kuriet el-Enab, towards Jeru- salem,’’ south of the road, we have a site which is not dissimilar in name to Eshtaol, while its position sufficiently answers the requirements. Mr. Wil- liams (/Zoly City, i. 12 note) was shown a site on the north side of the Wady Ismail, N. N. E. from Deir el-Howa—which bore the name of Beit Mahanem, and which he suggests may be identical with Mahaneh Dan. The position is certainly very suitable; but the name does not occur in the lists or maps of other travellers — not even of Tobler (Dritte Wanderung, 1859); and the question must be left with that started above, of the identity of Kustul and Eshtaol, for the investigation of future explorers and Arabic scholars. The statement in xviii. 12 of the origin of the name is so precise, and has so historical an air, that it supplies a strong reason for believing that the events there recorded took place earlier than those in xiii. 25, though in the present arrange- ment of the book of Judges they come after them. G. MA’HARAT [B syl.] Onn. [hasty, swift]: Noepé; Alex. Maepae:, in 2 Sam. xxiii. 28; Mapat, [Vat. FA. Neepe,] Alex. Moopu, 1 Chr. xi. 30; Menpd, Alex. Moopai, 1 Chr. xxvii. 138: Maharai, Marai, 1 Chr. xxvii. 13), an inhabitant of Neto- phah in the tribe of Judah, and one of David’s captains. He was of the family of Zerah, and commanded the tenth monthly division of the army. MA’HATH (YD [perh. fire pan, censer]: Maaé; [Vat. Me@:] Mahath). 1. The son of Amasai, a Kohathite of the house of Korah, and ancestor of Heman the singer (1 Chr. vi. 35). In ver. 25 he is called Antmorn (Hervey, Geneul. p. 215). 2. (Alex. Maced, 2 Chr. xxix. 12; [Vat., by inclu- sion of the following word, @avaiBavaas, 2 Chr. xxxi. 13.]) Also a Kohathite, who, in the reign of . Hezekiah, was appointed, as one of the representa- tives of his house, to assist in the purification of the Levites, by which they prepared themselves to cleanse the Temple from the traces of idolatrous worship. He was apparently the same who, with other Levites, had the charge of the tithes and fledicated offerings, under the superintendence of Cononiah and Shimei. MAHLITES, THE MA’/HAVITE, THE (O°, #.c. “the Machavites ”: [Rom. 6 Maw! Vat. FA.] 0 Miers Alex. 0 Maweiv: Mahumites), the designation of Eliel, one of the warriors of king David’s guard, whose name is preserved in the catalogue of 1 Chron. only (xi. 46). It will be observed that the word is plural in the Hebrew text, but the whole it is impossible to draw any inference from that circumstance. The Targum has STD 7797, “from Machavua.”’ jectures that originally the Hebrew may have stood DT, “from the Hivites.”’ Others have pro- posed to insert an N and read ‘the Mahanaimite ”’ (First, Hdwd. p. 721. a; Bertheau, Chionik, p. 136). G. MAHA/ZIOTH (MISTS [visions]: Mea- (0; [Vat. in ver. 4, MeA(w0;] Alex. MaaCiw0: Muhazioth), one of the 14 sons of Heman the Kohathite, who formed part of the Temple choir, under the leadership of their father with Asaph and Jeduthun. He was chief of the 23d course of twelve musicians (1 Chr. xxv. 4, 30), whose office it was to blow the horns. [Horuir, Amer. ed.] mpovdéuevoov: Accelera spolia detrahere festina), son of Isaiah, and younger brother of Shear-jashub, Damascus and Samaria were soon to be plundered 1153). In reference to the grammatical construc tion of the several parts of the name, whether the verbal parts are imperatives, indicatives, infinitives, opinions of critics, differ, though all agree as to its general import (comp. Drechsler in /oc.). E. H—e. MAH’LAH (TarT2 [disease]: Maad, Num. xxvi. 33; Maaad, [Alex. Mada,] Num. xxvii. 1; Alex. Mooda, 1 Chr. vii. 18: Macala in all cases, except Mohola, 1 Chr. vii. 18), the eldest of the five daughters of Zelophehad, the grandson of Manasseh, in whose favor the law of succession to an inheritance was altered (Num. xxvii. 1-11). She tion of the territory of Manasseh, east of the Jordan. MAH’LI COM [stckly, pining]: Mooal; [Vat. -Aez, and once MonaA;] Moholi). 1. The son of Merari, the son of Levi, and ancestor of the family of the MAHLITES (Num. iii. 20; 1 Chr. vi. 19, 29, xxiv. 26). In the last quoted verse there is apparently a gap in the text, Libni and Shimei belonging to the family of Gershom (comp. ver. 20, 42), and Eleazar and Kish being afterwards de- scribed as the sons of Mahli (1 Chr. xxiii. 21, xxiv. 28). One of his descendants, Sherebiah, was appointed one of the ministers of the Temple in the days of Ezra (Eazr. viii. 18). Manat in the A. V. of Ex. vi. 19, Mout in 1 Esdr. viii. 47, and MACHLI in the margin. 2. The son of Mushi, and grandson of Merari (1 Chr. vi. 47, xxiii. 23, xxiv. 30). | MAH LITES, THE (OMS [see abore]: | of the list is evidently in so confused a state, that Kennicott (Dissert. 231) con- by the king of Assyria (Is. viii. 1-4; comp. p. , or verbal adjectives, leading versions, as well as the Josh. xvii. 3; MaAad, Num. xxxvi. 11; Maead} - married her cousin, and received as her share a por- | MA’HER-SHA’LAL-HASH’-BAZ (72 wr ep): 4 “WD: Taxéws cxdrcvoor dkéws of whom nothing more is known than that his name was given by Divine direction, to indicate that _ ho a Lh He is called | MAHLON 5 Meoai [Vat.~Aer; in ch. xxvi., LXX. omit] : Mohclite, Moholi), the descendants of Mahli the son of Merari (Num. iii. 33, xxvi. 58). MAH’LON (]171713 [pining]: Maaady: Maalon), the first husband of Ruth. He and his brother Chilion were sons of Elimelech and Naomi, and are described, exactly in the same terms with a subsequent member of their house — Jesse, — as « Epbrathites of Bethlehem-judah ”’ (Ruth i. 2, 5; iv. 9, 10; comp. 1 Sam. xvii. 12). It is uncertain which was the elder of the two. In the narrative (i. 2, 5) Mahlon is mentioned first ; but in his formal address to the elders in the gate (iv. 9), Boaz says “Chilion and Mahlon.” Like his brother, Mahlon died in the land of Moab with- | out offspring, which in the Targum on Ruth (i. 5) is explained to have been a judgment for their transgression of the law in ee ying a Moabitess. In the Targum on 1 Chr. iv. 22, Mahlon is identi- fied with Joash, possibly on account of the double meaning of the Hebrew word which follows, and which signifies both ‘had dominion ”’ and ‘“ mar- ried.” (See that passage.) [CHILION, Amer. ed.] MA’/HOL (am [a dance]: Mda; Alex. Maova: Mahol). The father of Ethan the Ezrah- ite, and Heman, Chalcol, and Darda, the four men most famous for wisdom next to Solomon himself (1 K. iv. 31), who in 1 Chr. ii. 6 are the sons and immediate descendants of Zerah. Mahol is evi- dently a proper name, but some consider it an appellative, and translate “the sons of Mahol”’ by ‘tthe sons of song,’ or “sons of the choir,” in reference to their skill in music. In this case it would be more correct to render it ‘sons of the dance ; ” machol corresponding to the Greek xédpos in its original sense of “a dance ina ring,” though it has not followed the meanings which have been attached to its derivatives ‘“ chorus ” and * choir.” Jarchi says that “they were skilled in composing hymns which were recited in the dances of song.” Another explanation still is that Ethan and his brethren the minstrels were called ‘the sons of Mahol,” because mdachél is the name of an instru- ment of music in Ps. cl. 4. Josephus (Ant. viii. 2, § 5) calls him ’Hudwyv. W. A. W. _MATA’/NEAS (Mardvvas; [Ald. Maavvatas:] om. in Vulg.) = MAAsErAn, 7 (1 Esdr. ix. 48); probably a corruption of MAASIAs. * MAIL. [Arms, ii. 1.] * MAINSAIL, Acts xxvii. 40. (Surp, (6.)] MA’KAZ (Yi29 [end, perh. border-town] : [Rom. Makés; Vat.] Mayeuas; Alex. Mayas: Macces), a place, apparently a town, named once only (1 K. iv. 9), in the specification of the juris- diction of Solomon’s commissariat officer, Ben- Dekar. The places which accompany it — Shaal- ‘bim, Beth-shemesh, and Elon-beth-hanan — seem to have been on the western slopes of the moun- tains of Judah and Benjamin, 7. e. the district oecupied by the tribe of Dan. But Makaz has not ‘been discovered. Michmash — the reading of the ‘LXX. (but of no other version )— is hardly possible, ‘both for distance and direction, though the posi- tion and subsequent importance of Michmash, and he a E. g. Gideon's, Saul’s, and David's attacks. ‘Evcampments, i. 733 6.] > 'The Moslem tradition is that the attack took place [See MAKKEDAH 1759 the great fertility of its neighborhood, render it not an unlikely seat for a commissariat officer. G. * MAKE has the sense of ‘ do,’’ “ be occupied with,’’— “ What mest thou in this place’’ (Judg. xviii. 3). The use also of “make” as signifying “ pretend,” ‘ feign *’ (Josh. viii. 15, ix. 4; 2 Sam. xiii. 6; Luke xxiv. 28), deserves notice. Hi. MA/’/KED (Makéd; Alex. MareB: Syr. Mokor. Vulg. Mageth), one of the “strong and great ”’ cities of Gilead — Josephus says Galilee, but this must be an error — into which the Jews were driven by the Ammonites under Timotheus, and from which they were delivered by Judas Maccabeeus (1 Mace. y. 26, 36; in the latter passage the name is given in the A. V. MAGED). By Josephus (Ant. xii. 8, § 3) it is not mentioned. Some of the ther cities named in this narrative have been identified ; but no name corresponding to Maked has yet been discovered; and the conjecture of Schwarz (p. 230) (FA for $12"), though ingenious, can hardly be accepted without further proof. G. MAKHELOTH (7°72: Mannade: Maceloth), a place only mentioned in Num. xxxiii. 25 as that of a desert encampment of the Israelites. The name is plural in form, and may signify “places of meeting.’’ ISAS MAKKE’DAH (TTR [place of shep xv. 41] Maknddy that it is a corruption of MINNITH herds|: Maknda, once [Josh. [Vat. also Josh. x. 28]; Alex. Maxnda: Syr. Mokor, and Nakoda: Maceda), a place memor- able in the annals of the conquest of Canaan as the scene of the execution by Joshua of the five con- federate kings: an act by which the victory of Beth-horon was sealed and consummated, and the subjection of the entire southern portion of the country insured. Makkedah is first mentioned (Josh. x. 10) with Azekah, in the narrative of the battle of Beth-horon, as the point to which the rout extended; but it is difficult to decide whether this refers to one of the operations in the earlier portion of the fight, or is not rather an anticipa- tion of its close —of the circumstances related in detail in vv. 11 and 16, &e. But with regard to the event which has conferred immortality on Mak- kedah — the “crowning mercy’? — (if we may be allowed to borrow an expression from a not dis- similar transaction in our own history)—there is fortunately no obscurity or uncertainty. It un- questionably occurred in the afternoon of that tremendous day, which ‘“ was like no day before or after it.’ The order of the events of the twenty- four hours which elapsed after the departure from the ark and tabernacle at the camp seems to have been as follows. ‘The march from the depths of the Jordan Valley at Gilgal, through the rocky: clefts of the ravines which lead up to the central hills, was made during the night. By or before dawn they had reached Gibeon; then —at the favorite hour for such surprises * — came the sud- den onset and the first carnage? ; then the chase and the appeal of Joshua to “the rising sun, just darting his a rays over the ridge of ‘the hill of on a Friday, and that the day was prolonged by one half, to prevent the Sabbath being encroached upon. (See Jalaladdin, Temple of Jerusalem, p. 287 ) 1760 MAKKEDAH Gibeon in the rear; then the furious storm assist- ing and completing the rout. In the mean time the detection of the five chiefs in their hiding-place has been communicated to Joshua, and, as soon as the matter in hand will allow, he rushes on with the whole of his force to Makkedah (ver. 21). The first thing to be done is to form a regular camp’ (FT377%5). The next to dispose of the five chiefs, and that by no hurried massacre, but in so delib- erate and judicial a manner as at once to infuse terror into the Canaanites and confidence into his own followers, to show to both that “thus shall Jehovah do to all the enemies”’ of Israel. The cave in the recesses of which the wretched kings were hidden was a well-known one.* It was close to the town; © we may safely conclude that the whole proceeding was in full view of the walls. At last the ceremonial is over, the strange and significant parable has been acted, and the bodies of Adoni- zedek and his companions are swinging © from the trees — possibly the trees of some grove sacred to the abominable rites of the Canaanite Ashtaroth — in the afternoon sun. Then Joshua turns to the town itself. To force the walls, to put the king and all the inhabitants to the sword (ver. 28) is to that indomitable energy, still fresh after the gigantic labors and excitements of the last twenty- four hours—the work of an hour or two. And now the evening has arrived, the sun is at last sinking — the first sun that has set since the depar- ture from Gilgal—and the tragedy is terminated by cutting down the five bodies from the trees, and restoring thei to the cave, which is then so blocked up with stones as henceforth never again to become refuge for friend or foe of Israel. The taking of Makkedah was the first in that series of sieges and destructions by which the Great Captain possessed himself of the main points of de- fense throughout this portion of the country. Its situation has hitherto eluded discovery. The cata- logue of the cities of Judah in Joshua (xv. 41) places it in the Shefelah or maritime plain, but unfortunately it forms one of a group of towns of which few or none are identified. The report of Eusebius and Jerome ( Onomasticon, ‘ Maceda”’) is that it lay 8 miles to the east of Eleutheropolis, Beit-Jibrin, a position irreconcilable with every requirement of the narrative. Porter (Handbook 224, 251) suggests a ruin on the northern slope of the Wady es Sumt, bearing the somewhat similar name of el-Klédiah; but it is difficult to under- stand how this can have been the position of Mak- kedah, which we should imagine would be found, if it ever is found, considerably nearer Ramleh or Jimzu. Van de Velde (Memoir, p. 832) would place. it at Sumeil, a village standing on a low hill 6 or 7 miles N.W. of Bezt-Jibrin ; but the only claim of this site appears to be the reported existence in the a It is throughout distinguished by the definite arti- cle, TYAN, t the cave.” b The preposition used is the same as that employed to describe the position of the five kings in the cave — tT Tp O2, ‘in Makkedah ” — re hae apm in the caye.”’ c The word Tn, rendered “hang” in ver. 26, has the force of suspending. See Ps. cxxxvii. 2; 2 Sam xviii. 10; and other passages where it must haye MALACHI neighborhood of a large cavern, while its position — at least 8 miles further from Beth-horon than even el-K lédiah — would make the view of the narrative taken above impossible. G. MAK’/TESH (WD, d with the def. ar- ticle [see below]: 7 karaxexoupévn: Pila), a place, evidently in Jerusalem, the inhabitants of which are denounced by Zephaniah (i. 11). Ewald con- jectures (Propheten, 364) that it was the ‘ Phee- nician quarter ’’ of the city, in which the traders of that nation —the Canaanites (A. V. ‘“ mer- chants ’’), who in this passage are associated with Mactesh — resided, after the custom in oriental towns. As to which part of the city this quarter occupied we have little or no indication. The meaning of ‘‘ Mactesh ’’ is probably a deep hollow, literally a “mortar.’’¢ This the Targum identi- fies with the torrent Kedron, the deep basin or ravine of which sinks down below the eastern wall and southeastern corner of the city. The Targum, probably with an eye to the traditional unclean- ness of this valley, and to the idol-worship perpe- trated at its lower end, says: “ Howl ye inhabitants of the torrent Kedron, for all the people are broken whose works were like the works of the people of Canaan.’”? But may it not, with equal probability, have been the deep valley which separated the Temple from the upper city, and which at the time of Titus’ siege was, as it still is, crowded with the ‘“ bazaars’’ of the merchants? (See p. 1306 a.) G. MAL/ACHI (928772: Maaaxlas in the title only: IM alachias), the last, and_ therefore called “the seal’’ of the prophets, as his prophecies constitute the closing book of thecanon. His name is probably contracted from Malachijah, ‘6 messenger of Jehovah,” as Abi (2 K. xviii. 2) from Abijah (2 Chr. xxix. 1). Of his personal history nothing is known. A tradition preserved in Pseudo-Epi- phanius (De Vitis Proph.) relates that Malachi was of the tribe of Zebulun, and born after the captivity at Sopha (So@a) in the territory of that tribe. According to the same apocryphal story he died young, and was buried with his fathers in his own country. Jerome, in the preface to his Com- mentary on Malachi, mentions a belief which was current among the Jews, that Malachi was identi- eal with Ezra the priest, because the circumstances recorded in the narrative of the latter are also men- tioned by the prophet. The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, on the words ‘ by the hand of Malachi” (i. 1), gives the gloss “whose name is called Ezra the scribe.’’ With equal probability Malachi has been identified with Mordecai, Nehemiah, and Ze- rubbabel. .-The LXX. render “by Malachi’’ (Mal. i. 1), ‘by the hand of his angel; ’’ and this trans- lation appears to have given rise to the idea that Malachi, as well as Haggai and John the Baptist, this meaning. It is an entirely distinct term from YP, which, though also translated by “ hang” in the A: V., really means to crucify. See MEPHIBOSHETH. d One of the few cases in which our translators have represented the Hebrew letter Caph by K, which they commonly reserve for Koph. [See also MEKoNAH.] é The literal Aquiia renders the words by eis rdv 6A- pov; Theodotion, év ro Baber, The Hebrew term is the same as that employed in Judg. xy. 19 for the hollow basin or combe in Lehi from which the spring burst forth for the relief of Samson. MALACHI vas an angel in human shape (comp. Mal. iii. 1; _ Esdr. i. 40; Jerome, Comm. in Hag. i. 13). lyril alludes to this belief only to express his dis- pprobation, and characterizes those who held it as omancers (of pdtny éppabwdnnacw kK. T. A.) nother Hebrew éradition associated Malachi with Taggai and Zechariah as the companions of Daniel then he saw the vision recorded in Dan. x. 7 Smith’s Select Discourses, p. 214; ed. 1660), and 3 among the first members of the Great Synagogue, ‘hich consisted of 120 elders. The time at which his prophecies were delivered i not difficult to ascertain. Cyril makes him con- smporary with Haggai and Zechariah, or a little iter. Syncellus (p. 240 B) places these three proph- is under Joshua the son of Josedec. That Mal- shi was contemporary with Nehemiah, is rendered robable by a comparison of ii. 8 with Neh. xiii. 5; ii. 10-16 with Neh. xiii. 23, &c.; and iii. 7-12 ‘ith Neh. xiii. 10, &c. That he prophesied after qe times of Haggai and Zechariah is inferred from is omitting to mention the restoration of the emple, and from no allusion being made to him y Ezra. The Captivity was already a thing of the ing past, and is not referred to. The existence of 1e Temple-service is presupposed in i. 10, iii. 1, 10. ‘he Jewish nation had still a political chief (i. 8), istinguished by the same title as that borne by iehemiah (Neh. xii. 26), to which Gesenius assigns ‘Persian origin. Hence Vitringa concludes that falachi delivered his prophecies after the second turn of Nehemiah from Persia (Neh. xiii. 6), and ibsequently to the 32d year of Artaxerxes Longi- ianus (cir. B. C. 420), which is the date adopted y Kennicott and Hales, and approved by Davidson Introd. p. 985). It may be mentioned that in the eder Olam Rabba (p. 55, ed. Meyer), the date of falachi’s prophecy is assigned, with that of Haggai id Zechariah, to the second year of Darius; and is death in the Seder Olam Zuta (p. 105) is ‘aced, with that of the same two prophets, in the 2d year of the Medes and Persians. The prin- pal reasons adduced by Vitringa, and which appear melusively to fix the time of Malachi’s prophecy 4 contemporary with Nehemiah, are the follow- ig: The offenses denounced by Malachi as pre- iiling among the people, and especially the cor- iption of the priests by marrying foreign wives, wrespond with the actual abuses with which ‘ehemiah had to contend in his efforts to bring yout a reformation (comp. Mal. ii. 8 with Neh. i. 29). The alliance of the high-priest’s family ith Tobiah the Ammonite (Neh. xiii. 4, 28) and anballat the Horonite had introduced neglect. of ‘e customary Temple-service, and the offerings and ‘thes due to the Levites and priests, in consequence “which the Temple was forsaken (Neh. xiii. 4-13), ad the Sabbath openly profaned (id. 15-21). The ort interval of Nehemiah’s absence from Jerusa- m had been sufficient for the growth of these mruptions, and on his return he found it necessary | put them down with a strong hand, and to do fer again the work that Ezra had done a few vars before. From the striking parallelism be- veen the state of things indicated in Malachi’s ‘ophecies and that actually existing on Nehemiah’s turn from the court of Artaxerxes, it is on all ‘counts highly probable that the efforts of the cular governor were on this occasion seconded by e preaching of “ Jehovah's messenger,’’ and that lalachi occupied the same position with regard to reformation under Nehemiah, which Isaiah held 111 MALACHI 1761 in the time of Hezekiah, and Jeremiah in that of Josiah. The last chapter of canonical Jewish his- tory is the key to the last chapter of its prophecy. The book of Malachi is contained in four chap- ters in our version, as in the LXX., Vulgate, and Peshito-Syriac. In the Hebrew the 3d and 4th form but one chapter. The whole prophecy nat- urally divides itself into three sections, in the first of which Jehovah is represented as the loving father and ruler of his people (i. 2-ii. 9); in the second, as the supreme God and father of all (ii. 10-16); and in the third, as their righteous and final judge (ii. 17-end). These may be again subdivided into smaller sections, each of which follows a certain order: first, a short sentence; then the skeptical questions which might be raised by the people; and, finally, their full and triumphant refutation. The formal and almost scholastic manner of the prophecy seemed to Ewald to indicate that it was rather delivered in writing than spoken publicly. But though this may be true of the prophecy in its present shape, which probably presents the sub- stance of oral discourses, there is no reason for sup- posing that it was not also pronounced orally in public, like the warnings and denunciations of the older prophets, however it may differ from them in vigor of conception and high poetic diction. The style of the prophet’s language is suitable to the manner of his prophecy. Smooth and easy to a remarkable degree, it is the style of the reasoner rather than of the poet. We miss the fiery pro- phetic eloquence of Isaiah, and have in its stead the calm and almost artificial discourse of the practiced orator, carefully modeled upon those of the ancient prophets: thus blending in one the characteristics of the old prophetical and the more modern dia- logistic structures. I. The first section of the prophet’s message con- sists of two parts: the first (i. 1-6) addressed to the people generally, in which Jehovah, by his messenger, asserts his love for them, and proves it, in answer to their reply, “* Wherein hast thou loved us?’ by referring to the punishment of Edom as an example. ‘The second part (i. 6-ii. 9) is ad- dressed especially to the priests, who had despised the name of Jehovah, and had been the chief movers of the defection from his worship and covenant. They are rebuked for the worthlessness of their sacrifices and offerings, and their profanation of the Temple thereby (i. 7-14). The denunciation of their offense is followed by the threat of punish- ment for future neglect (ii. 1-3), and the character of the true priest is drawn as the companion pic- ture to their own (ii. 5-9). II. In the second section (ii. 10-16) the prophet reproves the people for their intermarriages with the idolatrous heathen, and the divorces by which they separated themselves from .their legitimate wives, who wept at the altar of Jehovah; in viola- tion of the great law of marriage which God, the father of all, established at the beginning. III. The judgment, which the people lightly regard, is announced with all solemnity, ushered in by the advent of the Messiah. ‘The Lord, preceded by his messenger, shall come to his Temple sud- denly, to purify the land from its iniquity, and to execute swift judgment upon those who violate their duty to God and their neighbor. The first part (ii. 17-iii. 5) of the section terminates with the threatened punishment; in the second (iii. 6-12) the faithfulness of God to his promises is vindi- cated, and the people exhorted to repentance, with 1762 MALACHI its attendant blessings; in the third (iii. 13-iv. 6) they are reproved for their want of confidence in God, and for confusing good and evil. The final severance between the righteous and the wicked is then set forth, and the great day of judgment is depicted, to be announced by the coming of Elijah, or John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ (Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10-18). The prophecy of Malachi is alluded to in the N. T., and its canonical authority thereby estab- lished (comp. Mark i. 2, ix. 11, 12; Luke i. 17; Rom. ix. 13). W a VS * It has been made a question (not distinctly ad- verted to above) whether the Hebrew term for Mala- chi in i. 1 denotes the actual name of the prophet or his mission and office. According to this form of the question the writing may be anonymous, and yet that not affect at all its canonical character or authority. This idea of the appellative import of the name probably appears in éy yerp) dyyéAov avrov of the LXX. Jerome also entertained this view Vitringa, among other later writers, sup- ports essentially the same view (Observatt. Sacre, li. 853 ff); while Hengstenberg (denying the ae erence to the prophet, either as a personal or a symbolic name) maintains that it is identical with ‘my messenger”? in iii. 1. ( Christologie, iii. 582 ff., 2te Ausg.; or Keith’s transl. iii. 272 ff) The correspondence between the name and Malachi’s errand as ‘“Jehovah’s messenger ’’ or “my mes- senger,”’ 2. €. of Jehovah, does not show the name to be fictitious; for this correspondence between names and history or vocation is a well-known characteristic of Hebrew names (for example, Elijah, Isaiah), and may be accounted for sometimes as accidental and sometimes as a change of the original name (subsequently lost) for the sake of the con- formity. [NAmMxs, Amer. ed.] Hengstenberg urges that the title (i. 1) says nothing of the parentage or birth-place of the prophet. But this omission is not peculiar to Malachi; for of the sixteen prophets whose writings are preserved in the Canon, the fathers of only eight are named. ‘The birth-place of only three (Amos, Micah, and Nahum) is men- tioned, and in the case of Habakkuk and Haggai, nothing is added to the names except ‘the prophet”’ 92517). Another of his arguments is that Nehe- miah, the contemporary of Malachi, makes no men- tion of him. But history shows innumerable in- stances in which writers of the same period who are known in other ways to have been personally connected with each other, have left in their works no evidence of this knowledge and intimacy. Be- sides, in this case. Nehemiah may possibly have been absent from Jerusalem at the time of Malachi’s greatest activity (see Neh. xiii. 6), and hence would have had so much less occasion for speaking of him. Further, the use of the same expression as a proper name in one place is not inconsistent with its literal sense in another place; and still more questionable is this identification if the Hebrew expression in i. 1 differs from that in iii. 1, as ‘messenger of Jehovah’? differs from ‘‘my messenger.’’ Hengsten- berg denies, in opposition to the best authorities (Fiirst, Ges. s. .), that os ia) is abridged from maDN 7". Hiivernick’s inl. in das A. Test., ii. 431, and espe- cially Nagelsbach’s article on “ Maleachi’”? in Her- zog’s Real-Encykl. viii. 755. Bleek remarks that In support of that etymology see MALCHAM ‘‘the form itself of the name leads us much goone to think of an actual name, as also by far most of interpreters understand it’ (Einl. in das A. p- 566). The unity which characterizes the contents 0 Malachi is unusual. Instead of being compose of detached messages or themes, as in the case the other prophets, the parts here arise out of each other by a natural gradation. The ground. thought which pervades the book is that of th relations of God and his chosen people to each other under the ancient and the new economy. Literature. — For the older writers on Malach either separately or as one of the minor prophet (among whom may be mentioned Calvin, Bahrdt Seb. Schmid, Faber, Pococke), see Winer’s Handb der theol. Literatur, i. 222 f. The later commen: tators (most of them in connection with the Mino: Prophets) are Rosenmiiller, Ewald, Umbreit, Hit. zig, Maurer, Keil (Bd. iv., Bibl. Comm. 1866) Laur. Reinke, Henderson (Amer. ed., 1860); an¢ in this country Noyes, 'T. V. Moore (Prophets of the Restoration, New York, 1856), and Cowles. (See the lists under AMos and HABAKKUK.) Reinke’s work (Der Prophet Maleachi, Giessen, 1850) con- tains an introduction, the Hebrew text, and g translation, together with philological and historiea notes, and ‘is the most complete modern work or this prophet. On the Christology of the book, one may see Hengstenberg’s Christology of the O. Test iii. 272-364 (Keith's transl.); Stahelin’s Die Mes. sianischen Weissagungen, p. 135 f.; Héavernick Vorlesungen tib. die Theoloyie des A. T. p. 178 f.. and J. Pye Smith’s Scripture pis Meda to the Mes sah, 5th ed., i. 295 f. Hs MAL’ACHY (Malachias), the prophet Mal achi (2 Esdr. i. 40). MAL’/CHAM (aD on [their king]: Mea- xds; Alex. MeAyap: “Molchom). 1. One of the heads of the fathers of Benjamin, and son of Shaharaim by his wife Hodesh (1 Chr. viii. 9) whom the Targum of R. Joseph identifies with Baara. 2. (6 BactAebs atr@v: Melchom.) ‘The idol Molech, as some suppose (Zeph. i. 5). The word literally signifies “their king,” as the margin of our version gives it, and is referred by Gesenius te an idol generally, as invested with regal honors bj its worshippers. He quotes Is. viii. 21 and Am. v. 26 in support of this view, though he refers Jer. xlix. 1, 38, to Molech (as the LXX., the present reading being evidently corrupt), and regards Mal- cham as equivalent to Milecom (1 K. xi. 5, &e.). Hitzig (Kurzg. Hdb. Jeremia), while he consider: the idol Milcom as unquestionably intended in Jer. xlix. 1, renders Malcham literally “ their king ”’ in ver. 3. The same ambiguity occurs in 2 Sam. xii 30, where David, after his conquest of the Am- monites, is said to have taken the crown of “ thei king,” or ‘“* Malcham”’ (see LXX. and Vulg. on J Chr. xx. 2). A legend is told in Jerome’s Quces- tiones Hebr. (1 Chr. xx. 2), how that, as it wat unlawful for a Hebrew to touch anything of gol or silver belonging to an idol, Ittai the Gittite, whe was 2 Philistine, snatched the crown from the head of Milcom, and gave it to David, who thus ay ‘oided the pollution. [[rrat; MotEcu.] a Again, in 2 Sam. xii. 31, the Cethib has 12 oBB where the Keri is roe (A. V. “ through th - ¥ , h. MALCHIAH itick-kiln ”), ad Milecom and Malcen are ene.” tA WV 5 veta:| Melchias). 1. A descendant of Gershom . Chr. vi. 40). ishops’ Bible Melchia. 2. ([Vat. FA. MeAyeta:] Melchia.) A 25). 3. MELCHIAS in 1 Esdr. ix. 26. ople of the land (Ezr. x. 31). ALCHIJAH 4. ler of the circuit or environs of Bethhaccerem. Me (Neh. iii. 14). 9. [Vat. FA. Medxew-] “The goldsmith’s Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 31). the goldsmith ” is taken as a preper name by the CX. (Xapepi), and ‘in the Peshito-Syriac Mal- iah is called “the son of Zephaniah.” The 'Y. has followed the Vulgate and Jarchi. 6. (MeAxias 5 [Vat. FA.] Alex. Medxetas: elchia.) One of the priests who stood at the 5 hand of Ezra when he read the Law to the dple in the street before the Water Gate (Neh. i 4). In 1 Esdr. ix. 44 he is called MEL- TAS. 7. [In Neh., Vat. M. MeAnera; FA. Mea x eta | (priest, the father of Pashur—=Matcnwan 1 eh. xi. 12; Jer. xxxviii. 1), and Metcuran (Jer. 1). B. amar [see above: Alex. MeAxetas.]) ( son of Ham-melech (or “the king’s son,” as is translated in 1 K. xxii. 26; 2 Chr. xxviii. 7), 9 whose dungeon or cistern Jeremiah was cast . xxxviil. 6). The title “king’s son” is ap- 'd to Jerahmeel (Jer. xxxvi. 26), who was among ‘se commissioned by the king to take prisoners miah and Baruch; to Joash, whe appears to held an office inferior to that of the governor the city, and to whose custody Micaiah was com- ted by Ahab (1 K. xxii. 26); and to Maaseiah > was slain by Zichri the Ephraimite in the asion of Judah by Pekah, in the reign of Ahaz Chr. xxviii. 7). It would seem from these pas- that the title “king’s son” was official, like tof ‘king’s mother,” and applied to one of the ul family, who exercised functions somewhat ilar to those of Potiphar in the court of trach. W. A. W. MAL/CHIEL Owa>n [God's king, i. e. dinted by him]: MeaxuiA, Gen. xlvi. 17; Mea- A in Num. and Chr., as Alex. in all cases; t. in Num. Meaxema, in Chr. MeAdAetn:] ‘chiel), the son of Beriah, the son of Asher, and Kimehi's note on the passage is as lows: “¢. €. in the place ef Molech, in the fire hich the children of Ammon made their children iss through to Molech; for Mileom was the abom- tation of the children of Ammon, that is Molech, , MALCHI’AH (mop [Jehovah's king, -e. inaugurated by him]: Meayla; [Vat. Mea- te sen of Levi, and ancestor of Asaph the minstrel _*® The A. V. ed. 1611 here reads Melchiah; the One of “e sons of Parosh, who had married a foreign wife, td put her away at the command of Ezra (Ezr. ([Vat. Alex. FA. Meayeia:] Medchias.) aumerated among the sons ef Harim, who lived _the time of Ezra, and had intermarried with the In 1 Esdr. x. 32 | appears as MELCHIAS, and in Neh. iii. 11 as \4. [Vat. Alex. MeAyera-] Son of Rechab, and > took part in the rebuilding of the wall of Jeru- fem under Nehemiah, and repaired the Dung a,” who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the wall | The word rendered | MALCHI-SHUA 1768 ancestor of the family of the MALcmrELIrEes (Num xxvi. 45). In 1 Chr. vii. 31 he is called the father, that is founder, of Birzavith or Berazith, as is tha reading of the Targum of R. Joseph. Josephus (Ant. ii. 7, § 4) reckons him with Heber among the six sons of Asher, thus making up the number of Jacob's children and grandchildren to seventy, without reckoning great-grandchildren. MAL/CHIELITES, THE (ON DOD: MeAximal; [Vat. Meayerqier:] Melchielite), the descendants of Malchiel, the grandson of Asher (Num. xxvi. 45). MALCHIJSAH (T2419 [Jehovah's king]: McAxia; [Vat. Madxera;] Alex. Meayias: Mel- chias). 1. A priest, the father of Pashur (1 Chr. ix. 12); the same as MALcHIAH 7, and MEL- CHIAH. 2. ([Vat. MeAxeia:] Welchia.) A priest, chief of the fifth of the twenty-four courses appointed by David (1 Chr. xxiv. 9). 3. CAcaBia; [Vat. omits; FA. Sara; Comp. MeAxias: Melchia,] Jammebias[?]) An Israelite layman of the sons of Parosh, who at Ezra’s com- mand put away his foreign wife (Ezr. x. 25). In 1 Esdr. ix. 26 he is called Astras, which agrees with the reading of the LXX. 4, (MeaAxlas ; [ Vat. FA.] Alex. MeaAxetas? Melchias.) Son, that is, descendant of Harim, who with Hashub repaired the Tower of the Furnaces when the wall of Jerusalem was rebuilt by Nehe- miah (Neh. iii. 11). He is probably the same as MALCHIAH 3. 5. (MeaAxia} [ Vat. ]} Alex. MeaAyeia.) One of the priests who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 3). It seems probable that the names in the list referred to are rather those of families than of individuals (comp. 1 Chr. xxiv. 7-18, and Neh. xii. 1-7), and in this case Malchijah in Neh. x. 3 would be the same with the head of the fifth course of priests = MALCHIJAH 2. 6. (Om. in Vat. MS. [also Rom. Alex. FA.1]; Alex. [rather FA.3] Meayecas: Melchia.) One of the priests whe assisted in the solemn dedication of the wall of Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. xii. 42). MALCHI’RAM (a3 [hing of exaltas tion]: Meaxipau; [ Vat. Medxetpau: | Melchi- ram), one of the sons of Jeconiah, or Jehoiachin, the last but one of the kings of Judah (1 Chr. iii. 18). MAL/CHI-SHU’A (DIDO [hing of help]: [Rom. Alex. MeaAxioové; Vat. 1 Chr. viii.,] MeAxeoove, [1 Chr. ix., x.. MeAyeroove; Sin. 1 Chr. x. 2, MeAyioedex:] Melchisuc), one of the sons of king Saul. His position in the family can- not be exactly determined. In the two genealogies of Saul’s house preserved in Chronicles he is given as the second son next below Jonathan (1 Chr. viii. 33, ix. 89). But in the account of Saul’s offspring in 1 Samuel he is named third — Ishui being be- tween him and Jonathan (1 Sam. xiv. 49), and on the remaining occasion the same order is preserved, but Abinadab is substituted for Ishui (1 Sam. xxxi. 2). In both these latter passages the name is erroneously given in the A. V. as Melchi-shua. Nothing is known of Malchi-shua beyond the fact that he fell, with his two brothers, and before his father, in the early part of the battle of Gilboa. G. 1764 MAL/CHUS (Mdaxos= 72, Malluch, in 1 Chr. vi. 44, Neh. x. 4, &e, ruler or couneillor ; XOX Marox or Maadovy; and Joseph. Mdaxos, Ant. xiii. 5, § 1, xiv. 14, § 1) is the name of the servant of the high-priest, whose right ear Peter cut off at the time of the Saviour’s apprehension in the garden. See the narrative in Matt. xxvi. 51; Mark xiv. 47; Luke xxii. 49-51; John xviii. 10. He was the personal servant (S0dA0s) of the high- priest, and not one of the bailiffs or apparitors (Smnpérns) of the Sanhedrim. The high-priest intended is Caiaphas no doubt (though Annas is called dpxiepevs in the same connection); for John, who was persoually known to the former (John xviii. 15), is the only one of the Evangelists who gives the name of Malchus. This servant was prob- ably stepping forward at the moment with others to handeuff or pinion Jesus, when the zealous Peter struck at him with his sword. The blow was meant undoubtedly to be more effective, but reached only the ear. It may be as Stier remarks (Reden Jesu, vi. 268), that the man seeing the danger, threw his head or body to the left, so as to expose the right ear more than the other. The allegation that the writers are inconsistent with each other, because Matthew, Mark, and John say either &rlov, or &rdpioy (as if that meant the lappet or tip of the ear), while Luke says ods, is groundless. The Greek of the New Testament age, like the modern Romaic, made no distinction often between the primitive and diminutive. This is especially true of terms relating to parts of the human body. (See Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 211.) In fact, Luke himself exchanges the one term for the other in this very narrative (vy. 50 and 51). The Saviour, as his pursuers were about to seize Him, asked to be left free for a moment longer (éare Ews rovrov [Luke xxii. 51]), and that moment He used in restoring the wounded man to soundness.4 The &duevos Tov wrlov may indicate (which is not forbidden by &@etAev, aaéxoer) that the ear still adhered slightly to its place. It is noticeable that Luke the physician is the only one of the writers who mentions the act of healing. It isa touching remembrance that this was our Lord’s last miracle for the relief of human suffering. The hands which had been stretched forth so often to heal and bless mankind, were then bound, and his beneficent ministry in that form of its exercise was ‘finished for ever. HB.) Be MALE/LEEL (Maaeaena: Malaleel). The same as MAHALALEEL, the son of Cainan (Luke iii. 87; Gen. v. 12, marg.). MAL’/LOS, THEY OF (MadAA@rar: Mal- lot), who, with the people of Tarsus, revolted from Antiochus Epiphanes because he had bestowed them on one of his concubines (2 Mace. iv. 30). The absence of the king from Antioch to put down the insurrection, gave the infamous Menelaus the high- MALCHUS a * The Greek expression cited above is singularly ambiguous. It is uncertain what the verb (éaze) means. It is uncertain whether Christ’s disciples or the soldiers are addressed, and whether the pronoun (rovrov) refers to a person, or place, or an act. For the different interpretations, see Meyer’s Komm. tib. das N. T. i. (2.) 576 f. (1867). But though the words are so doubtful as written, they were perfectly explicit as heard at the moment, because they were accom- panied by some tone or gesture which is lost to us. H. MALLOWS : priest an opportunity of purloining some of th sacred vessels from the Temple of Jerusalem (1 32, 39), an act which finally led to the murder o the good Onias (vv. 34, 35). Mallos was an in portant city of Cilicia, lying at the mouth of th Pyramus (Seihun), on the shore of the Mediter ranean, NE. of Cyprus, and about 20 miles fro Tarsus (Jerstis). (See Dict. of Geography.) MALLOTHI (SAV [perh. Jehovah - splendor, Fiirst]: Maaacdi; [Vat. Maver, Me Oe1;) Alex. Meadw6i, and MeAAn@i: Mellothi), Kohathite, one of the fourteen sons of Heman th singer, and chief of the nineteenth course of twel Levites into which the Temple choir was divide (1 Chr. xxv. 4, 26). [Horuor, Amer. ed.] MALLOWS (maby,’ malluach :© &Arquc herbe et arborum cortices). By the Hebrew wor we are no doubt to understand some species ¢ Orache, and in all probability the Atriplex halim of botanists. It occurs only in Job xxx. 4, whe the patriarch laments that he is exposed to tl AS \ Jew’s Mallow (Corchorus olitorius). derision of the lowest of the people, * whose fathe he would have disdained to have set with the do of his flock,” and who from poverty were oblig to seek their sustenance in desert places among wild herbs — “ who pluck off the sea orache ne the hedges @ and eat the bitter roots of the Spani broom.’’ Some writers, as R. Levi (Job xxx.) ai Luther, with the Swedish aud the old Danish ve sions, hence understood “ nettles’? to be denot by malluach, this troublesome weed having be from time immemorial an article of occasional d GS o b From mon (Arab. Lo), € salt.” | Co - c Old editions of the text read dAma, instead GALLO, as from a priv. and Auwos, ide hunger.” Chrysostom, d&Atpa Bordvy tis éoriv, TaxV mANpovTe ’ éabiovTa. ae ad mir >y some translate “on ‘he >ranel Sce Lee's Comment. on Job, /. ¢. a ny = MALLOWS imongst the poor, even as it is amongst ourselves it this day (Plin. H. N. xxi. 15; Athen. iv. c. 15). Dthers have conjectured that some species of “ mal- ow’? (malva) is intended, as Deodatius, and the A. V. Sprengel (Hist. Ret herb. 14) identifies the + Jew’s mallow’? (Corchorus olitorius) with the nallwach, and Lady Callcott (Script. Herb. p. 255) s of a similar opinion. “In Purchase’s Pilgrims,” bserves this writer, “there is a letter from Master William Biddulph, who was travelling from Aleppo io Jerusalem in 1600, in which he says, ‘ we saw many poor people gathering mallows and three- leaved grasse, and asked them what they did with it, and they answered that it was all their food and they did eate it’ ’’ (see also Harmer’s Observations, iii. 166). There is no doubt that this same mallow ig still eaten in Arabia and Palestine, the leaves and pods being used as a pot-herb. Dr. Shaw (Tracels, i. 258, 8vo. 1808) mentions Mellow- Keahs, which he says is the same with the Corchorus, as being cultivated in the gardens of Barbary, and draws attention to the resemblance of this word with the malluach of Job, but he thinks ‘+ some other plant of a more saltish taste” Atriplex halimus. fs rather intended. The Atriplex halimus has un- doubtedly the best claim to represent the malluach, as Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 223), and before him Drusius (Quest. Hebr. i. qu. 17) have proved. Celsius (Hierobd. ii. 97), Hiller (Hierophyt. i. 457), Rosen- miiller (Schol. in Job xxx. 4, and Botany of the Bible, p. 115), and Dr. Kitto (Pictor. Bible on Job) adopt this opinion. The Greek word used by the LXX. is applied by Dioscorides (i. ¢. 120) to ‘the Atriplex halimus, as Sprengel (Comment. in fl. c.) hag shown. Dioscorides says of this plant, that “it is a shrub which is used for hedges, and tesembles the Rhamnus, being white and without ‘shorns; its leaves are like those of the olive, but broader and smoother, they are cooked as vegetables ; ‘the plant grows near the sea, and in hedges.’’ See also Lhe yuotation from the Arabian botanist, Aben- 7 3 MAMMON 1765 Beitar (in Bochart, /. c. above), who says that the plant which Dioscorides calls “ halimus”’ is the same with that which the Syrians call maluch, Galen (vi. 22), Serapion in Bochart, and Prosper Alpinus (De Plant. dgypt. exxviii. 45). The Hebrew name, like the Greek, has reference either to the locality where the plant grows —“ no- men Greecum a loco natali aAlua, rapabaracaly,”’ says Sprengel — or to its saline taste. The Atrt plex halimus is a shrub from four to five feet high, with many thick branches; the leaves are rather sour to the taste; the flowers are purple and very small; it grows on the sea-coast in Greece, Arabia, Syria, etc., and belongs to the natural Order Chen- opodiacee. Atriplex hortensis, or garden Orach, is often cooked and eaten as spinach, to which it is by some persons preferred. Wie * «The best authorities,” says Tristram (Nat. Hist. of the Bible, p. 466), “are in favor of a species of Sea Purslane (Atriplex halimus), which grows abundantly on the shores of the Mediterra- nean, in salt marshes, and also on the shores of the Dead Sea still more luxuriantly. We found thick- ets of it of considerable extent on the west side of the sea, and it exclusively supplied us with fuel for many days. It grows there to the height of ten feet — more than double its size on the Mediterra- nean. It forms a dense mass of thin twigs without thorns, has very minute purple flowers close to the stem, and small, thick, sour-tasting leaves, which could be eaten, as is the Atriplex hortensis, or garden Orache, but it would be very miserable food.” Prof. Conant renders maby “ salt-plant ”’ (Book of Job, in loc.). H. MAL/LUCH (375%) [ruler or counsellor]: Maddy: Maloch). 1. A Levite of the family of Merari, and ancestor of Ethan the singer (1 Chr. vi. 44). 2. (Madovx; {Vat., with preceding word, Me- Aoveapadoup:] Melluch.) ‘One of the sons of Beni, who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s com- mand (Ezr. x. 29). He was probably of the tribe of Judah and line of Pharez (see 1 Chr. ix. 4). In the parallel list of 1 Esdr. ix. 30, he is called Ma- MUCHUS. 3. (Badovx; [ Vat. ] Alex. Madovx: Maloch.) One of the descendants of Harim in the time of Ezra, who had married a foreign wife (Ezr. x. 32). 4. (Madovx: Melluch.) A priest or family of priests who signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 4). 5. One of the “ heads ” of the people who signed the covenant on the same oceasion (Neh. x. 27). 6. [Vat. AAova.] One of the families of priests who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 2); prob- ably the same as No. 4. It was represented in the time of Joiakim by Jonathan (ver. 14). The same as MELIcu. MAMATAS [8 syl.] (Sauaias: Samea), ap- parently the same with SHEmMAIAH in Ezr. viii. 16. In the Geneva version of 1 Esdr. viii. 44, it is written Samaian. [See also MASMAN.] MAM’MON (717079 - Mapwvas: Matt. vi. 24, and Luke xvi. 9), a word which often oceurs in the Chaldee Targums of Onkelos, and later writers, and in the Syriac Version, and which signifies ‘riches. This meaning of the word is given by Tertullian, Adv. Mare. iv. 33, and by Augustine and Jerome commenting on St. Matthew: Augus- 1766 MAMNITANAIMUS tine adds that it was in use as a Punic, and Jerome | the man created in the image of God. adds that it was a Syriac word. MAN . It appears There is no reason | to be derived from ddam,¢ “he or it was red or to suppose that any idol received divine honors in | ruddy,” like Edom.¢ The epithet rendered by us the east under this name. thew as a personification of riches. 474. MAMNITANAIMUS = (Mawrdvaimos; [Vat. Mauravatmos:|] Mathaneus),a name which appears in the lists of 1 Esdr. ix. 34, and occupies the place of “ Mattaniah, Mattenai,” in Ezr. x. 37, of which it is a corruption, as is still more evident from the form “ Mamnimatanaius,”’ in which it appears in the Geneva version. MAWM’RE (N79) [perh. fatness, and then strength, manliness, Ges.]: MauBph; Joseph. MayuBp7s: Mamre), an ancient Amorite,t¢ who with his brothers Esheol and Aner was in alliance with Abram (Gen. xiv. 13, 24), and under the shade of whose oak-grove the patriarch dwelt in the interval between his residence at Bethel and at Beer-sheba (xiii. 18, xviii. 1). The personality of this ancient chieftain, unmistakably though slightly brought out? in the narrative just cited — a narrative regarded by Ewald and others as one of the most ancient, if not the most ancient, docu- ments in the Bible — is lost in the subsequent chap- ters. Mamre is there a mere local appellation — ‘‘Mamre which faces Machpelah’? (xxiii. Lineaoe xxv. 9, xlix. 30, 1. 13). It does not appear beyond the book of Genesis. Esncow survived to the date of the conquest —survives possibly still — but Mamre and Aner have vanished, at least their names have not yet been met with. If the field and cave of MACHPELAH were on the hill which forms the northeastern side of the Valley of Hebron —and we need not doubt that they were — then Mamre, as “ facing ’? them, must have been on the opposite slope, where the residence of the governor now stands. In the Vulgate of Jud. ii. 14 (A. V. ii. 24), ‘“‘torrens Mambre’’ is found for the Abronas of the original text. t G MAMU’CHUS (Mauodxyos: Maluchus), the same as MALLUCH 2 (1 Esdr. ix. 30). The LXX. was probably MaAAovyxos at first, which would easily be corrupted into the present reading. Wari Bi MAN. Four Hebrew terms are rendered “ man ”’ in the A. V. 1. Adam, Oe (A.) The name of —————————— eee @ The LXX., except in xiv. 24, give the name with the feminine article. They do the same in other cases; e.g. Baal. 6 In the Jewish traditions he appears as encourag- ing Abraham to undergo the pain of circumcision, from which his brothers would have dissuaded him — by a reference to the deliverance he had already experienced from far greater trials — the furnace of Nimrod and the sword of Chedorlaomer. (Beer, Leben Abrahams, 36.) -vté ¢ DIN. dq DN. yoo. Cet dis outs Sep eel gaian ey: a 7. i TMD7. NADI. 1 TR. m WIN; fem. Ts, pl. COWIN, variant It is used in St. Mat-|« red’ has a very wide signification in the Semitie The derivation | languages, and must not be limited to the English of the word is discussed by A. Pfeiffer, Opera, p. | sense. Thus the Arabs speak, in both the literary and the vulgar language, of a “red” camel, using the term ahmar, ¢ their common word for “ red,” just as they speak of a “green ’’ ass, meaning in the one case a shade of brown, and in the other a kind of dingy gray. When they apply the term “red” to man, they always mean by it “fair.” The name Adam has been supposed by some to be de- tived from adémah,f ‘ earth,” or * ground,” because Adam was formed of ‘ dust of the ground "9 (Gen. ii. 7); but the earth or ground derived this appellation from its brownness, which the Hebrews would call “redness.”” In Egypt, where the allu-. vial earth of the Nile-valley is of a blackish-brown color, the name of the country, KEM, signifies ‘black in the ancient Egyptian and in Coptie. [Eeypr.] Others have connected the name of | Adam with demuth,% “likeness,” from démdh,? | ‘he or it was or became like,” on account of the’ use of this word in both narratives of his creation: | ‘And God said, Let us make Adam in our image, | after our lik@hess ” % (Gen. i. 26). In the day’ of God’s creating Adam, in the likeness? of God made He him” (vy. 1). It should be observed that’ the usual opinion that by “image” and “ likeness” | moral qualities are denoted, is perfectly in aecord- ance with Semitic phraseology: the contrary idea, arising from a misapprehension of anthropomor- | | phism, is utterly repugnant ‘to it. This derivation’ seems improbable, although perhaps more agreeable. than that from adam with the derivations of ante- diluvian names known to us. (B.) The name of | Adam and his wife (v. 1, 2; comp. i. 27, in whieh case there is nothing to show that more than one pair is intended). (C.) A collective noun, inde- clinable, having neither construct state, plural, nor | feminine form, used to designate any or all of the ’ descendants of Adam. | 2. Ish, WN, apparently softened from a form — unused in the singular by the Hebrews, éxesh, m ' ‘‘man,”” “woman,” “men.” It corresponds to | the Arabie ins,” “man,” insdn, © softened form / eesdn,p ‘a man,” “a woman,” and “man” col- | lectively like ims; and perhaps to the aneient Egyptian as, “a noble.”’2 The variant Enosh (mentioned in the note) occurs as the proper name enosh, WD, which some take to be the primitive form. Ps a wl. © ylansl. P cylaugl. ? & = 2a | q It has been derived from was, he was sick,” . So as to mean weak, mortal ; to which Gesenius objects i i that this verb comes from the theme tY)5 (Lex. 8 v. wos), The opposite signification, strength and robust ness, has been suggested with a reference to the theme ws (Fiirst, Concord. s. vy. ws), It seems more reasonable to suppose, with Gesenius, that this is a | primitive word (Lez. s. v. ws). Perhaps the des of being may lie at its foundation. ) MANAEN ofa son of Seth and "963 1 Chr. i. 1). criticism. corresponding to vir and avip. proper names Methusael and Methuselah.¢ might be read * mortal.’ prophets in the church at Antioch at the time of sionaries to the heathen. He is not known out of sought up (c¥yrpodos) could not have been Herod father, Herod Agrippa I. in A. p. 44 (Joseph. Ant. six. 9, § 1), a comrade of that age would have been Antioch as Manaen was at the date of Paul’s first nissionary journey (Acts xiii. 3). The Herod in question must have been Herod Antipas, under hose jurisdiction the Saviour as a Galilean lived, ind who beheaded John the Baptist. Since this Antipas was older than Archelaus, who succeeded Herod the Great soon after the birth of Christ, Manaen (his avvtpopos) must have been somewhat idvanced in years in A. p. 44, when he appears yefore us in Luke’s history — older certainly than ‘orty-five or fifty, as stated in Lange’s Bibelwerk y. 182). The point of chief interest relating to tim concerns the sense of givrpodos, which the listorian regarded as sufficiently remarkable to con- tect with his name. We have a learned discussion ete eet eis /@ The naming of Cain (7°72) may suggest how {nosh came to bear a name signifying ‘tman.” ‘I lave obtained a man (ts 5F1)3/)) from the Lorp ” '¢ Defective oy, from an unused singular, V7 ‘= Nd. | 8. Geber, DR, “a man,” from gdbur, > «to be strong.” generally with reference to his strength, 4. Méthim, D9, ¢ “men,” always masculine. The singular is to be traced in the antediluvian Per- haps it may be derived from the root mith, « he died,” ¢ in which case its use would be very appro- priate in Is. xli. 14, “Fear not, thou worm Jacob, ye men of Israel.“ If this conjecture be admit- ted, this word would correspond to Bpordés and MAN’AEN (Mavahy: Manahen) is men- tioned in Acts xiii. 1 as one of the teachers and the appointment of Saul and Barnabas as mis- this passage. The name signifies consoler (377%, 2K. xv. 17, &.); and both that and his relation to Herod render it quite certain that he was a Jew. The Herod with whom he is said to have been Agrippa II. (Acts xxv. 13), for as he was only seventeen years old at the time of the death of his oo young to be so prominent as a teacher at MANAEN 1767 grandson of Adam (Gen. iy. | of this question in Walch’s Dissertatoones in Acta In the A. V. it is written Enos. ‘It might be supposed that this was a case like ‘that of Adam’s name}; but this cannot be adnitted, ‘since the variant /sh and the fem. form /shshdh are used before the birth of Enosh, as in the cases of the naming of Eve (Gen. ii. 23) and Cain (iv. 1). Tf it be objected that we must not lay too much ‘stress upon verbal criticism, we reply that, if so, no stress can be laid upon the name of Enosh, which might even be a translation, and that such forms as Methusael and Methuselah, which have the characteristics of a primitive state of Hebrew, oblige us to lay the greatest stress upon verbal Apostolorum (de Menachemo, ii. 195-252). For the value of this treatise see Tholuck’s Glaub wiirdigkeit, p. 167. The two following are the principal views that have been advanced, and have still their advocates One is that givrpopos means comrade, associate, or, more strictly, one brought up, educated with another. This is the more frequent sense of the word, and Calvin, Grotius, Schott, Baumgarten, and others, adopt it here. It was very common in ancient times for persons of rank to associate other children with their own, for the purpose of sharing their amusements (hence ouumaiktopes in Xenoph. Cyroped. i. 3, § 14) and their studies, and thus exciting them to greater activity and emulation. Josephus, Plutarch, Polybius, and others speak of this custom. Walch shows it to have existed among the Medes, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks. and Romans. Herod might have adopted it from the Romans, whom he was so much inclined to imitate (see Raphel’s Annotationes, ii. 80, and Wetstein, Nov. Test. ii. 532). The other view is that avvTpopos denotes foster'- brother, brought up at the same breast (duoydAa- KTos, collactaneus), and, as so taken, Manaen’s mother, or the woman who reared him, would have been also Herod’s nurse. So Kuinoel, Olshausen, De Wette, Alford, and others. Walch’s conclusion (not correctly represented by some recent writers), combines in a measure these two explanations. He thinks that Manaen was educated in Herod’s family along with Antipas and some of his other children, and at the same time that he stood in the stricter relation to Antipas which cuvtpopos denotes as collactaneus. He calls attention to the statement of Josephus (Ant. xvii. 1, § 3) that the brothers Antipas and Archelaus were educated in a private way at Rome (ApyéAaos 5¢ Kal ’Avtimas ém) Péuns mapa rit idiTn Tpopas elxov), and though not supposing that Manaen accompanied them thither he thinks we may infer that Manaen enjoyed at home the same course of discipline and instruction (a¥vtpopos in that sense) as the two brothers, who are not likely to have been sep- arated in their earlier, any more than in their later education. Yet as Manaen is called the gvyTpodos of Herod only, Walch suggests that there may have been the additional tie in their case which resulted from their having had a common nurse. It is a singular circumstance, to say the least, that Josephus (Ant. xv. 10, § 5) mentions a certain Manaem (Mavdyuos), who was in high repute among the Essenes for wisdom and sanctity, and who fore- told to Herod the Great, in early life, that he was destined to attain royal honors. After the fulfill- ment of the prediction the king treated the prophet with special favor, and honored the entire sect on his account (rdyras am’ éxelvou rods ’Econvods is not, as Gesenius would make it, changed by the construct state, but has a ease-ending ‘, to be com- pared to the Arabic case-ending of the nominative, un, Uy Gy y: € The ¢ onjecture of Gesenius (Lez. s, y.), that the middle raaical of J)\73 is softened from r is not borne out by the Egyptian form, which is MET, “a dead one.”? h Deny SIND 5 OdAcyoerds "Iopayrk. For the word worm ” compare Job xxv. 6; Ps. xxii. 6, 1768 MANAHATH Tiu@y SteréAet). There was a class of the Essenes who had families (Walch, 237 f.), though others had not; and it has been conjectured with some plausibility that, as one of the results of Herod’s friendship for the lucky soothsayer, he may have adopted one of his sons (who took the father’s name), so far as to receive him into his family, and make him the companion of his children (see Walch, p. 234, &.). Lightfoot surmises, as one of the possibilities, that the Manaem of Josephus may be the one mentioned in the Acts (suspictonem vel levem cient potest hune nostrum esse eundem); but he deems it more probable (if it be certain that the Essenes had wives) that a son or some kinsman of the soothsayer may have been the prophet at Antioch, (See Hore Hebr. ii. 726 f.) The inevit- able disparity in age which must have existed be- tween the Essene of Josephus and Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, to say nothing of other dif- ficulties, puts the former of their suppositions out of the question. The precise interest which led Luke to recall the Herodian connection is not certain. Meyer’s sug- gestion, that it may have been the contrast between the early relationship and Manaen’s later Christian position (though he makes it of the first only), applies to one sense of giytpodos as well as the other. A far-fetched motive need not be sought. Even such a casual relation to the great Jewish family of the age (whether it was that of a foster- brother or a companion of princes) was peculiar and interesting, and would be mentioned without any special object merely as a part of the individual’s history. Walch’s citations show that otytpodos, as used of such intimacies (cuvrpopiat), was a title greatly esteemed among the ancients; that it was often borne through life as a sort of proper name; and was recounted among the honors of the epitaph after death. It is found repeatedly on ancient monuments. It may be added that Manaen, as a resident in Palestine (he may have been one of Herod’s courtiers till his banishment to Gaul), could hardly fail to have had some personal knowledge of the Saviour’s ministry. He must have spent his youth at Jerusalem or in that neighborhood; and among his recollections of that period, connected as he was with Herod’s family, may have been the tragic scene of the massacre at Bethlehem. H. B. H. MAN’AHATH (73% [resta]: [Vat.] Mayavader; [Rom. -6/; Slew! “Mavayadu: ] Mana- hath), a place named in 1 Chr. viii. 6 only, in con- nection with the genealogies of the tribe of Ben- jamin. The passage is very obscure, and is not made less so by the translation of the A. V.; but the meaning probably is that the family of Ehud, the heads of the town of Geba, migrated thence, under the guidance of Naaman, Ahiah, and Gera, and settled at Manachath. Of the situation of Manachath we know little or nothing. It is tempt- ing to believe it identical with the Menuchah men- tioned, according to many interpreters, in Judg. xx. 43° (in the A. V. translated “with ease’’), This has in its favor the close proximity in which the place, if a place, evidently stood to Gibeah, which was one cf the chief towns of Benjamin, even a * The Hebrew form of this name is the same as that of the personal name which follows, except the iengthened penult from its being in pause. H. b The Vat. LXX. has dard Nova, MANASSEH i if not identical with Geba. [Mrnucnan, Amer ed.]_ Manachath is usually identified with a place of similar name in Judah, but, considering how hostile the relations of Judah and Benjamin were at the earlier period of the history, this identifica tion is difficult to receive. The Chaldee Targum adds, ‘‘in the land of the house of Esau,” 7. e. in Edom. The Syriac and Arabic versions connect the name with that immediately following, and read “to the plain or pasture of Naaman.” But these explanations are no less obscure than that which they seek to explain. [MANAHETHITES. ] MAN’AHATH (72D [rest]: in Gen. Xxxvi. 23, Mavayd; Alex. Mavvaxad : Manahat: 1 Chr. i. 40, Maxavad; [Vat. Mayavay;] Alex. Mavaxad: Manahath), one of the sons of Shobal, and descendant of Seir the Horite. MANA’HETHITES, THE (Manan, i. e. the Menuchoth, and SIT, the Manachti: [in 52, Rom. Alex. "Aupavld, Vat. Mwyvaz:| in 54, [Vat.] Tys Madade: [Rom. -6/]; Alex. rns Mavab: Vulg. translating, dimidium requietionum). “ Half the Manahethites’”’ are named in the genealogies of Judah as descended from Shobai, the father of Kirjath-jearim (1 Chr. ii. 52 [A. V. marg. “ Menu- chites’’]), and half from Salma, the founder of Bethlehem (ver. 54). It seems to be generally accepted that the same place is referred to in each passage, though why the vowels should be so dif ferent — as it will be seen above they are — is not apparent. Nor has the writer succeeded in dis- covering why the translators of the A. V. rendered the two differing Hebrew words by the same Eng- lish one.¢ Of the situation or nature of the place or places we have as yet no knowledge. The town MANA- HATH naturally suggests itself, but it seems impos- sible to identify a Benjamite town with a place occurring in the genealogies of Judah, and appa- rently in close connection with Bethlehem and with the house of Joab, the great opponent and murderet of Abner the Benjamite. It is more probably iden- tical with Manocho (Mavoyé = TTV13%4), one of ithe eleven cities which in the LXX. text are in- serted between verses 59 and 60 of Josh. xv., Beth- lehem being another of the eleven. The writer of the Targum, playing on the word as if it were Minehah, “‘an offering,” renders the passage in 1 Chr. ii. 52, “‘ the disciples and priests who looked to the division of the offerings.’’ His interpreta- tion of ver. 54 is too long to quote here. See the editions of Wilkins and Beck, with the learned notes of the latter. G. MANASSE’AS (Mavagcias; [Vat. Ald] | Alex. Mavaconas: Manasses) = MANASSEH 38, of the sons of Pahath Moab (1 Esdr. ix. 81; comp, Ezr. x. 30). | MANAS’SEH (iW 2%, i. e. M’nassheh [see below]: Mavaco#: Manasses), the eldest son of - Joseph by his wife Asenath the Egyptian (Gen. xli. — 51, xlvi. 20). The birth of the child was the first | thing which had occurred since Joseph’s banish- | ¢ They sometimes follow Junius and Tremellius; but in this passage those translators have exactly reversed the A. V., and in hoth cases use the form | Menuchot r MAN ASSEH ment from Canaan to alleviate his sorrows and fill the void left by the father and the brother he so longed to behold, and it was natural that he should ‘commemorate his acquisition in the name MANAs- SEH, “ Forgetting ’* — “or God hath-made-me- forget (nasshiand) all my toil and all my father’s house.’’ Both he and Ephraim were born before the commencement of the famine. Whether the elder of the two sons was inferior in form or promise to the younger, or whether there was any external reason to justify the preference of Jacob, we are not told. It is only certain that when the youths were brought before their aged grandfather to receive his blessing and his name, ind be adopted as foreigners@ into his family, Manasseh was degraded, in spite of the efforts of Joseph, into the second place. [EPHRAIM, vol. i. ». 752 a.] It is the first indication of the inferior zank in the nation which the tribe descended from zim afterwards held, in relation to that of his more Jortunate brother. But though, like his grand- ancle Esau, Manasseh had lost his birthright in yor of his younger brother, he received, as Esau aad, a blessing only inferior to the birthright itself. uike his brother he was to increase with the fer- jility of the fish? which swarmed in the great Egyptian stream, to ‘“ become a people and also to de great ’’ — the “ thousands of Manasseh,’’ no less than those of E phraim, indeed more, were to be- tome a proverb © in the nation, his name, no less han that of Ephraim, was to be the symbol and the ‘xpression of the richest blessings for his kindred.¢ At the time of this interview Manasseh seems to aave been about 22 years of age. Whether he narried in Egypt we are not told. At any rate the aames of no wives or lawful children are extant in she lists. As if to carry out most literally the terms of the blessing of Jacob, the mother of Macuir, iis eldest, indeed apparently his only son — who was really the foundation of the ‘thousands of Manasseh” — was no regular wife, but a Syrian or Aramite concubine (1 Chr. vii. 14), possibly a pris- mer in some predatory expedition into Palestine, ike that in which the sons of Ephraim lost their lives (1 Chr. vii. 21). It is recorded that the chil- Tren of Machir were embraced ¢ by Joseph before tis death, but of the personal history of the patri- ‘weh Manasseh himself no trait whatever is given n the Bible, either in the Pentateuch or in the ‘turious records preserved in 1 Chronicles. The an- lent Jewish traditions are, however, less reticent. According to them Manasseh was the steward of Joseph's house, and the interpreter who intervened _ @ This seems to follow from the expressions of xlviii. ) and 9: ** Thy two sons who were born unto thee in the land of Egypt’? — “ My sons whom God hath given le in this place,” and from the solemn invocation dver them of Jacob’s “name,” and the “ names” of Abraham and Isaac (ver. 16), combined with the fact of Joseph having married an Egyptian, a person of lifferent race from his own. The Jewish commentators >vercome the difficulty of Joseph’s marrying an entire ‘oreigner, by a tradition that Asenath was the daughter of Dinah and Shechem. See Targum Pseudojon. on Gen. xli. 45. | b * And like fish become a multitude.” Such is ihe literal rendering of the words minis 1419) (Gen. klviii. 16), which in the text of the A.V. are 't grow ‘to a multitude.” The sense is preserved in the Margin. The expression is no doubt derived from that which is to this day one of the most characteristic 3 MANASSEH 1769 between Joseph and his brethren at their interview; and the extraordinary strength which he displayed in the struggle with and binding of Simeon, firs caused Judah to suspect that the apparent Egyp- tians were really his own flesh and blood (see Tars gums Jerusalem and Pseudojon. on Gen. xlii. 23, xliii. 15; also the quotations in Weil’s Bibl. Legends, p. 88 note). The position of the tribe of Manasseh during the march to Canaan was with Ephraim and Benjamin on the west side of the sacred Tent. The standard of the three sons of Rachel was the figure of a boy with the inscription, “‘ The cloud of Jehovah rested on them until they went forth out of the camp” (Targ. Pseudojon. on Num. ii. 18). The Chief of the tribe at the time of the census at Sinai was Gamaliel ben-Pedahzur, and its numbers were then 32,200 (Num. i. 10, 35, ii. 20, 21, vii. 54-59). The numbers of Ephraim were at the same date 40,500. Forty years later, on the banks of Jordan, these proportions were reversed. Manasseh had then increased to 52,700, while Ephraim had diminished to 32,500 (Num. xxvi. 34, 37). On this occasion it is remarkable that Manasseh resumes his position in the catalogue as the eldest son of Joseph. Pos- sibly this is due to the prowess which the tribe had shown in the conquest of Gilead, for Manasseh was certainly at this time the most distinguished of all the tribes. Of the three who had elected to re- main on that side of the Jordan, Reuben and Gad had chosen their lot because the country was suit- able to their pastoral possessions and tendencies. But Machir, Jair, and Nobah, the sons of Manas- seh, were no shepherds. They were pure warriors, who had taken the most prominent part in the con- quest of those provinces which up to that time had been conquered, and whose deeds are constantly referred to (Num. xxxii. 39; Deut. iii. 13, 14, 15) with credit and renown. “ Jair the son of Manas- seh took all the tract of Argob. . . sixty great cities’? (Deut. iii. 14; 4). ‘* Nobah took Kenath and the daughter-towns thereof, and called it after his own name’? (Num. xxxii. 42), “ Because Machir was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan ’’ (Josh. xvii. 1). The district which these ancient warriors conquered was among the most difficult, if not the most difficult, in the whole country. It embraced the hills of Gilead with their inaccessible heights and impassable ravines, and the almost impregnable tract of Argob, which derives its modern name of Lejah from the secure “asylum ’’ it affords to those who take refuge within its natural fortifications. Had they not remained things in Egypt. Certainly, next to the vast stream itself, nothing could strike a native of Southern Pales- tine more, on his first visit to the banks of the Nile, than the abundance of its fish. ¢ The word * thousand ” (FON), in the sense of ** family,’? seems to be more frequently applied to Manasseh than to any of the other tribes. See Deut. xxxiii. 17, and compare Judg. vi. 15, where “ family ” should be ‘ thousand” — ‘tmy thousand is the poor one in Manasseh ;’’ and 1 Chr. xii. 20. d The Targum Pseudojon. on xlviii. 20 seems to intimate that the words of that verse were used as part of the formula at the rite of circumcision. They do not, however, appear in any of the accounts of that ceremony, as given by Buxtorf and others, that the writer has been able to discover. é¢ The Targum characteristically says circwmcised. 1770 MANASSEH in these wild and inaccessible districts, but had gone forward and taken their lot with the rest, who shall say what changes might not have oc- curred in the history of the nation, through the presence of such energetic and warlike spirits? The few personages of eminence whom we can with certainty identify as Manassites, such as Gideon and Jephthah — for Elijah and others may with equal probability have belonged to the neighboring tribe of Gad — were among the most remarkable characters that Israel produced. Gideon was in fact ‘‘the greatest of the judges, and his children all but established hereditary monarchy in their own line’’ (Stanley, S. ¢ P. p. 230). But with the one exception of Gideon the warlike tendencies of Manasseh seem to have been confined to the east of the Jordan. There they throve exceedingly, pushing their way northward over the rich plains of Jaulan and Jedi — the Gaulanitis and Iturea of the Roman period — to the foot of Mount Her- mon (1 Chr. y. 23). At the time of the corona- tion of David at Hebron, while the western Manas- seh sent 18,000, and Ephraim itself 20,800, the eastern Manasseh, with Gad and Reuben, mustered to the number of 120,000, thoroughly armed —a remarkable demonstration of strength, still more remarkable when we remember the fact that Saul’s house, with the great Abner at its head, was then residing at Mahanaim on the border of Manasseh and Gad. But, though thus outwardly prosperous, a similar fate awaited them in the end to that which befell Gad and Reuben; they gradually assimilated themselves to the old inhabitants of the country — they “ transgressed against the God of their fathers, and went a-whoring after the gods of the people of the land whom God destroyed before them ”’ (2. 25). They relinquished too the settled mode of life and the defined limits which befitted the members of a federal nation, and gradually became Bedouins of the wilderness, spreading themselves over the vast deserts which lay between the allotted posses- sions of their tribe and the Euphrates, and which had from time immemorial been the hunting- grounds and pastures of the wild Hagarites of Jetur, Nephish, and Nodab (1 Chr. v. 19,22). On them first descended the punishment which was ordained to be the inevitable consequence of such misdoing. They, first of all Israel, were carried away by Pul and Tiglath-Pileser, and settled in the Assyrian territories (7b. 26). The connection, however, between east and west had been kept up to a certain degree. In Beth-shean, the most east- erly city of the cis-Jordanic Manasseh, the two portions all but joined. David had judges or offi- cers there for all matters sacred and secular (1 Chr. xxvi. 82); and Solomon’s commissariat officer, Ben- Geber, ruled over the towns of Jair and the whole district of Argob (1 K. iv. 18), and transmitted their productions, doubtless not without their peo- ple, to the court of Jerusalem. The genealogies of the tribe are preserved in @ If this is correct. it may probably furnish the clew - to the real meaning of the difficult allusion to Gilead in Judg. vii. 8. [See p. 9200.] 6 *t Bethsan in Manasseh ” (Hap-Parchi, in Asher’s B. of T. 401). ce The name of ASHER, as attached to a town, inde- pendent of the tribe, was overlooked by the writer at the proper time (TENS : Aynvaved: Alex. Aonp: Aser.) It is mentioned in Josh. xvii. 7 only as the starting-point — evidently at its eastern end — of the MANASSEH Num. xxvi. 28-34; Josh. xvii. 1, &c.; and 1 Chr, vii. 14-19. But it seems impossible to unravel — these so as to ascertain for instance which of the families remained east of Jordan, and which ad- vanced to the west. From the fact that Abi-ezer — (the family of Gideon), Hepher (possibly Ophrah, the native place of the same hero), and Shechem (the well-known city of the Bene-Joseph) all occur among the names of the sons of Gilead the son of Machir, it seems probable that Gilead. whose name — is so intimately connected with the eastern, was also the immediate progenitor of the western half of the tribe.@ Nor is it less difficult to fix the exact position of the territory allotted to the western half. In Josh. xvii. 14-18, a passage usually regarded by critics as an exceedingly ancient document, we find the two tribes of Joseph complaining that only one portion had been allotted to them, namely, Mount Ephraim (ver. 15), and that they could not ex- tend into the plains of Jordan or Esdraelon, because those districts were still in the possession of the Canaanites, and scoured by their chariots. In reply Joshua advises them to go up into the forest (ver. 15, A. V. “ wood ’?) —into the mountain which is — a forest (ver. 18). This mountain clothed with forest can surely be nothing but CARMEL, the ‘mountain ’’ closely adjoining the portion of “phraim, whose richness of wood was so proverbial, And it is in accordance with this view that the majority of the towns of Manasseh — which.as the weaker portion of the tribe would naturally be pushed to seek its fortunes outside the limits origi- nally bestowed — were actually on the slopes either of Carmel itself or of the contiguous ranges. Thus TAANACH and MreGippo were on the northern spurs of Carmel; IBLEAM appears to have been on the eastern continuation of the range, somewhere near the present Jenin. EN—DoR was on the slopes of the so-called “Little Hermon.”’ ‘The two re- maining towns mentioned as belonging to Manas- seh formed the extreme eastern and western limits of the tribe; the one, BETH-SHEAN ® (Josh xvil. 11), was in the hollow of the Ghér, or Jordan- Valley; the other, Dor (bid.), was on the coast of the Mediterranean, sheltered behind the range of Carmel, and immediately opposite the bluff or shoulder which forms its highest point. The whole of these cities are specially mentioned as standing _ in the allotments of other tribes, though inhabited — by Manasseh; and this, with the absence of any — attempt to define a limit to the possessions of the | tribe on the north, looks as if no boundary-line had existed on that side, but as if the territory faded off gradually into those of the two contiguous tribes from whom it had borrowed its fairest cities. On the south side the boundary between Manasseh and Ephraim is more definitely described, and may be generally traced with tolerable certainty. It be- gan on the east in the territory of Issachar (xvii. 10) at a place called ASHER,¢ (ver. 7) now Yasir, boundary line separating Ephraim and Manasseh. It cannot have been at any great distance from Shechem, because the next point in the boundary is * the Mich- methath facing Shechem.” By Eusebius and Jerome, in the Onomasticon (sub voce * Aser 2), it is mentioned, evidently from actual knowledge, as still retaining its pame, and lying on the high road from Neapolis (Nab- | lus), that is Shechem, to Scythopolis (Bevsan), the © ancient Beth-shean, fifteen Roman miles from the | former. In the Itinerariwm Hieros. (587) it occurs | | * * MANASSEH 12 miles N. E. of Nablus. Thence it ran to Mich- -methah, described as facing Shechem (Nablis), though now unknown; then went to the right, 7. e. _ apparently ¢ northward, to the spring of Tappuah, also unknown; there it fell in with the watercourses of the torrent Kanah — probably the Nahr Falaik — along which it ran to the Mediterranean. From the indications of the history it would ap- pear that Manasseh took very little part in public affairs. They either left all that to Ephraim, or _ were so far removed from the centre of ‘the nation as to have little interest in what was taking place. That they attended David’s coronation at Hebron has already been mentioned. When his rule was established over all Israel, each half had its distinct ruler — the western, Joel ben-Pedaiah, the eastern, | Iddo ben-Zechariah (1 Chr. xxvii. 20, 21). From this time the eastern Manasseh fades entirely from _our view, and the western is hardly kept before us by an occasional mention. Such scattered notices as we do find have almost all reference to the part taken by members of the tribe in the reforms of the good kings of Judah —the Jehovah-revival under Asa (2 Chr. xv. 9)—the Passover of Hezekiah (xxx. 1, 10, 11, 18), and the subsequent enthusiasm against idolatry (xxxi. 1),—the iconoclasms of Josiah (xxxiv. 6), and his restoration of the build- ‘ings of the Temple (ver. 9). It is gratifying to reflect that these notices, faint and scattered as they are, are all colored with good, and exhibit none of the repulsive traits of that most repulsive heathenism into which other tribes of Israel fell. It may have been at some such time of revival, whether brought about by the invitation of Judah, or, as the title in the LXX. would imply, by the ‘dread of invasion, that Ps. Ixxx. was composed. But on the other hand, the mention of Benjamin as in alliance with Ephraim and Manasseh, points to an earlier date than the disruption of the two kingdoms. Whatever its date may prove to be, ‘there can be little doubt that the author of the .psalm was a member of the house of Joseph. A positive connection between Manasseh and ‘Benjamin is implied in the genealogies of 1 Chr. vii., where Machir is said to have married into the family of Huppim and Shuppim, chief houses in ‘the latter tribe (ver. 15). No record of any such relation appears to have been yet discovered in the historical books, nor is it directly alluded to except in the genealogy just quoted. But we know that a connection existed between the tribe of Benjamin and the town of Jabesh-Gilead, inasmuch as from that town were procured wives for four hundred out of the six hundred Benjamites who survived the slaughter of Gibeah (Judg. xxi. 12); and if Jabesh-Gilead was a town of Manasseh —as is very probable, though the fact is certainly nowhere stated —it does appear very possible that this was the between “ civitas Sciopoli ” (7. e. Scythopolis) and * ciy. Neapolis’’ as “ Aser, ubi fuit villa Job.’ Where it lay then, it lies still. Exactly in this position M. Van de Velde (Syr. and Pal. ii. 336) has discovered a, village called Yasir, lying in the centre of a plain or basin, ‘surrounded on the north and west by mountains, but on the east sloping away into a Wady called the Salt Valley, which forms a near and direct descent to the Jordan Valley. The road from Nablus to Beisan passes by the village. Porter (Hdbk. 348) gives the name as Teydsir. _ It does not seem to have been important enough to ‘low us to suppose that its inhabitants are the AsH- gires, or Acherites of 2 Sam. ii. 9. g MANASSEH 1774 relationship referred to in the genealogies. Accord- ing to the statement of the narrrative two-thirds of the tribe of Benjamin must have been directly descended from Manasseh. Possibly we have here an explanation of the apparent connection between King Saul and the people of Jabesh. No appeal could have been more forcible to an oriental chief- tain than that of his blood-relations when threat- ened with extermination (1 Sam. xi. 4, 5), while no duty was more natural than that which they in their turn performed to his remains (1 Sam. xxxi. oth F G. MANAS’SEH (MWI"9 [see above]: Mavac- ojs: Manasses), the thirteenth king of Judah. The reign of this monarch is longer than that of any other of the house of David. . There is none of which we know so little. In part, it may be, this was the direct result of the character and policy of the man. In part, doubtless, it is to be traced to the abhorrence with which the following generation looked back upon it as the period of lowest degradation to which their country had ever fallen. Chroniclers and prophets pass it over, gath- ering from its horrors and disasters the great, broad lessons in which they saw the foot-prints of a righteous retribution, the tokens of a Divine com- passion, and then they avert their eyes and will see and say no more. ‘This is in itself significant. It gives a meaning and a value to every fact which has escaped the sentence of oblivion. The very reticence of the historians of the O. T. shows how free they were from the rhetorical exaggerations and inaccuracies of a later age. The struggle of opposing worships must have been as fierce under Manasseh as it was under Antiochus, or Decius, or Diocletian, or Mary. Men must have suffered and died in that struggle, of whom the world was not worthy, and yet no contrast can be greater than that between the short notices in Kings and Chron- icles, and the martyrologies which belong to those other periods of persecution. The birth of Manasseh is fixed twelve years before the death of Hezekiah, B. c. 710 (2 K. xxi. 1). We must, therefore, infer either that.there had been no heir to the throne up to that comparatively late period in his reign, or that any that had been born had died, or that, as sometimes happened in the succession of Jewish and other eastern kings, the elder son was passed over for the younger. There are reasons which make the former the more probable alternative. The exceeding bitterness of Hezekiah’s sorrow at the threatened approach of death (2 K. xx. 2, 3; 2 Chr. xxxii. 24; Is. xxxviii. 1-3) is more natural if we think of him as sink- ing under the thought that he was dying childless, leaving no heir to bis work and to his kingdom. When, a little later, Isaiah warns him of the cap- Van de Velde suggests that this may have been the spot on which the Midianites encamped when surprised by Gideon ; but that was surely further to the north, nearer the spring of Charod and the plain of Esdra- elon. a The right (7577) is generally taken to sig- nify the South; and so Keil understands it in the place; but it seems more consonant with common sense, and also with the probable course of the bound: ary — which could hardly have gone south of Shechem — to take it as the right of the person tracing this aa from East to West, i. e. North. 1772 MANASSEH tivity and shame which will fall on his children, he speaks of those children as yet future (2 K. xx. 18). This circumstance will explain one or two facts in the contemporary history. Hezekiah, it, would seem, recovering from his sickness, anxious to avoid the danger that had threatened him of leaving his kingdom without an heir, marries, at or about this time, Hephzibah (2 K. xxi. 1), the daughter of one of the citizens or princes of Jerusalem (Joseph. Ant. x. 3, § 1). The prophets, we may well imagine, would welcome the prospect of a successor named by a king who had been so true and faithful. Isaiah (in a passage clearly belonging to a later date than the early portions of the book, and appar- ently suggested by some conspicuous marriage), with his characteristic fondness for tracing auguries in names, finds in that of the new queen a prophecy of the ultimate restoration of Israel and the glories of Jerusalem (Is. Ixii. 4,5; comp. Blunt, Seriptural Coincid. Part iii. 5). The city also should be a Hephzibah, a delightsome one. As the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so would Jehovah rejoice over his people.t The child that is born from this union is called Manasseh. This name too is strangely significant. It appears nowhere else in the history of the kingdom of Judah. The only associations connected with it were, that it belonged to the tribe which was all but the most powerful of the hostile kingdom of Israel. How are we to account for so singular and unlikely a choice? The answer is, that the name embodied what had been for years the cherished object of Hezekiah’s policy and hope. ‘To take advantage of the overthrow of the rival kingdom by Shalmaneser, and the anarchy in which its provinces had been left, to gather round him the remnant of the population, to bring them back to the worship and faith of their fathers, this had been the second step in his great national reformation (2 Chr. xxx. 6). It was at least par- tially successful. “Divers of Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun, humbled themselves and came to Jeru- salem.’? They were there at the great passover. The work of destroying idols went on in Ephraim and Manasseh as well as in Judah (2 Chr. xxxi. 1). What could be a more acceptable pledge of his desire to receive the fugitives as on the same foot- ing with his own subjects than that he should give to the heir to his throne the name in which one of their tribes exulted? What could better show the desire to let all past discords and offenses be for- gotten than the name which was itself an amnesty ? (Gesenius. ) The last twelve years of Hezekiah’s reign were not, however, it will be remembered, those which were likely to influence for good the character of his successor. His policy had succeeded. He had thrown off the yoke of the king of Assyria, which Ahaz had accepted, had defied his armies, had been delivered from extremest danger, and had made himself the head of an independent kingdom, re- ceiving tribute from neighboring princes instead of paying it to the great king, the king of Assyria. But he goes a step further. Not content with independence, he enters on a policy of aggression. He contracts an alliance with the rebellious viceroy of Babylon against their common enemy (2 K. xx. 12; Is. xxxix.). He displays the treasures of his kingdom to the ambassadors, in the belief that that a The bearing of this passage on the controversy as to the authorship and date of the later chapters of Isaiah is, at least, worth considering. MAN ASSEH will show them how powerful an aly he can prove himself. Isaiah protested against this step, but the ambition of being a great potentate continued, and it was to the results of this ambition that the boy Manasseh succeeded at the age of twelve. His ac- cession appears to have been the signal for an entire change, if not in the foreign policy, at any rate in the religious administration of the kingdom. At so early an age he can scarcely have been the spontaneous author of so great an alteration, and we may infer accordingly that it was the work of the idolatrous, or Ahaz party, which had been repressed during the reign of Hezekiah, but had all along, like the Romish clergy under Edward VI. in England, looked on the reform with a sullen acquiescence, and thwarted it when they dared. The change which the king’s measures brought about was after all superficial. The idolatry which was publicly discountenanced, was practiced pri- vately (Is. i. 29, ii. 20, Ixy. 3). The priests and the prophets, in spite of their outward orthodoxy, were too often little better than licentious drunk- ards (Is. xxviii. 7). The nobles of Judah kept the new moons and Sabbaths much in the same way as those of France kept their Lents, when Louis XIV. had made devotion a court ceremonial (Is. i. 13, 14). There are signs that even among the king’s highest officers of state there was one, Shebna the scribe (Is. xxxvii. 2), the treasurer (Is. xxii. 15) ssover the house,’ whose policy was simply that of a selfish ambition, himself. possibly a foreigner (comp. Blunt’s Seript.- Coie. iii. 4), and whom Isaiah saw through and distrusted. It was, more- over, the traditional policy of “the princes of Judah’? (comp. one remarkable instance in the reign of Joash, 2 Chr. xxiv. 17) to favor foreign alliances and the toleration of foreign worship, as it was that of the true priests and prophets to protest against it. It would seem, accord- ingly, as if they urged upon the. young king that scheme of a close alliance with Babylon which Isaiah had condemned, and as the natural conse- quence of this, the adoption, as far as possible, of its worship, and that of other nations whom it was desirable to conciliate. The morbid desire for widening the range of their knowledge and pene- trating into the mysteries of other systems of belief, may possibly have contributed now, as it had done in the days of Solomon, to increase the evil (Jer. ii. 10-25; Ewald, Gesch. Jsr. iii. 666). The result was a debasement which had not been equaled even in the reign of Ahaz, uniting in one centre the abominations which elsewhere existed separately. Not content with sanctioning their presence in the Holy City, as Solomon and Rehoboam hgd done, he defiled with it the Sanctuary itself (2 Chr. xxxiil. 4). he worship thus introduced was, as has been said, predominantly Babylonian in its character. ‘He observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards’? (ibid. ver. 6). The worship of ‘the host of heaven,’? which each man celebrated for himself on the roof of his own house, took the place of that of the Lord God of Sabaoth (2 K. xxiii, 12; Is. Ixv. 8, 11: Zeph. i. 5; Jer. viii. 2, xix. 13, xxxii. 29). With this, however, there was associated the old Molech worship of the Ammo- nites. The fires were rekindled in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom. Tophet was (for the first time, apparently) built into a stately fabric (2 K. xvi. 3; Is. xxx. 33, as compared with Jer. vii. 31, xix. 9; Ewald, Gesch. Jsr. iii, 667). Even the king’s sons, ue MANASSEH instead of being presented to Jehovah, received a horrible fire-baptism dedicating them to Molech (2 Chr. xxxiii. 6), while others were actually slaugh- tered (Ez. xxiii. 37, 39). The Baal and Ashtaroth ritual, which had been imported under Solomon, from the Pheenicians, was revived with fresh splen- dor, and in the worship of the “ Queen of heaven,”’ fixed its roots deep into the habits of the people (Jer. vii. 18). Worse and more horrible than all, the Asherah, the image of Astarte, or the obscene symbol of a phallic worship (comp. ASHERAH, and in addition to the authorities there cited, Mayer, De Reform. Josia, etc., in the Thes. theol. philol. Amstel. 1701), was seen in the house of which Jehovah had said that He would there put His Name for ever (2 K. xxi. 7). All this was accom- panied by the extremest moral degradation. , The worship of those old Eastern religions has been well described as a kind of ‘sensuous intoxication,”’ simply sensuous, and therefore associated inevitably with a fiendish cruelty, leading to the utter annihi- lation of the spiritual life of men (Hegel, Philos. of History, i. 3). So it was in Jerusalem in the days of Manasseh. Rival priests (the Chemarim of Zeph. i. 4) were consecrated for this hideous worship. Women dedicating themselves to a cultus like that of the Babylonian Mylitta, wove hang- ings for the Asherah, as they sat there (Mayer, cap. ii. § 4). The Kadeshim, in closest neighborhood with them, gave themselves up to yet darker abomi- nations (2 K. xxiii.7). The awful words of Isaiah (i. 10) had a terrible truth’ in them. Those to whom he spoke were literally “rulers of Sodom and princes of Gomorrah.” Every faith was tolerated ‘but the old faith of Israel. This was abandoned and proscribed. The altar of Jehovah was displaced (2 Chr. xxxiii. 16). The very ark of the covenant was.removed from the sanctuary (2 Chr. xxxv. 3). The sacred books of the people were so systemati- -eally destroyed, that fifty years later, men listened 'to the Book of the Law of Jehovah as a newly | discovered treasure (2 K. xxii. 8). It may well be, /according*to a Jewish tradition, that this fanaticism of idolatry led Manasseh to order the name Jeho- ‘yah to be erased from all documents and inscrip- ‘tions (Patrick, ad loc.). All this involved also a systematic violation of the weekly Sabbatic rest -and the consequent loss of one witness against a / merely animal life (Is. lvi. 2, lviii. 13). The tide | of corruption carried away some even of those who, / as priests and prophets, should have been steadfast / in resisting it (Zeph. iii. 4; Jer. ii. 26, v. 13, vi. 15). It is easy to imagine the bitter grief and burning ‘indignation of those who continued faithful. The fiercest zeal of Huguenots in France, of Covenanters ‘in Scotland, against the badges and symbols of the Latin Church, is perhaps but a faint shadow of ‘that which grew to a white heat in the hearts of (the worshippers of .Jéhovah. They spoke out in ' words of corresponding strength. [vil was coming / on Jerusalem which should make the ears of men | to tingle (2 K. xxi. 12). The line of Samaria and ' the plummet of the house of Ahab should be the ‘doom of the Holy City. Like a vessel that had “once been full of precious ointment (comp. the LXX. araBdorpoy), but had afterwards become | foul, Jerusalem should be emptied and wiped out, | and exposed to the winds of heaven till it was cleansed. Foremost, we may well believe, among ‘| those who thus bore their witness, was the old prophet, now bent with the weight of fourscore gears, who had in his earlier days protested with ; - MANASSEH yore equal courage against the crimes of the king's grandfather. On him too, according to the old Jewish tradition, came the first shock of the perse- cution. [IsAtaH.] Habakkuk may have shared his martyrdom (Keil on 2 K. xxi.; but comp. HABAKKUK). But the persecution did not stop there. It attacked the whole order of the true prophets, and those who followed them. Every day witnessed an execution (Joseph. Ant. x. 3, § 1) The slaughter was like that under Alva or Charies [X. (2 K. xxi. 16). ‘The martyrs who were faith ful unto death had to endure not torture only, but the mocks and taunts of a godless generation (Is. lvii. 1-4). Long afterwards the remembrance of that reign of terror lingered in the minds of men as a guilt for which nothing could atone (2 K. xxiv. 4). The persecution, like most other persecutions carried on with entire singleness of purpose, was for a time successful (Jer. ii. 30). The prophets appear no more in the long history of Manasseh’s reign. ‘The heart and the intellect of the nation were crushed out, and there would seem to have been no chroniclers left to record this portion of its history. Retribution came soon in the natural sequence of events. There are indications that the neigh- boring nations — Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites — who had been tributary under Hezekiah, revolted at some period in the reign of Manasseh, and asserted their independence (Zeph. ii. 4-15; Jer. xlvii., xlviii., xlix.). The Babylonian alliance bore the fruits which had been predicted. Hezekiah had been too hasty in attaching himself to the cause of the rebel-prince against Assyria. The rebellion of Merodach-Baladan was crushed, and then the wrath of the Assyrian king fell on those who had sup- ported him. [EsARHADDON.] Judea was again overrun by the Assyrian armies, and this time the invasion was more successful than that of Sen- nacherib. The city apparently was taken. The king himself was made prisoner and carried off to Babylon. There his eyes were opened, and ‘he repented, and his prayer was heard, and the Lord delivered him (2 Chr. xxxiii. 12, 13; comp. Maurice, Prophets and Kings, p. 362). Two questions meet us at this point. (1.) Have we satisfactory grounds for believing that this state- ment is historically true? (2.) If we accept it, to what period in the reign of Manasseh is it to be assigned? It has been urged in regard to (1) that the silence of the writer of the books of Kings is conclusive against the trustworthiness of the narra- tive of 2 Chronicles. In the former there is no mention made of captivity or repentance or return. The latter, it has been said, yields to the tempta- tion of pointing a moral, of making history appear more in harmony with his own notions of the Divine government than it actually is. His anxiety to deal leniently with the successors of David leads him to invent at once a reformation and the cap- tivity which is represented as its cause (Winer, Rwb. s. vy. Manasseh; Rosenmiiller, Bibl Alterth. i. 2, p. 131; Hitzig, Begr. d. Kritik, p. 130, quoted by Keil). It will be necessary, in dealing with this objection, to meet the skeptical critic on his own ground. To say that his reasoning contradicts our belief in the inspiration of the historical books of Scripture, and is destructive of all reverence for them, would involve a petitio principit, and how- ever strongly it may influence our feelings, we are bound to find another answer. It is believed that that answer is not far to seek. (1.) The silence of 1774 MAN ASSEH a writer who sums up the history of a reign of 55 years in 19 verses as to one alleged event in it is surely a weak ground for refusing to accept that event on the authority of another historian. (2.) The omission is in part explained by the character of the narrative of 2 K. xxi. The writer delib- erately turns away from the history of the days of shame, and not less from the personal biography of the king. He looks on the reign only as it con- tributed to the corruption and final overthrow of the kingdom, and no after repentance was able to undo the mischief that had been done at first. (3.) Still keeping on the level of human _probabil- ities, the character of the writer of 2 Chronicles, obviously a Levite. and looking at the facts of the history from the Levite point of view, would lead him to attach greater importance to a partial rein- statement of the old ritual and to the cessation of persecution, and so to give them in proportion a greater prominence. (4.) There is one peculiarity in the history which is, in some measure, of the nature of an undesigned coincidence, and so con- firms it. The captains of the host of Assyria take Manasseh to Babylon. Would not a later writer, inventing the story, have made the Assyrian, and not the Babylonian capital, the scene of the cap- tivity; or if the latter were chosen for the sake of harmony with the prophecy of Is. xxxix., have made the king of Babylon rather than of Assyria the captor?@ As it is, the narrative fits in, with the utmost agcuracy, to the facts of oriental history. The first attempt of Babylon to assert its inde- pendence of Nineveh failed. It was crushed by Esarhaddon (the first or second of that name; comp. EsARHADDON, and Ewald, Gesch. Jsr. iii. 675), and for a time the Assyrian king held his court at Babylon, so as to effect more completely the reduction of the rebellious province. There is (5) the fact of agreement with the intervention of the Assyrian king in 2 K. xvii. 24, just at the same time. The king isnot named there, but Ezra iv. 2, 10, gives Asnappar, and this is probably only another form of Asardanapar, and this = Esarhad- don (comp. Ewald, Gesch. iii. 676; ‘Tob. i. 21 gives Sarchedonus). The importation of tribes from Eastern Asia thus becomes part of the same policy as the attack on Judah. On the whole, then, the objection may well be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. Like many other difficulties urged by the same school, it has in it something at once captious and puerile. Those who lay undue stress on them act in the spirit of a clever boy asking puzzling questions, or a sharp advocate getting up a case against the evidence on the other side, rather than in that of critics who have learnt how to construct a history and to value its materials rightly (comp. Keil, Comm. on 2 K. xxi.). Ewald, a critic of a nobler stamp, whose fault is rather that of fantastic reconstruction than needless skepticism (Gesch. Isr. iii. 678), admits the groundwork of truth. Would the prophecy of Isaiah, it may be asked; have been recorded and preserved if it had not been fulfilled? Might not Manasseh’s release have been, as Ewald suggests, the direct consequence of the death of Esarhaddon ? The circumstance just noticed enables us to re- a It may be noticed that this was actually done in later apocryphal traditions (see below). b A comparison of the description of these fortifica- tions with Zeph. i. 10 gives a special interest and force to the prophet’s words. Manasseh had strengthened MANASSEH ttirn an approximate answer to the other question. — The duration of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian reign ia — calculated as from B. C. 680-667; and Manasseh’s captivity must therefore have fallen within those limits. A Jewish tradition (Seder Olam Rabba, c. — 24) fixes the 22d year of his reign as the exact — date; and this, according as we adopt the earlier or the later date of his accession, would give B. c. 676 or 673. The period that followed is dwelt upon by the writer of 2 Chr. as one of a great change for the — better. The discipline of exile made the king feel — that the gods whom he had chosen were powerless to deliver, and he turned in his heart to Jehovah, — the God of his fathers. The compassion or death of Esarhaddon led to his release, and he returned after some uncertain interval of time to Jerusalem. It is not improbable that his absence from that city had given a breathing-time to the oppressed adhe- rents of the ancient creed, and possibly had brought — into prominence, as the provisional ruler and de- fender of the city, one of the chief members of the party. If the prophecy of Is. xxii. 15 received, as it probably did, its fulfillment in Shebna’s sharing the captivity of his master, there is nothing extrav- agant in the belief that we may refer to the same period the noble words which speak of Eliakim the — son of Hilkiah as taking the place which Shebna should leave vacant, and rising up to be “a father unto the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah,’’ having “the key of the house of David — on his shoulder.” The return of Manasseh was at any rate followed by a new policy. The old faith of Israel was no~ longer persecuted. Foreign idolatries were no longer thrust, in all their foulness, into the Sanctuary itself. The altar of the Lord was again restored, and peace- offerings and thank-offerings sacrificed to Jehovah . (2 Chr. xxxiii. 15, 16). But beyond this the refor- mation did not go. The ark was not restored to its place. The book of the Law of Jehovah remained in its concealment. Satisfied with the feeling that they were no longer worshipping the gods of other nations by name, they went on with a mode of worship essentially idolatrous. ‘“ The people did sacrifice still in the high places, but to Jehovah their God only’? (bed. ver. 17). The other facts known of Manasseh’s reign con- — nect themselves with the state of the world round him. The Assyrian monarchy was tottering to its fall, and the king of Judah seems to have thought that it was still possible for him to rule as the head of a strong and independent kingdom. If he had to content himself with a smaller territory, he might yet guard its capital against attack, by a new wall defending what had been before its weak side, ‘\to the entering in of the fish-gate,’’ and completiny the tower of Ophel,® which had been begun, with a like purpose, by Jotham (2-Chr. xxvii. 3). Nor were the preparations for defense limited to Jeru- salem. ‘‘ He put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah.’ There was, it must be reméem- bered, a special reason for this attitude, over and above that afforded by the condition of Assyria. Egypt had emerged from the chaos of the Dodec- archy and the Ethiopian intruders, and was become the city where it was most open to attack. Zephaniah points to the defenses, and says that they shall avail nothing. It is useless to trust in them: ‘ There shall be the noise of a cry from the fish-gate,”’ ' MANASSEH strong and aggressive under Psammitichus. Push-~ ing his arms northwards, he attacked the Philis- tines; and the twenty-nine years’ siege of Azotus must have fallen wholly or in part within the reign of Manasseh. So far his progress would not be unacceptable. It would be pleasant to see the old hereditary enemies of Israel, who had lately grown insolent and defiant, meet with their masters. About this time, accordingly, we find the thought of an Egyptian alliance again beginning to gain favor. The prophets, and those who were guided by them, dreaded this more than anything, and entered their protest against it. Not the less, however, from this time forth, did it continue to be the favorite idea which took possession of the minds of the lay-party of the princes of Judah. The very name of Manasseh’s son, Amon, barely ad- mitting a possible Hebrew explanation, but identi- cal in form and sound with that of the great sun-god of Egypt (so Ewald, Gesch. iii. 665), is probably an indication of the gladness with which the alliance of Psammitichus was welcomed. As one of its consequences, it involved probably the supply of troops from Judah to serve in the armies of the Egyptian king. Without adopting Ewald’s hy- pothesis that this is referred to in Deut. xxviii. 68, it is yet likely enough in itself, and Jer. ii. 14-16 seems to allude to some such state of things. In return for this, Manasseh, we may believe, received the help of the chariots and horses for which Egypt was always famous (Is. xxxi. 1). (Comp. Aristeas, Epist. ad Philocr. in Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. p. 104).¢ If this Was the close of Manasseh’s reign, we can well understand how to the writer of the books of Kings it would seem ‘hardly better than the beginning, leaving the root-evil uncured, pre- paring the way for worse evils than itself. We can understand how it was that on his death he was buried as Ahaz had been, not with the burial of a king, in the sepulchres of the house of David, but in the garden of Uzza (2 K. xxi. 26), and that, long afterwards, in spite of his repentance, the Jews held his name in abhorrence, as one of the three kings (the other two are Jeroboam and Ahab) who had no part in eternal life (San- hedv’. ch. xi. 1, quoted by Patrick on 2 Chr. xxxiii. 13). And the evil was irreparable. The habits of a sensuous and debased worship had eaten into the life of the people; and though they might be repressed for a time by force, as in the reformation of Josiah, they burst out again, when the pressure was removed, with fresh violence, and rendered even the zeal of the best of the Jewish kings fruitful chiefly in hypocrisy and unreality. The intellectual life of the people suffered in the same degree. ‘The persecution cut off all who, trained in the schools of the prophets, were the @ The passage referred to occurs in the opening para- graphs of the letter of the Pseudo-Aristeas. He is speaking of the large number of Jews (100,000) who had been brought into Egypt by Ptolemy, the son of Lagus. ‘They,-however,” he says, “ were not the only Jews there. Others, though not so many, had come in with the Persian. Before that,troops had been sent, by virtue of a treaty of alliance, to help Psammitichus against the Ethiopians.’? The direct authority of this Writer is. of course, not very great; but the absence of any motive for the invention of such a fact makes it probable that he was following some historical records. Ewald it should be mentioned, claims the credit of navivg been the first to discover the bearing of this MANASSEH 1775 thinkers and teachers of the people. The reign of Manasseh witnessed the close of the work of Isaiah and Habakkuk at its beginning, and the youth of Jeremiah and Zephaniah at its conclusion, but no prophetic writings illumine that dreary half cen- tury of debasement.o The most fearful symptom of all, when a prophet’s voice was again heard during the minority of Josiah, was the atheism which, then as in other ages, followed on the con. fused adoption of a confluent polytheism (Zeph. i. 12). It is surely a strained, almost a fantastic hypothesis, to assign (as Ewald does) to such a period two such noble works as Deuteronomy and the Book of Job. Nor was this dying-out of a true faith the only evil. The systematic persecu- tion of the worshippers of Jehovah accustomed the people to the horrors of a religious war; and when they in their turn gained the ascendency, they used the opportunity with a fiercer sternness than had been known before. Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah in their reforms had been content with restoring the true worship and destroying the instruments of the false. In that of Josiah, the destruction extends to the priests of the high places, whom he sacrifices on their own altars (2 K. xxiii. 20). But little is added by later tradition to the O. T. narrative of Manasseh’s reign. The prayer that bears his name among the apocrypbal books can hardly, in the absence of any Hebrew original, be considered as identical with that referred to in 2 Chr. xxxiii., and is probably rather the result of an attempt to work out the hint there supplied than the reproduction of an older document. ‘There are reasons, however, for believing that there existed at some time or other, a fuller history, more or less legendary, of Manasseh and his conversion, from which the prayer may possibly have been an excerpt preserved for devotional purposes (it appears for the first time in the Apostolical Constitutions) when the rest was rejected as worthless. Scattered here and there, we find the disjecta membra of such a work. Among the offenses of Manasseh, the most prominent is, that he places in the sanctuary an dyad wa TeTpampdawmov of Zeus (Suidas, Se UV. Mavacojs; Georg. Syncellus, Chronograph. i. 404). The charge on which he condemns Isaiah to death is that of blasphemy, the words, ‘I saw the Lord”? (Is. vi. 1) being treated as a presumptu- ous boast at variance with Ex. xxxiii. 20 (Nic. de Lyra, from a Jewish treatise: Jebamoth, quoted by Amama, in Crit. Sacrion 2 K. xxi.). Isaiah is miraculously rescued. A cedar opens to receive him. Then comes the order that the cedar should be sawn through (ibid.). That which made this sin the greater was, that the king’s mother, Heph- zibah, was the daughter of Isaiah. When Manas- seh was taken captive by Merodach and taken to Babylon (Suidas), he was thrown into prison and fact on the history of Manasseh’s reign. Another indication that Ethiopia was looked on, about this, time, as among the enemies of Judah, may be found in Zeph. ii. 12, while in Zeph. iii. 10 we have a clear statement of the fact that a great multitude of the people had found their way to that remote country. The story told by Herodotus of the revolt of the Auto- moli (ii. 80) indicates the necessity which led Psammi- tichus to gather mercenary troops from all quarters for defense of that frontier of his kingdom. b There is a possible exception to this in the exist- ence of a prophet Hozai (the Vulg. rendering, where the LXX. has rev dpwvTwy, and the A. V. “the seers * (2 Chr. xxxiii, 19); but nothing else is known of him. 1776 MANASSEH fed daily with a scanty allowance of bran-bread and water mixed with vinegar. Then came his con- demnation. He was encased in a brazen image (the description suggests a punishment like that of the bull of Perillus), but he repented and prayed, and the image clave asunder, and he escaped (Suidas and Georg. Syncellus). Then he returned to Jeru- salem and lived righteously and justly. E. H. P: 2: (Mavaco7 $ [ Vat. Mavacen af Manasse.) One of the descendants of Pahath-Moab, who in the days of Ezra had married a foreign wife (Ezr. x. 80). In 1 Esdr. ix. 81 he is called MANAs- SEAS. 3. One of the laymen, of the family of Hashum, who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s command (Ezr. x. 83). He is called MANAssEs in 1 Esdr. ix. 33. 4. ([Mavacoj; Alex. Mavvacon:| Moyses.) In the Hebrew text of Judg. xviii. 30, the name of the priest of the graven image of the Danites is given as ‘ Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh”’; the last word being written mw yr, and a Masoretic note calling attention to the “ nun suspended.’’ ‘The fate of this superposititious letter,” says Kennicott (Diss. ii. 53), “ has been very various, sometimes placed over the word, some- times suspended half way, and sometimes uniformly inserted.’? Jarchi’s note upon the passage is as follows: ‘On account of the honor of Moses he wrote Nun to change the name; and it is written suspended to signify that it was not Manasseh but Moses.”” The LXX., Peshito-Syriac, and Chaldee all read ‘‘ Manasseh, % but the Vulgate retains the original and undoubtedly the true reading, Moyses. Three of De Rossi’s MSS. had originally TW, ‘‘ Moses; ’’ and this was also the reading “ of three Greek MSS. in the Library of St. Germain at Paris, of one in the Library of the Carmelites of the same place, of a Greek MS., No. 331, in the Vatican, and of a MS. of the Octateuch in University Col- lege Library, Oxford ’’ (Burrington, Genealogies, i. 86). A passage in Theodoret is either an attempt to reconcile the two readings, or indicates that in some copies at least of the Greek they must have coexisted. He quotes the clause in question in this form, "Iwvd@av . . . vis Mavacoh viod I'npoau viov Mwo7; and this apparently gave rise to the assertion of Hiller (Arcanum Keri et Kethib, p. 187, quoted by Rosenmiiller on Judg. xviii. 30), that the “Nun suspended’? denotes that the previous word is transposed. He accordingly pro- poses to read OW] JA MWID JA YIN: but although his judgment on the point is accepted as final by Rosenmiiller, it has not the smallest authority. Kennicott attributes the presence of the Nun to the corruption of MSS. by Jewish tran- scribers. With regard to the chronological dif- ficulty of accounting for the presence of a grandson of Moses at an apparently late period, there is every reason to believe that the last five chapters of Judges refer to earlier events than those after which they are placed.. In xx. 28 Phinehas the son of Eleazar, and therefore the grandson of Aaron, is said to have stood before the ark, and there is therefore no difficulty in supposing that a grandson a Ewald (Gesch. iii. 679) is inclined to think that the Greek may have been based on the Hebrew. There MANASSES, THE PRAYER OF of Moses was not long "afer the death of Joshua. the Gadites, and introduces them both before the invasion of Chushanrishathaim and the deliverance of Israel by Othniel, narrated in Judg. ili. (Ant. v 2, § 8-v. 3, § 1: see also Kennicott’s Dissertations, ii. 51-57; Dissert. Gener. p. 10). It may be as well to mention a tradition recorded by R. David Kimchi, that in the genealogy of Jonathan, Manas- seh is written for Moses because he did the deed of Manasseh, the idolatrous king of Judah. A note from the margin of a Hebrew MS. quoted by Ken- nicott (Diss. Gen. p. 10) is as follows: “ He is called by the name of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah, for he also made the graven image in the Temple.’’ < P ¥ aWey might be alive at the same time, which — J osephus ee places the episode of the Benjamites before that of . It must be confessed that the point of this is not very apparent. WA. Ws MANAS’SES (Mavacojs; [Vat- Mavacon:] Manasses). 1. MANAssEH 4, of the sons of Hashum (1 Esdr. ix. 33; comp. Ezr. x. 33). 2. MANASSEH, king of Judah (Matt. i. 10), to whom the apocryphal prayer is attributed. 3. MANASSEH, the son of Joseph (Rey. vii. 6). 4. A wealthy inhabitant of Bethulia, and hus- band of Judith, according to the legend. smitten with a sunstroke while superintending the laborers in his fields, leaving Judith a widow with great possessions (Jud. viii. 2, 7, x. 3, xvi. 22, 23, 24), and was buried between Dothan and Baal- hamon. MANAS’SES, THE PRAYER OF (mpooevx}} Mavacon). 1. The repentance and restoration of Manasseh (2 Chr. xxxiii. 12 ff.) He was © furnished the subject of many legendary stories — (Fabric. Cod. Apocr. V. T. i. 1101 f.). “ His prayer unto his God”’ was still preserved “in the book of the kings of Israel’’ when the Chronicles were compiled (2 Chr. xxxiii. 18), and, after this record was lost, the subject was likely to attract the notice of later writers.¢ “+ The Prayer of Man- asseh,’’ which is found in some MSS. of the LXX., is the work of one who has endeayored to express, not without true feeling, the thoughts of the re- pentant king. It opens with a description of the majesty of God (1-5), which passes into a descrip- — tion of his mercy in granting repentarice to sinners (6-8, enol TH GapTwrAs). Then follows a per- sonal confession and supplication to God as “ the God of them that repent,’ ‘ hymned by all the powers of heaven,’ to whom belongs ‘“ glory for ever” (9-15, cod éoriv % Sdéa eis Tovs al@vas). ** And the Lord heard the voice of Manasses and pitied him,” the legend continues, ‘“ and there came around him a flame of fire, and all the irons about — him (7r& rept avrov odnpa) were melted, and the Lord delivered him out of is affliction” ( Const. Apost. ii. 22; comp. Jul. Afric. ap. Routh, Rel. Sac. ii. 288). 2. The Greek text is undoubtedly original, and not a mere translation from the Hebrew; and even within the small space of fifteen verses some pecu- — liarities are found (@orekros, KAtvely yoru Kap- Sias, mapopyt(eyv Toy Auudy, TiWecPar meravoray rivt)} The writer was well acquainted with the LXX. (7d karérara THs vis, 7d TAGS THS XpnoroTnTds gov, Taga h Svvauis TAY ovpavav); — but beyond this there is nothing to determine the — is at least no trace of such an origin of the Greek text. a MANASSITES, THE date at which he lived. The allusion to the patriarchs (ver. 8, 5/xato1; ver. 1, rd orépua abray Td Sixaoy) appears to fix the authorship on a Jew; but the clear teaching on repentance points to a time certainly not long before the Christian era. ‘There is no indication of the place at which the Prayer was written. 3. The earliest reference to the Prayer is con- tained in a fragment of Julius Africanus (cir. 221 A. D.), but it may be doubted whether the words in their original form clearly referred to the present composition (Jul. Afric. fr. 40). It is, however, given at length in the Apostolical Constitutions (ii. 22), in which it is followed by a narrative of the same apocryphal facts (§ 1) as are quoted from Africanus. ‘The Prayer is found in the Alexandrine MS. in the collection of hymns and metrical prayers which is appended to the Psalter — a position which it generally occupies; but in the three Latin MSS. used by Sabatier it is placed at the end of 2 Chr. (Sabat. Bibl. Lat. iii. 1038). 4. The Prayer was never distinctly recognized as a canonical writing, though it was included in many MSS. of the LXX. and of the Latin version, and has been deservedly retained among the apoc- rypha in A. V. and by Luther. The Latin trans- lation which occurs in Vulgate MSS. is not by the hand of Jerome, and has some remarkable phrases (insustentabilis, importabilis (avutéararos), omnis wirtus celorum); but there is no sufficient internal evidence to show whether it is earlier or later than his time. It does not, however, seem to have been used by any Latin writer of the first four centuries, and was not known to Victor Tunonensis in the 6th (Ambrosius, iv. 989, ed. Migne). 5. The Commentary of Fritzsche (Exeg. Handb. 1851) contains all that is necessary for the inter- pretation of the Prayer, which is, indeed, in little need of explanation. The Alexandrine text scems to have been interpolated in some places, while it also omits a whole clause; but at present the ma- terials for settling a satisfactory text have not been collected. Bier WwW. MANAS‘SITES, THE (W737, i. ¢. «the Manassite”’: 6 Mavacoj [or -ons; Alex. in Deut. and Judg. Mavvacon or -ons:] Manasse), that is, the members of the tribe of Manasseh. ‘The word occurs but thrice in the A. V. namely, Deut. ly. 43; Judg. xii. 4; and 2 K. x. 33. In the first and last of these the original is as given above, but in the other it is “ Manasseh ? — « Fugitives of Ephraim are you, Gilead; in the midst of Ephraim, n the midst of Manasseh.’”’ It may be well to ake this opportunity of remarking, that the point f the verse following that just quoted is lost in the A. V., from the word which in ver. 4 is rightly endered “ fugitive’? being there given as “ those which were escaped.” Ver. 5 would more accu- ately be, “ And Gilead seized the fords of the fordan-of-Ephraim; and it was so that when fugi- ives of Ephraim said, ‘I will go over,’ the men of Hilead said to him, ‘Art thou an Ephraimite ?’ ”’ ~the point being that the taunt of the Ephraimites fas turned against themselves. G. a @ Various etymologies have been proposed for this ford; the most probable is that it comes from the oot THVT, to love,” whence TNT, love”? “6 WY, This plant, according to Abulfadli, cor- 112 ' ra a \ MANDRAKES 1777 MAN’DRAKES (O°S777," duddim : whara Mavdpayopay, of uavdparydpar: mandragore). + It were a wearisome and superfluous task,”’ says Oed- mann ( Vermtsch. Sammi. i. y. 95), ‘to quote and pass judgment on the multitude of authors who have written about dudaim:” but the reader who cares to know the literature of the subject will find a long list of authorities in Celsius (Hierob. i. 1 ff.) and in Rudbeck (De Dudédim ubenis, Upsal, 1733). See also Winer (Bibl. Realwért. « Alraun”’). The duddim (the word occurs only in the plural number) are mentioned in Gen. xxx. 14, 15, 16, and in Cant. vii. 13. From the former passage we learn that they were found in the fields of Mesopo- tamia, where Jacob and his wives were at one time living, and that the fruit (ujjAa mavdparyopav, LXX.) was gathered “in the days of wheat- harvest,” 7. e. in May. There is evidently also an allusion to the supposed properties of this plant to promote conception, hence Rachel's desire of ob- taining the fruit, for as yet she had not borne children. In Cant. vii. 13 it is said, “the duddim give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits’? — from this passage we learn that responds with the Arabic , % the plant in question was strong-scented, and that it grew in Palestine. Various attempts have been made to identify the duddim. Rudbeck the younger the same who maintained that the quails which fed the Israelites in the wilderness were « flying fish,” and who, as Oedmann has truly remarked, seems to have a special gift for demonstrating anything he pleases — supposed the duddim were ‘‘ bramble-berries ’? (Rubus cesius, Linn.), a theory which deserves no serious consideration. Celsius, who supposes that a kind of Rhamnus is meant, is far from satisfactory in his conclusions; he identi- fies the duddim with what he calls Lotus Cyrenaica, the Sidra of Arabic authors. This appears to be the lotus of the ancients, Zizyphus lotus. See Shaw’s Z’ravels, i. 263, and Sprengel, Hist. Ret S ¢ herb. i. 251; Freytag, Ar. Lex. s. y. youn: / Celsius’s argument is based entirely upon the au- thority of a certain Rabbi (see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p- 1202), who asserts the dudéim to be the fruit of the mayish (the lotus?); but the authority of a single Rabbi is of little weight against the almost unanimous testimony of the ancient versions. With still less reason have Castell (Lez. Hept. p. 2052) and Ludolf (Hist. 4ith. i. c. 9), and a few others, advanced a claim for the JJ/usa poradisiaca, the banana, to denote the duddim. Faber, following Ant. Deusing (Dissert. de Dudaim), thought the dudéim were’ small sweet-scented melons ( Cucumis dudaim), which grow in Syria, Egypt, and Persia, known by the Persians as distembujeh, a word which means “fragrance in the hand;” and Sprengel (Hist. i. 17) appears to have entertained a similar belief. This theory is certainly more plausible than many others that have been adduced, but it is unsupported except by the Persian version in Genesis. Various other conjectures haye from time to time been made, as that the dudéim are “lilies,” or “ citrons,” or ‘ baskets of figs’? — all mere theories. , Which, however. Sprengel identifies with Zizyphus Paliurus. 1778 MANDRAKES The most satisfactory attempt at identification is certainly that which supposes the mandrake (Atropa mandragora) to be the plant denoted by the Hebrew word. The LXX., the Vulg., the Sy- riac, and the Arabic versions, the Targums, the most learned of the Rabbis, and many later commenta- tors, are in favor of the translation of the A. V. The arguments which Celsius has adduced against the mandrake being the duddim have been most ably answered by Michaelis (see Supp. ad Lew. Heb. No. 451). It is well known that the mandrake is far from odoriferous, the whole plant being, in European estimation at all events, very fetid; on this account Celsius objected to its being the dudéim, which he supposed were said in the Canti- cles to be fragrant. Michaelis has shown that nothing of the kind is asserted in Scripture: the duddim “ give forth an odor,”’ which, however, may be one of no fragrant nature; the invitation to ~_ ZA = — SS ———— = CC—AAAz: LL The Mandrake (Atropa mandragora). the ‘beloved to go forth into the field ”’ is full of force if we suppose the duddim (‘love plants’’) to denote the mandrake. Again, the odor or flavor of plants is after all a matter of opinion, for Schulz (Leitung. des Héchsten, vy. 197), who found mandrakes on Mount Tabor, says of them, “they have a delightful smell, and the taste is equally agreeable, though not to everybody.’’ _ Mariti (Trav. iii. 146) found on the 7th of May, near the hamlet of St. John in’ Mount Juda,” mandrake @ “Qui quidem quod hircinus est quodammodo, vi- resque mandragore in Aphrodisiacis laudantur, amori- bus auras perflare videtur et ad eos stimulare.” “a 9 apie 8 cl. ePID. Jrosay. eaphele ital MANDRAKES plants, the fruit of which he says “is of the size and color of a small apple, ruddy and of a most agreeable odor.”’ Oedmann, after quoting a num- ber of authorities to show that the mandrakes were prized by the Arabs for their odor, makes the fol- lowing just remark: “It is known that Orientals set an especial value on strongly smelling things that to more delicate European senses are unpleas- ing .... The intoxicating qualities of the man- drake, far from lessening its value, would rather add to it, for every one knows with what relish the Orientals use all kinds of preparations to produce intoxication.”’ The Arabic version of Saadias has luffach® = mandragora; in Onkelos yabruchin, and in Syriae yabruch¢ express the Hebrew duddim: now we learn from Mariti (7’rav. iii. 146, ed. Lond. 1792), that a word similar to this last was applied by the Arabs to the mandrake — he says, “the Arabs call it jabrohak.”? ¢ Celsius asserts that the mandrake has not the property which has been attributed to it: it is, however, a matter of common belief in the East that this plant has the power to aid in the procreation of offspring. Schulz, Maundrell, Mariti, all allude to it; compare also Dioscorides, iv. 76, Sprengel’s Annotations; and Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. ix. 9, § 1. Venus was called Man- dragoriis by the ancient Greeks (Hesych. s. v.), and the fruit of the plant was termed ‘apples of love.”’ That the fruit was fit to be gathered at the time of wheat-harvest is clear from the testimony of several travellers. Schulz found mandrake-apples on the 15th of May. MHasselquist saw them at Nazareth early in May. He says: “I had not the pleasure to see the plant in blossom, the fruit now [May 5, O. S.] hanging ripe on the stem whick lay withered on the ground ’’ — he conjectures that they are Rachel’s duddim. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, p. 577) found mandrakes ripe on the lower ranges of Lebanon and Hermon to- wards the end of April. . From a certain rude resemblance of old roots of the mandrake to the human form, whence Pythag- oras is said to have called the mandrake av@pw7é- hoppov, and Columella (10, 19) semzhomo, some strange superstitious notions have arisen concerning it. Josephus (B. J. vii. 6, § 8) evidently allude: to one of these superstitions, though he calls the plant baaras. In a Vienna MS. of Dioscorides is a curious drawing which represents Euresis, the goddess of discovery, handing to Dioscorides a root of the mandrake; the dog employed for the pur. pose is depicted in the agonies of death (Daubeny’s Roman Husbandry, p. 275).¢ The mandrake is found abundantly in the Gre- cian islands, and in some parts of the south of Europe. The root is spindle-shaped and ofter divided into two or three forks. ‘lhe leaves, whick are long, sharp-pointed, and hairy, rise immediatel} from the ground; they are of a dark-green color The flowers are dingy white, stained with veins of purple. The fruit is of a pale orange color, an¢ about the size of a nutmeg; but it would appeai that the plant varies considerably in appearance d The Arabs call the fruit twphach el-sheitan, “ the devil's apple,” from its power to excite voluptuous ness. e Comp. also Shaksp. Henry IV., Pt. TI. Act. i. Se 2; Rom. and Jul., Act iv. Se.8; D’Herbelot, Biblioth Orient. 8. v. “ Abrousanam.” MANEH | according to the localities where it grows. The / mandrake (4dtopa mandragora) is closely allied to _ the well-known deadly nightshade (4. bedludonna) and belongs to the order Solanacee. W.. | dds _ *® The Arabs of Mt. Lebanon also call the Man- dragora officinalis (i. e. Atropa mandragora), wo, = ) ys! “no doubt in allusion to their supposed virtues. | G. E. P. MANEH. [Wercurs anp MeAsures.] MANGER. This word occurs only in con- ‘ection with the birth of Christ, in Luke ii. 7, 12, ‘16. The original term is gdrvy, which is found ‘but once besides in the N. 'I., namely, Luke xiii. 15, where it is rendered by “stall.’’ ‘The word in ‘classical Greek undoubtedly means a manger, crib, or feeding-trough (see Liddell and Scott, Lez. 8. v.); but according to Schleusner its real signifi- cation in the N. I. is the open court-yard, attached ‘to the inn or khan, and enclosed by a rough fence of stones, wattle, or other slight material, into which the cattle would be shut at night, and where ‘the poorer travellers might unpack their animals and take up their lodging, when they were either by want of room or want of means excluded from the house. This conclusion is supported by the rendering of the Vulg. — presepe —and of the Peshito-Syriac, Lusof, both which terms mean “ enclosures,’’ — and also by the customs of Pales- tine. Stables and mangers, in the sense in which we understand them, are of comparatively late introduction into the East (see the quotations from Chardin and others in Harmer’s Observations, ii. 205, 206), and although they have furnished mate- tial to painters and poets, did not enter into the sircumstances attending the birth of Christ — and are hardly less inaccurate than the “cradle” and ’ oS L2.A2 (Baidh ul-Jinn) = eggs of Gentt, Ixxvili. 24, 25; Wisd. xvi. 20, 21. MANNA 1779 MAN’LIUS, TX [Tires Mavvrues: Alex. Ald. with 5 MSS. T. Mdvios: Titus Manilius]. Tn the account of the conclusion of the campaign of Lysias (B.C. 163) against the Jews given in % Mace, xi., four letters are introduced, of which the last purports to be from “Q. Memmius and T.. Manlius, ambassadors (peo Bora.) of the Romans” (vv. 34-38), confirming the concessions made by Lysias. There can be but little doubt that the letter is a fabrication. No such names occur among the many legates to Syria noticed by Polybius; and there is no room for the mission of another embassy between two recorded shortly before and after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (Polyb. xxxi. 9, 6; 12, 9; Grimm, ad loc ). If, as seems likely, the true reading is T. Manius (not Manlius), the writer was probably thinking of the former embassy when C. Sulpicius and Manius Sergius were sent to Syria. ‘The form of the letter is no less fatal to the idea of its authenticity than the names in which it is written. The use of the era of the Seleucid to fix the year, the omission of the name of the place at which it was dated, and the exact coincidence of the date of this letter with that of the young Antiochus, are all suspicious circumstances. Moreover, the first intercourse be- tween the Jews and Romans is marked distinctly as taking place two years later (1 Mace. viii. 1 ff. ), when Judas heard of their power and fidelity. The remaining letters are of no more worth, though it is possible that some facts may have sug- gested special details (e. g. 2 Macc. xi. 29 #f.). (Wernsdorf, De Fide Macc. § 66; Grimm, ed loc.; and on the other side Patritius, De Cons. Mace. pp. 142, 280.) B. F. W. MAN’NA (7D, mdn: Mdvva: Manhu, Man, Manna). The most important passages of the O. T. on this topic are the following: Ex. xvi. 14-36; Num. xi. 7-9; Deut. viii. 3,16; Josh. v. 12; Ps. From these passages we learn that the manna came every morn- ing except the Sabbath, in the form of a small round seed resembling the hoar frost; that it must be gathered early, betore the sun became so hot as to melt it; that it must be gathered every day except the Sabbath; that the attempt to lay aside for a succeeding day, except on the day immediately preceding the Sabbath, failed by the substance be- coming wormy and offensive; that it was prepared for food by grinding and baking; that its taste was like fresh oil, and like wafers made with honey, equally agreeable to all palates; that the whole nation subsisted upon it for forty years; that it suddenly ceased when they first got the new corn of the land of Canaan; and that it was always regarded as a miraculous gift directly from God, and not a product of nature. The natural products of the Arabian deserts and other oriental regions, which bear the name of manna, have not the qualities or uses ascribed to the manna of Scripture. They are all condiments or medicines rather than food, stimulating or pur- gative rather than nutritious; they are produced only three or four montlis in the year, from May te August, and not all the year round; they come only in small quantities, never affording anything like the “ stable,” which are named in some descrip- tions of that event. [Crrp, Amer. ed.] _ This applies, however, only to the painters of the later schools. The early Christian artists seem almost invariably to represent the Nativity as in m open and detached court-yard. A crib or trough $ occasionally shown, but not prominently, and nore as if symbolic of the locality than as actually *xisting. The above interpretation of gdrvy is of course it variance with the traditional belief that the Nativity took place in a cave. Professor Stanley 1as however shown (S. f* P. pp» 440, 441; see also 163) how destitute of foundation this tradition is. And it should not be overlooked that the two ipocryphal Gospels which appear to be its main oundation, the Protevangelion and the Gospel of he Infaney, do not represent the cave as belonging © the inn —in fact, do not mention the inn in Onnection with the Nativity at all, while the former lees not introduce the manger and the inn till a ater period, that of the massacre of the innocents Protev. chap. xvi.). G. ~MANI (Mavi: Banni). The same as BAN, (1 Esdr. ix. 30; comp. Ezr. x. 29). a. a0. _@ Those who desire to see all that can be said on the feaning of ddrvy in the N. T. and in the LXX., as “aring on the N T., will find it in the 16th chapter of the 2d book of P. Horreus, Misceil. criticorum libri duo, Leovardize, 1738. 6 See for example, Milton’s Hymn on the Natit tty line 243. mS 1780 MANNA . 15,000,000 of pounds a week, which must have been requisite for the subsistence of the whole Israelitish camp, since each man had an omer (or three English quarts) a day, and that for forty years; they can be kept for a long time, and do not -become useless in a day or two; they are just as liable to deteriorate on the Sabbath as on any other day; nor does a double quantity fall on the day preceding the Sabbath; nor would natural products cease at once and for ever, as the manna is repre- sented as ceasing in the book of Joshua. The manna of Scripture we therefore regard as wholly miraculous, and not in any respect a product of nature. The etymology and meaning of the word manna are best given by the old authorities, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and Josephus. The Septuagint trans- lation of Ex. xvi. 15 is this: 1Sdévres 5€ avrd of viol "IopahA elwav Erepos TG Erépw, Th éort To0T0; ob yap Hoecay 7) Hv. “ But the children of Israel, seeing it, suid one to another, What as this? for they knew not what it was.” The Vul- gate, with a very careful reference to the Hebrew, thus: “Quod cum vidissent filii Israel, dixerunt ad invicem manhu, quod significat: Quid est hoc? ignorabant enim quid esset:’ i. e. “ Which when the children of Israel saw, they said one to another, MAN HU, which signifies, What is this? for they knew not what it was.’ In Josephus (And. ili. 1, §6) we have the following: KaAovor dé ‘EBpaior T) Bpaua TodTo pdvva, To yap may émeparnots KaTa THY Nuetépay SiddAexTor, tl tour’ é€oTLY, avaxplvovoa * Now the Hebrews call this food MANNA, for the particle MAN, in our language, is the asking of a question, WHAT Is THIS?” According to all these authorities, with which the Syriac also agrees, the Hebrew word man, by which this substance is always designated in the Hebrew Scriptures, is the neuter interrogative pro- noun (what ?), and the name is derived from the inquiry SAT 77D (man hu, what is this?), which the Hebrews made when they first saw it upon the ground. The other etymologies, which would de- rive the word from either of the Hebrew verbs 22 or 72'D, are more recent and less worthy of confidence, and do not agree with the sacred text; a literal translation of which (Ex. xvi. 15) is this: ss And the children of Israel saw and said, a man to his neighbor, what ts this (man hu); Sor they knew not what it was.” The Arabian physician Avicenna gives the fol- lowing description of the manna which in his time was used as a medicine: “ Manna is a dew which falls on stones or bushes, becomes thick like honey, and can be hardened so as to be like grains of corn.”’ The substance now called manna in the Arabian desert through which the Israelites passed, is col- lected in the month of June from the tarfq or tamarisk shrub (Tamarix gallica). According to Burckhardt it drops from the thorns on the sticks and leaves with which the ground is covered, and must be gathered early in the day, or it will be melted by the sun. The Arabs cleanse and boil it, strain it through a cloth, and put it in Jeathern bottles; and in this way it can be kept uninjured for several years. They use it like honey or butter with their unleavened bread, but never make it into cakes or eat it by itself. It abounds only in very wet years, and in dry seasons it sometimes disap- pears en‘irely. Various shrubs, all through the MANNA oriental world, from India to Syria, yield a sub- stance of this kind. The tamarisk gum is by some supposed to be produced by the puncture of a small insect, which Ehrenberg has examined and de- scribed under the name of Coccus manniparus. See Symbole Physice, p. i.; Transact. of Literary Society of Bombay, i. 251. have been the food of the Israelites during their forty years’ sojourn in the wilderness, though the Tamarix Gallica. name might have been derived from some real 0! fancied resemblance to it. Rauwolf (Trav. i. 94) and some more recent tray- ellers have observed that the dried grains of the oriental manna were like the coriander-seed. Gmelir (Trav. through Russia to Persit, pt. ili. p. 28) re- marks this of the manna of Persia, which he says is white as snow. ‘The peasants of Ispahan gathel the leaves of a certain thorny shrub (the swee thorn) and strike them with a stick, and the grain of manna are received in a sieve. Niebuhr ob: served that at Mardin in Mesopotamia, the manné lies like meal on the leaves of a tree called in the East ballot and afs or as, which he regards as‘ species of oak.¢ The harvest is in J uly and August and much more plentiful in wet than dry seasons ae SUPE S-s a cao, which Freytag, however, identifies will some species of Capparis. * The ballot here spoken of is the Arabi oss ‘omy This surely could not MANNA It is sometimes collected before sunrise by shaking it from the leaves onto a cloth, and thus collected it remains very white and pure. That which is aot shaken off in the morning melts upon the leaves, and accumulates till it becomes very thick. The leaves are then gathered and put in boiling water, and the manna floats like oil upon the sur- face. This the natives call manna essemma, i. e. heavenly manna. In the valley of the Jordan Burckhardt found manna like gum on the leaves and branches of the tree gharrob,¢ which is as large as the olive tree, having a leaf like the poplar, thougr somewhat broader. It appears like dew Alhagi maurorum. upon the leaves, is of a brown or gray color, and drops on the ground. When first gathered it is sweet, but in a day or two becomes acid. The Arabs use it like honey or butter, and eat it in their oatmeal gruel. They also use it in cleaning their leather bottles and making them air-tight. The season for gathering this is May or June. Two other shrubs which have been supposed to yield the manna of Scripture, are the Alhagi mau- rorum, or Persian manna, and the Alhagi deserto- rum, — thorny plants common in Syria. The manna of European commerce comes mostly from Calabria and Sicily. It is gathered during o - bo, which signifies acorn, and has come to be ° applied to various species of oak, while the word ¢ afs’ ae Ge =e yore not sol, as incorrectly printed in the _hote, signifies ‘t galls,” and is often used for the tree MANOAH 1781 the months of June and July from some species of ash (Ornus Europea and Ornus rotundifolia), from which it drops in consequence of a puncture by an insect resembling the locust, but distinguished from it by having a sting under its body. The substance is fluid at night, and resembles the dew, but in the morning it begins to harden. Compare Rosenmiiller’s Alterthumskunde, iv. pp. 316-29; Winer, Realwérterbuch, ii. pp. 53, 54; and the oriental travellers above referred to. CC. E. S. MANO’AH (T1313 [rest]: Mavwé; Joseph. Mavexns: Manue), the father of Samson; a Dan- ite, native of the town of Zorah (Judg. xiii, 2). The narrative of the Bible (xiii. 1-23), of the cir- cumstances which preceded the birth of Samson, supplies us with very few and faint traits of Man- oah’s character or habits. He seems to have had some occupation which separated him during part of the day from his wife, though that was not field work, because it was in the field that his wife was found by the angel during his absence. He was hospitable, as his forefather Abram had been before him; he was a worshipper of Jehovah, and reverent to a great degree of fear. These faint lineaments are brought into somewhat greater distinctness by Josephus (Ant. v. 8, §§ 2, 3), on what authority we have no means of judging, though his account is doubtless founded on some ancient Jewish tradition or record. ‘There was a certain Manoches who was without controversy the best and chiefest per- son of his country. This man had a wife of ex- ceeding beauty, surpassing the other women of the place. Now, when they had no children, and were much distressed thereat, he besought God that He would grant unto them a lawful heir, and for that purpose resorted often with his wife to the suburb® (7d mpodoreioy) of the city. And in that place was the great plain. Now the man loved his wife to distraction, and on that ac- count was exceedingly jealous of her. And it came to pass that his wife being alone, an angel appeared to her . . . and when he had said these things he departed, for he had come by the command of God. When her husband came she informed him of all things concerning the angel, wondering greatly at the beauty and size of the youth, insomuch that he was filled with jealousy and with suspicion thereat. Then the woman, desiring to relieve her husband of his excessive grief, besought God that He would send again the angel, so that the man might behold him as well as she. And it came to pass that when they were in the suburbs again, by the favor of God the angel appeared the second time to the woman, while her husband was absent. And she having prayed him to tarry awhile till she should fetch her husband, went and brought Manoches.’ The rest of the story agrees with the Bible. We hear of Manoah once again in connection with the marriage of Samson to the Philistine of Timnath. His father and his mother remonstrated with him thereon, but to no purpose (xiv. 2, 3). They then accompanied him to Timnath, both on on which the galls grow, which is some species of the oak. GarBe Pe. @ Sprengel (Hist. Rei Herb. i. 270) identifies the gharb or gharab with the Salix babylonica. 6 Possibly to consult the Levites, whose special prop- erty the suburbs of the city were. But Zorah is no« where stated to have been a Levites’ city. 1782 MANSIONS the preliminary visit (vv. 5, 6), and to the marriage itself (9, 10). Manoah appears not to have sur- vived his son: not he, but Samson’s brothers, went Jown to Gaza for the body of the hero, and bring- ing it up to the family tomb between Zorah and Eshtaol, reunited the father to the son (xvi. 31), whose birth had been the subject of so many prayers and so much anxiety. Milton, however, does not take this view. In Samson Agonistes Manoah bears a prominent part throughout, and lives to bury his son. * MANSIONS (woval: mansiones) in the A.V. John xiy. 2 (in my Father’s house are many mansions ’’) is used in its primary signification of ‘abodes ’’ or “ places of abode,’’ not in the more specific sense which now belongs to the term. Mr. Norton translates, “ There are many rooms in my Father's house.” The reference is to the abundant provision made for the future blessedness of the followers of Christ, not to the different de- vrees of their reward, a thought which is foreign from the context. A MANSLAYER.@ The principle on which the ‘- manslayer’’ was to be allowed to escape, namely, that the person slain was regarded as “ delivered into his hand’? by the Almighty, was obviously open to much willful perversion (1 Sam. xxiv. 4, 18; xxvi. 8; Philo, De Spec. Leg. iii. 21, vol. ii. 320), though the cases mentioned appear to be a sufli- cient sample of the intention of the lawgiver. (.) Death by a blow in a sudden quarrel (Num. xxxv. 22). (%.) Death by a stone or missile thrown at random (7b. 22, 23). (c.) By the blade of an axe flying from its handle (Deut. xix. 5). (d.) Whether the case of a person killed by falling from a roof unprovided with a parapet involved the guilt of manslaughter on the owner, is not clear; but the law seems intended to prevent the imputation of malice in any such case, by preventing as far as possible the occurrence of the fact itself (Deut. xxii. 8). (Michaelis, On the Luws of Moses, arts. 223, 280, ed. Smith.) In all these and the like cases the manslayer was allowed to retire to a city of refuge. [C1TIES OF REFUGE.] Besides these the following may be mentioned as cases of homicide. (a.) An animal, not known to be vicious, causing death to a human being, was to be put to death, and regarded as unclean. But, if it was known to be vicious, the owner also was liable to fine, and even death (Ex. xxi. 28, 81). (6.) A thief overtaken at night in the act might lawfully be put to death, but if the sun had risen the act of killing him was to be regarded as murder (Ex. xxii. 2, 3). Other cases are added by the Mishna, which, however, are included in the defini- tions given above. (Sanh. ix. 1, 2, 8; Maccoth, li. 2; Otho, Lex. Rabb. “ Homicida.”) [MurDER. ] Petr \ carn 8 MANTLE. The word employed in the A. V. to translate no less than four Hebrew terms, en- tirely distinct and independent both in derivation and meaning. 1. ee vs. s’micah. This word occurs but a rz, part. of M3, * pierce” or “crush,” Ges. p. 1807: goveutys : homicida: used also in the sense of murderer. The phrase TTINWD, axovoius, ver ignorantiam, Ges. p. 1862, must therefore be in- cluded, to denote the distinction which the Law drew so plainly between malicious and involuntary homicide. MANTLE once, namely, Judg. iy. 18, where it denotes the It has the thing with which Jael covered Sisera. definite article prefixed, and it may therefore be inferred that it was some part of the regular furni- ture of the tent. ‘The clew to a more exact signi- fication is given by the Arabie version of the Poly- glott, which renders it by alcatifah, Korb ssf, a word which is explained by Dozy,? on the au- thority of Ibn Batuta and other oriental authors, to mean certain articles of a thick fabric, in shape like a plaid or shawl, which are commonly used for beds by the Arabs: *‘ When they sleep they spread them on the ground.’’ For the under part of the bed they are doubled several times, and one longer than the rest is used for a coverlid.”” On such a bed on the floor of Heber’s tent no doubt the weary Sisera threw himself, and such a coverlid must the semicah have been which Jael laid over him. ‘mantle’ from the pallium of the Vulgate, and the mantel of Luther. [Fiirst thinks that it was the ‘“tent-carpet,’”’ which Jael threw over Sisera, Handb. s. vy. — H.] 2. Son, meil. (Rendered “ mantle’? in 1 Sam. xv. 27, xxviii. 14; Ezr. ix. 3, 5; Job i. 20, ii. 12; and Ps. cix. 29.) This word is in other passages of the A. V. rendered * coat,” ‘ cloak,’ and “robe.” but in one case only —that of Samuel — is it of importance. It is interesting to know that the garment which his mother made and brought to The A. V. perhaps derived their word — This inconsistency is undesirable; the infant prophet at her annual visit to the Holy - Tent at Shiloh was a miniature of the official priestly tunic or robe; the same that the great Prophet wore in mature years (1 Sam. xv. 27), and by which he was on one occasion actually identified. When the witch of Endor, in answer to Saul’s inquiry, told him that ‘‘an old man was come up, covered with a mez/,” this of itself was enough to inform the king in whose presence he stood — ‘Saul perceived-that it was Samuel”? (xxviii. 14). 3. sTDOYID, madtiphih (the Hebrew word is found in Is. iii. 22 only). Apparently some article of a¢ lady’s dress [* mantles,’ A. V.]; probably an exterior tunic, longer and ampler than the in- ternal one, and provided with sleeves. See Gesenius, Jesaia, i. 214; Schroeder, de Vestitu Hebrearum, ch. xv. § 1-5. But the most remarkable of the four is: — 4. IV IAS, addereth (rendered “mantle” in 1K. xix. 13, 19; 2 K. ii. 8, 13, 14; elsewhere ‘“¢oarment’’ and “robe’’); since by it, and it only, is denoted the cape or wrapper which, with the exception of a strip of skin or leather round his loins, formed, as we have every reason to believe, the sole garment of the prophet Elijah. Such clothing, or absence of clothing, is com-— monly assumed by those who aspire to extraordinary sanctity in the East at the present day — “ Savage figures, with ‘a cloak woven of camels’ hair thrown over the shoulders, and tied in front on the breast, (Ex. xxi. 18, 14; Lev. iv. 22; Num. xxxv. 22, 235 Deut. xix. 4, 5.) b Dictionnaire des Vétements Arabes, p. 282. We gladly seize this opportunity to express our obligations to this admirable work. ce But see the curious speculations of Dr. Maitland — (Essay on False Worship, p. 176, ete.). MAOCH naked except at the waist, round which is a girdle of skin, the hair flowing loose about @ the head.’ ”’ But a description still more exactly in accordance with the habit of the great Israelite > dervish, and supporting in a remarkable manner the view of the LXX., who render addereth by pndrwrhs, i. e. ‘ sheep-skin,” is found in the account of a French traveller in the 16th century: “ L’enseigne que les dervis portent pour montrer qu’ils sont religieux, est une peau de brébis sur leurs épaules: et ne portent autre vétement sur eux sinon une seule peau de mouton ou de brébis, et quelque chose devant leur parties honteuses."’ Inaccurately as the word “ mantle” represents such a garment as the above, it has yet become so identified with Elijah that it is impossible now to alter it. It is desirable therefore to substitute “mantle’’ for “garment”’ in Zech. xiii. 4; a pas- sage from which it would appear that since the time of Elijah his garb had become the recognized sign: of a prophet of Jehovah. Gc MA’OCH (IVD [a poor one, Fiirst; a breast-bind? Ges.}: ’Auudy; Alex. Mwaf: Maoch), the father of Achish, king of Gath, with whom David took refuge (1 Sam. xxvii. 2). In the Syriac version he is called Maachah; and in 1 K. ii. 839 we find Maachah deseribed as the father of Achish, who was king of Gath at the beginning of Solomon's reign. It is not impossible that the ‘same Achish may be intended in both cases (Keil, Comm. on 1 K. ii. 39), and Maoch and Maachah would then be identical; or Achish may have been a title, like Abimelech and Pharaoh, which would still leave Maoch and Maachah thé same; “ son” in either case denoting descendant. MA/ON (WW [habitation]: Madép, Madv; [Vat. in 1 Sam. Maav, in Chr. Mewy;] Alex. Mawv: Maon), one of the cities of the tribe of Judah, in the district of the mountains; a member of the same group which contains also the names of Carmel and Ziph (Josh. xv. 55). Its interest for us lies in its connection with David. It was in the midbar or waste pasture-ground of Maon (A. V. “‘ wilderness”) that he and his men were lurking when the treachery of the Ziphites brought Saul upon them, and they had the narrow escape of the cliff of ham-Machlekoth (1 Sam. xxiii. 24, 25). It seems from these passages to have formed part of a larger district called “the Arabah’’ (A. V. ver. 24, * plain ’’), which can hardly have been the depressed locality round the Dead Sea usually known by that ‘mame. ‘To the north of it was another tract or spot called “the Jeshimon,” possibly the dreary _burnt-up hills lying on the immediate west of the Dead Sea. Close by was the hill or the cliff of ‘Hacilah, and the midbar itself probably extended over and about the mountain (ver. 26), round which Saul was pursuing his fugitives when the ‘sudden alarm of the Philistine incursion drew him off. Over the pastures of Maon and Carmel ranged the three thousand sheep and the thousand goats of Nabal (xxv. 2). Close adjoining was the midbar ‘of Paran, which the LXX. make identical with ‘Maon. Josephus's version of the passage is curious @ Light, Travels in Egypt, etc., quoted by Stanley, wo, 6 P. 811. b See the instructive and suggestive remarks of Dr. ‘Wolff, on the points of correspondence between the ‘sncient Prophets and the modern Dervishes (Travels, MAONITES, THE 1783 — “acertain man of the Ziphites from the city Emma”? (Ant. vi. 13, § 6). The name of Maon still exists all but unchanged in the mouths of the Arab herdsmen and peasants in the south of Palestine. Afain is a lofty conical hill, south of, and about 7 miles distant from, Hebron. To the north there is an extensive pros- pect —on the one hand over the region bordering the Dead Sea, on the other as faras Hebron. Close in front is the lower eminence of Kurmul, the ancient Carmel, no less intimately associated with David's fortunes than Maon itself (Rob. i. 493, 494). It is very much to be desired that some traveller would take the trouble to see how the actual locality of Main agrees with the minute indications of the narrative cited above. See also HACHILAH. In the genealogical records of the tribe of Judah in 1 Chronicles, Maon appears as a descendant of Hebron, through Rekem and Shammai, and in its. turn the “father” or colonizer of Beth-zur (ii. 45). Hebron is of course the well-known metropolis of the southern country, and Breru-zur has been identified in Bett-sdi, 4 miles north of Hebron, and therefore about 11 from Main. It should not however be overlooked that in the original the name of Maon is identical with that of the Mehunim, and it is quite possible that before the conquest it may have been one of their towns, just as in the more central districts of Palestine there were places which preserved the memory of the Avites, the Zemarites, the Ammonites, and other tribes who originally founded them. [BEN- JAMIN, vol. i. p. 277.] G. MA/ONITES, THE (719%, i. e. Maon, without the article [see above]: Madidu in both MSS.: Chanaan), a people mentioned in one of the addresses of Jehovah to the repentant Israelites, as having at some former time molested them: ‘the Zidonians also, and Amalek, and Maon did oppress you, and ye cried to me, and I delivered you out of their hand”’ (Judg. x. 12). The name agrees with that of a people residing in the desert far south of Palestine, elsewhere in the A. V. called MeruunIM; but, as no invasion of Israel by this people is related before the date of the passage in question, various explanations and conjectures have been offered. The reading of the LXX.— « Mid- ian’? —is remarkable as being found in both the great MSS., and having on that account a strong claim to be considered as the reading of the ancient Hebrew text. Ewald (Gesch. i. 322 note) appears to incline to this, which has also in its favor, that, if it be not genuine, Midian — whose ravages were then surely too recent to be forgotten — is omitted altogether from the enumeration. Still it is remark- able that no variation has hitherto been found in the Hebrew MSS. of this verse. Michaelis (Bibel Siir Ungelehrte, and Supplem. No. 1437), on the other hand, accepts the current. reading, and ex- plains the difficulty by assuming that Maon is included among the Bene-Kedem, or “ children [sons] of the East,’ named in vi. 3: leaving, how- ever, the equal difficulty of the omission of Israel’s great foe, Midian, unnoticed. The reason which would lead us to accept Midian would lead us te etc., i. 483 ; also 329, 531); and Stanley’s East. Church p. 397. ¢ Belon, Observations (Paris, 1588), yuoted by Dozy Dictionnaire, etc., p. 54. 1784 MARA reject the reading of the Syriac Peshito — “ Am- mon,’’ —the Bene-Ammon having been already named. ‘ Canaan’’ was probably a conjecture of Jerome’s. [MEHUNIMS.] A trace of the residence of the Maonites in the south of Palestine is perhaps extant in MAon, now Main, the city of Judah so well known in con- nection with David. G. MA’RA (S79, or, according to the correction of the Kri, 779), the name which Naomi adopted in the exclamation forced from her by the recogni- tion of her fellow-citizens at Bethlehem (Ruth i. 20): “Call me not Naomi (pleasant), but call me Mara (bitter), for Shaddai hath dealt-very-bitterly (hamér) with me.’’ The LXX. have preserved the play .... mixpay, Ott emixpdvOn--.-6 ikavds; though hardly as well as Jerome, “ Vocate me Mara (hoc est amaram) quia amaritudine me replevit Omnipotens.”? Marah is often assumed to have been the origin of the name Mary, but inaccu- rately, for Mary —in the N. T. Mariam — is merely a corruption of MrrtAm (see that article). G. MA’RAH (1719 [bitterness]: Mepha, Muxpla, Thixpior [Vat. Mixpeva:]: Mara), a place which lay in the wilderness of Shur or Etham, three days’ journey distant (Ix. xv. 22-24, Num. xxxiii. 8) from the place at which the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, and where was a spring of bitter water, sweetened subsequently by the casting in of a tree which “the Lord showed’ to Moses. It has been suggested (Burckhardt, Syria, p. 474) that Moses made use of the berries of the plant Ghirktd,¢ and which still it is implied would be found sim- ilarly to operate. Robinson, however (i. 67), could not find that this or any tree was now known by the Arabs to possess such properties; nor would those berries, he says, have been found so early in the season as the time when the Israelites reached the region. It may be added that, had any such resource ever existed, its eminent usefulness to the supply of human wants would hardly have let it perish from the traditions of the desert. Further, the expression ‘the Lord shewed ”’ seems surely to imply the miraculous character of the transaction. As regards the identity of Marah with any modern site, all travellers appear to look out for water which is bitter at this day, whereas if miraculous, the effect would surely have been permanent, as it clearly is intended to be in 2 K. ii. 21. On this supposition, however, Howarah, distant 16} hours (Rob. Bibl. Res. i. 67) from Ayoun Mousa, has been by Robinson, as also by Burckhardt (April 27, 1816), Schubert (274), and Wellsted, identified with it, apparently because it is the bitterest water in the neighborhood. Winer says (s. v.) that a still bit- terer well lies east of Marah, the claims of which Tischendorf, it appears, has supported. Lepsius prefers Wady Ghiiundel. Prof. Stanley thinks that the claim may be left between this and Howarah, but adds in a note a mention of a spring south of Howarah, ‘so bitter that neither men nor camels @ Robinson says (i, 26), ** Peganum retusum,” Forsk.., Flora /Eg. Arab. p. \xvi. More correctly, * Nitraria tridentata” of Desfontaines, Flora Atlant. i. 872. b.1. wie, or ww) : Ildptos, Hapivos AtOos : mar- mor Parium; from wen, to shine (Ges. 1884). 2. mond, from TTD, to travel round, either a stone MARBLE could drink it,” of which “Dr. Graul (vol. ii. p 254) was told.” The Ayoun Mousa, “wells of Moses,”’ which local tradition assigns to Marah, are manifestly too close to the head of the gulf, and probable spot of crossing it, to suit the distance of “three days’ journey.” The soil of this region is described as being alternately gravelly, stony, and sandy; under the range of the Gebel Wardan chalk and flints are plentiful, and on the direct line of route between Ayoun Mousa and Howarah no water is found (Robinson, i. 67). He MAR’ALAH (Moy [perh. earthquake, Ges.; declivity, Fiirst]: Mayeada; Alex. MapiAa; [Comp. Mapadd:] Merala), one of the landmarks on the boundary of the tribe of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 11), which, with most of the places accom- panying it, is unfortunately hitherto unknown. Keil (Josua, ad loc.) infers, though on the slightest grounds, that it was somewhere on the ridge of Carmel. G. MARANATH’A (Mapava6d), an expression used by St. Paul at the conclusion of his first Epistle to the Corinthians (xvi. 22). It is a Grecized form of the Aramaic words SITS 77, ‘our Lord cometh.” In the A. V. it is combined with the preceding “anathema;”’ but this is un- necessary; at all events if can only be regarded as adding emphasis to the previous adjuration. It rather appears to be added ‘as a weighty watch- * word ”’ to impress upon the disciples the important truth that the Lord was at hand, and that they should be ready to meet Him (Alford, Gr. Vest. in loc.). If, on the other hand, the phrase be taken to mean, as it may, “* Our Lord has come,” then the connection is, ‘the curse will remain, for the Lord has come who will take vengeance on those who reject Him.’’ ‘Thus the name ‘“ Maronite’’ is explained by a tradition that the Jews, in expecta- tion of a Messiah, were constantly saying Maran, i. e. Lord; to which the Christians answered Maran atha, the Lord is come, why do you still expect Him? (Stanley, Corinthians, ad loc.). W... Lis MARBLE. Like the Greek sdpuapos, No. 1 (see foot-note), the generic term for marble may probably be taken to mean almost any shining stone. The so-called marble of Solomon’s archi- tectural works, which Josephus calls Af@os AeuvKés, may thus have been limestone — (a) from near Jerusalem; (6) from Lebanon (Jura limestone), identical with the material of the Sun Temple at Baalbec; or (c) white marble from Arabia or else- where (Joseph. Ant. viii. 3, § 2; Diod. Sic. ii. 52; Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 12; Jamieson, Mineralogy, p.41; Raumer, Pal. p. 28; Volney, Trav. ii. 241; Kitto, Phys. Geogr. of Pal. pp. 78, 88; Robinson, ii. 493, iii. 508; Stanley, S. g¢ P. pp. 307, 424; Wellsted, Trav. i. 426, ii. 143). That this stone was not marble seems probable from the remark of Jose- — phus, that whereas Solomon constructed his build- ings of “white stone,” he caused the roads which used in tessellated pavements, or one with circular spots (Ges. 947). 38. “VT: mivvwos Atos: probably a stone with pearly appearance, like alabaster (Ges. 855). 4. TMD: cpapaydirns Aidos : lapis smaragdi nus (Ges. 182). The three last words used only in Esth. i. 6. 5. Mépuapos: marmor (Rev. xviii. 12). MARCHESHVAN led to Jerusalem to be made of “black stone,” probably the black basalt of the Haurdn; and also from his account of the porticoes of Herod’s tem- ple, which he says were wovdAiOor AevKotdrns papudpov (Joseph. Ant. |. c., and B. J. v. 5, § 1, 6; Kitto, pp. 74, 75, 80, 89). But whether the “costly stone” employed in Solomon’s buildings was marble or not, it seems clear from the expres- sions both of Scripture and Josephus, that some at least of the “great stones,” whose weight can scarcely have been less than 40 tons, must have come from Lebanon (1 K. y. 14-18, vii. 10; Joseph. Ant. viii. 2, § 9). There can be no doubt that Herod, both in the Temple and elsewhere, employed Parian or other marble. emains of marble columns still exist in abundance at Jerusalem (Joseph Ant. xv. 9, §§ 4. 6, and 11, §§ 38, 5; Williams, Holy City, ii. 330; Sandys, p. 190; Robinson, i. 301, 305). The marble pillars and tesserz of various colors of the palace at Susa came doubtless from Persia itself, where marbie of various colors is found, especially in the province of Hamadan, Susiana. (Esth. i. 6; Marco Polo, Travels, p- 78, ed. Bohn; Chardin, Voy. iii. 280, 308, 358, and viii. 253; P. della Valle, Viaggi, ii. 250; Winer, s. v. ‘¢Mar- mor.’’) Toys 1s MARCHESH’VAN. [Monru.] MAR/’CUS (Mdpkos: Marcus). The Evange- ‘list Mark, who was cousin to Barnabas (Col. iv. 10), and the companion and fellow-laborer of the Apostles Paul (Philem. 24) and Peter (1 Pet. v. 13). [MAnk. ] MARDOCHE’US (Mapdoxaios: Mardo- cheus). 1. Morpecat, the uncle of Esther, in the apocryphal additions (Esth. x. 1, xi. 2, 12, xii. 1-6, xvi. 13; 2 Mace. xv. 36). The 14th of the month Adar, on which the feast of Purim was celebrated, is called in the last passage “ Mar- docheus’ day” (4 Mapdoxaikh fuépa: Mardo- chei dies). 2. (Mardocheus,) = MorvrEcAt, who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua (1 Esdr. v. 8; comp. zr. ii. 2). * MARE’SHA is the reading of the A. V. ed. 1611, and other early editions, in 1 Chr. ii. 42, instead of MAgesHAn (2). A. MARE’SHAH (TNT [ possession, Fiirst ; at the head = elevated city or fortress, Ges.], in Josh. only; elsewhere in the shorter form of MWD: Badyodp, [in Chron. Mapicd, Mapicjjs, Mapyod; Vat. Mapaica, Mapeorns, Mapioad;] Alex. Mapyoa; [in Mie. i. 15, 1OY-O.%. Aaxeis:] Maresa). 1. One of the cities of Judah in the dis- trict of the Shefelah or low country; named in the same group with Kerman and NeEzt1B (Josh. xv. 44). If we may so interpret the notices of the 1 _ Chronicles (see below), Hebron itself was colonized from Mareshah. It was one of the cities fortified and garrisoned by Rehoboam after the rupture with the northern kingdom (2 Chr. xi. 8). The natural inference is, that it commanded some pass or ' position of approach, an inference which is sup- ported by the fact that it is named as the point to which the enormous horde of Zerah the Cushite reached in his invasion of Judea, before he was @ Benjamin of Tudela (Asher, i. 77) identifies Ma- feshah with “ Beit Gabrin.’’ Parchi, with unusual | MARESHAH 178% met and repulsed by Asa (2 Chr. xiv. 9). A ravine (ver. 10; Ge: A. V. “ valley ’’) bearing the name of Zephathah was near. In the rout which followed the encounter, the flying Cushites were pursued to the Bedouin station of Gerar (vy. 14, 15). Mareshah is mentioned once or twice in the his tory of the Maccabeean struggles. Judas probably passed through it on his way from Hebron to avenge the defeat of Joseph and Azarias (1 Mace. v. 66). The reading of the LXX. and A. V. is Samaria; but Josephus, Ant. xii. 8, § 6, has Marissa, and the position is exactly suitable, which that of Sama- ria is not. The same exchange, but reversed, will be found in 2 Mace. xii. 35. [MArisa.] A few days later it afforded a refuge to Georgias when severely wounded in the attack of Dositheus (2 Mace. xii. 35; here, as just remarked, the Syriac version would substitute Samaria, — a change quite unallowable). Its subsequent fortunes were bad enough, but hardly worse than might be expected for a place which lay as it were at the junction of two cross-roads, north and south, east and west. each the constant thoroughfare of armies. It was burnt by Judas in his Idumzan war, in passing from Hebron to Azotus (Ant. xii. 8, § 6). About the year 110 B. c. it was taken from the Idumzans by John Hyreanus. Some forty years after, about B. C. 63, its restoration was decreed by the clement Pompey (Ant. xiv. 4, § 4), though it appears not to have been really reinstated till later (xiv. 5, § 3). But it was only rebuilt to become again a victim (B. C. 89), this time to the Parthians, who plun- dered and destroyed it in their rage at not finding in Jerusalem the treasure they anticipated (Ant. xiv. 18, § 9; B. J. i. 13, § 9). It was in ruins in the 4th century, when Eusebius and Jerome describe it as in the second mile from Eleuthe- ropolis. §. 8. W. of Beit-zibrin — in all probability Eleutheropolis — and a little over a Roman mile therefrom, is a site called Marash, which is very possibly the representative of the ancient Mareshah. It is described by the indefatigable Tobler (Dritte Wand. pp. 129, 142) as lying on a gently swelling hill leading down from the mountains to the great western plain, from which it is but half an hour distant. The ruins are not extensive, and Dr. Robinson, to whom their discovery is due,@ has ingeniously conjectured (on grounds for which the reader is referred to Bibl. Res. ii. 67, 68) that the materials were employed in building the neighboring Eleutheropolis. On two other occasions Mareshah comes forward in the O. T. It was the native place of Eliezer ben-Dodavah, a prophet who predicted the destruc- tion of the ships which king Jehoshaphat had built in conjunction with Ahaziah of Israel*(2 Chr. xx. 37). It is included by the prophet Micah among the towns of the low country which he attempts to rouse to a sense of the dangers their misconduct is bringing upon them (Mic. i. 15). Like the rest, the apostrophe to Mareshah is a play on the name: “TI will bring your heir (yoresh) to you, oh city of inheritance’ (Mare- shah). The following verse (16) shows that the inhabitants had adopted the heathen and forbidden custom of cutting off the back hair as a sign of mourning. inaccuracy, would place it in the mountains East of Jaffa, 1786 MARIMOTH 2: ({Rom. Mapica, Vat. | Mapeioa; [ Alex. Ma- ptons-]) Father of Hebron, and apparently a son or descendant of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel (1 Chr. ii. 42), who derived his descent from Judah through Pharez. ‘The sons of Caleb were... Mesha, the father of Ziph, and the sons of Maresha father of Hebron.’”’ It is difficult not to suppose that Mesha may have been a transcriber’s variation for Maresha, especially as the text of the LXX.— both MSS. — actually stands so. It is however only a probable conjecture. The names in these lists are many of them no doubt those not of per- sons but of towns, and whether Mesha and Mare- shah be identical or not. a close relationship is equally denoted between the towns of Hebron and Mareshah. But, . 3. ([Rom. Mapiod } Vat.] Marxa 3 Alex. Ma- pnoa) in 1 Chr. iv. 21 we find Mareshah again named as deriving its origin from SHELAH, the third son of Judah, through Laadah. Whether this Mareshah be a man or a place, identical with or distinct from the last mentioned, it is impos- sible to determine. G. MAR/IMOTH (Marimoth). The same as MeraroruH the priest, one of the ancestors of Ezra (2 Esdr. i. 2; comp. Ezr. vii. 3). He is also ealled MEREMOTH (1 Esdr. viii. 2). * MARINER, Jon. i. 5. [Sure (11.), Amer. ed. | ! MARISA (Mapica: Maresa), the Greek form of the name MARESHAH, occurring 2 Mace. xii. 35 only. * MARISHES, Fz. xlvii. 11, an old spelling of “‘ marshes,” found in the A. V. of 1611 (and the Bishops’ Bible), but changed in the current edi- tions. The Hebrew is S22 elsewhere only in Is. xxx. 14, translated ‘“ pit.” A H. MARK (Mdpkos: Marcus). Mark the Eyan- gelist is probably the same as ‘“‘ John whose sur- name was Mark”? (Acts xii. 12, 25). Grotius in- deed maintains the contrary, on the ground that the earliest historical writers nowhere call the Evangelist by the name of John, and that they always describe him as the companion of Peter and not of Paul. But John was the Jewish name, and Mark, a name of frequent use amongst the Romans, was adopted afterwards, and gradually superseded the other. The places in the N. T. enable us to trace the process. The John Mark of Acts xii. 12, 25, and the John of Acts xiii. 5, 13, becomes Mark only in Acts xv. 39, Col. iv. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 11, Philem. 24. The change of John to Mark is analogous to that of Saul to Paul; and we cannot doubt that the disuse of the Jewish name in favor of the other is intentional, and has reference to the putting away of his former life, and entrance upon a new ministry. No incon- sistency arises from the accounts of his ministering to two Apostles. The desertion of Paul (Acts xiii. 13) may have been prompted partly by a wish to rejoin Peter and the Apostles engaged in preaching in Palestine (Benson; see Kuinoel’s note), though partly from a disinclination to a perilous and doubtful journey. There is nothing strange in the character of a warm impulsive young man, drawn almost equally towards the two great ‘eachers of the faith, Paul and Peter. Had mere sowardice been the cause of his withdrawal, Bar- zabas would not so soon after have chosen him MARK for another journey, nor would he have accepted the choice. : John Mark was the son of a certain Mary, who dwelt at Jerusalem, and was therefore probably born in that city (Acts xii. 12). He was the cousin (aveyids) of Barnabas (Col. iv. 10). [S1s- TER’s Son, Amer. ed.| It was to Mary’s house, as to a familiar haunt, that Peter came after his deliverance from prison (Acts xii. 12), and there found “many gathered together praying; ’’ and probably John Mark was converted by Peter from meeting him in his mother’s house, for he speaks of ** Marcus my son’ (1 Peter y. 13). This at- ural link of connection between the two passages is broken by the supposition of two Marks, which is on all accounts improbable. The theory that he was one of the seventy disciples is without any warrant. Another theory, that an event of the night of our Lord’s betrayal, related by Mark alone, is one that befell himself (Olshausen, Lange), must not be so promptly dismissed. ‘There fol- lowed Him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked ’’ (Mark xiv. 51, 52). The detail of facts is remarkably minute, the name only is wanting. The most probable view is that St. Mark ‘suppressed his own name, whilst telling a story which he had the best means of knowing. Awakened out of sleep, or just preparing for it in some house in the Valley of Kedron, he comes out to see the seizure of the betrayed Teacher, known to him and in some degree beloved already. He is so deeply interested in his fate that he follows Him even in his thin linen robe. His demeanor is such that some of the crowd are about to arrest him; then, “fear overcoming shame” (Bengel), he leaves his garment in their hands and flees. We can only say that if the name of Mark is supplied, the narrative receives its most probable explanation. John (i. 40, xix. 26) introduces himself in this unobtrusive way, and perhaps Luke the same (xxiv. 18). Mary the mother of Mark seems to have been a person of some means and influence, and her house a rallying point for Christians in those dangerous days. Her son, already an inquirer, would soon become more. Christ, he went with Paul and Barnabas as their “ minister” (Swypérns) on their first journey; but at Perga, as we have seen above, turned back (Acts xii. 25, xiii. 13). On the second journey Paul would not accept him again as a companion, but Barnabas his kinsman was more indulgent; and thus he became the cause of the memorable “ sharp contention’ between them (Acts xv. 386-40). Whatever was the cause of Mark’s vacillation, it did not separate him forever from Paul, for we find him by the side of that Apostle in his first imprisonment at Rome (Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24). In the former place a possible journey of Mark to Asia is spoken of. Somewhat later he is with Peter at Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13). Some consider Babylon to be a name here given to Rome in a mystical sense; surely without reason, since the date of a letter is not the place to look for a figure of speech. Of the causes of this visit to Babylon there is no evidence. It may be conjectured that he made the journey to Asia Minor (Col. iv. 10), and thence went on to join Peter at Babylon. On his return to Asia he seems to have been with Tim- othy at Ephesus when Paul wrote to him during Anxious to work for i fo edie aes eo —— MARK, GOSPEL OF his second imprisonment, and Paul was anxious for his return to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11). When we desert Scripture we find the facts - doubtful and even inconsistent. If Papias be trusted (quoted in Eusebius, 4. /. iii. 39), Mark never was a disciple of our Lord; which he probably in- fers from 1 Pet. v. 13. Epiphanius, on the other hand, willing to do honor to the Evangelist, adopts the tradition that he was one of the seventy-two disciples, who turned back from our Lord at the hard saying in John vi. (Cont. Her. li. 6, p. 457, Dindorf’s recent edition). The same had been said of St. Luke. Nothing can be decided on this point. The relation of Mark to Peter is of great impor- tance for our view of his Gospel. Ancient writers with one consent make the Evangelist the inter- preter (€punveurns) of the Apostle Peter (Papias in Euseb. //. E. iii. 39; Irenseus, Mev. iii. 1, iii. 10, §6; Tertullian, c. Mare. iv. 5; Hieronymus, ad Hedib. ix. &e.). Some explain this word to mean that the office of Mark was to translate into the Greek tongue the Aramaic discourses of the Apostle (Eichhorn, Bertholdt, etc.); whilst others adopt the more probable view that Mark wrote a Gospel which conformed more exactly than the others to Peter’s preaching, and thus “ interpreted ” it to the church at large (Valesius, Alford, Lange, Fritzsche, Meyer, etc.). The passage from Euse- bius favors the latter view; it is a quotation from Papias. ‘“ This also [John] the elder said: Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote down exactly whatever things he remembered, but yet not in the order in which Christ either spoke or did them; for he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord's, but he was afterwards, as J [Papias] said, a follower of Peter.’ The words in italics refer to the word interpreter above, and the passage de- scribes a disciple writing down what his master preached, and not an interpreter orally translating his words. This tradition will be further examined below. [MaArk, GospEt or.] The report that Mark was the companion of Peter at Rome is no doubt of great antiquity. Clement of Alexandria is quoted by Eusebius as giving it for a ‘“ tradition which he had received of the eldeis from the first ”’ (mapadocw Trav avexabey mpeaButépwy, lusebius, H, #. vi. 14; Clem. Alex. Hyp. 6). But the force of this is invalidated by the suspicion that it rests on a misunderstanding of 1 Pet. v. 13, Babylon being wrongly taken for a typical name of Rome (Euseb. 7. /. ii. 15; Hieron. De Vir. ill. 8). Sent on a mission to Egypt by Peter (Epiphanius, Her. li. 6, p. 457, Dindorf; Kuseb. H. /. ii. 16), Mark there founded the church of Alexandria (Hieron. De Vii. ill. 8), and preached in various places . (Niceph. 47. /. ii. 43), then returned to Alexan- dria, of which church he was bishop, and suffered _ a martyr’s death (Niceph. ibid., and Hieron. De Vir. dl. 8). But none of these later details rest on / sound authority. (Sources — The works on the + Gospels referred to under LUKE and GosPELs; also Fritzsche, Jn Marcum, Leipzig, 1830; Lange, Bibelwerk, part ii. ete.) We Ty MARK, GOSPEL OF. The characteris- ' ties of this Gospel, the shortest of the four inspired | secords, will appear from the discussion of the va- ious questions that have been raised about it. I. Sources of this Gospel. — The tradition that tt gives the teaching of Peter, rather than of the fest of the Apostles, has been alluded to above. The witness of John the Presbyter, quoted by te MARK, GOSPEL OF 1787 Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) through Papias, has been cited. [See MArk.] Ireneus calls Mark « inter- pres et sectator Petri,’”’ and cites the opening and the concluding words of the Gospel as we now po¢ sess them (iii. 10, § 6). He also alludes to a sect (the Cerinthians ?) who hold “ impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum,’’ and who prefer the Gospel of St. Mark to the rest (iii. 11, § 7). Euse- bius says, on the authority of Clement of Alexan- dria, that the hearers of Peter at Rome desired Mark, the follower of Peter, to leave with them a record of his teaching; upon which Mark wrote his Gospel, which the Apostle afterwards sanc- tioned with his authority, and directed that it should be read in the Churches (Eus. H. &. ii. 15). Elsewhere, quoting Clement again, we have the same account, except that Peter is there described as ‘neither hindering nor urging” the undertak- ing (H. E. vi. 14). The apparent contradiction has been conciliated by supposing that Peter nei- ther helped nor hindered the work before it was completed, but gave his approval afterwards (+ licet fieri ipsum non jusserit, tamen factum non pro- hibuit,”’ Ruffinus: see note of Valesius in loc. Eus.). Tertullian (Cont. Marcionem, iv. 5) speaks of the Gospel of Mark as being connected with Peter, “ cujus interpres Marcus,’ and so having apostolic authority. Epiphanius says that, imme- diately after St. Matthew, the task was laid on St. Mark, “the follower of St. Peter at Rome,” of writing a Gospel (Her. li.). Hieronymus (De Vir. wl. 8) repeats the story of Eusebius; and again says that the Gospel was written, “ Petro narrante, et illo scribente*’ (Ad Hedib. 2). If the evidence of the Apostle’s connection with this Gospel rested wholly on these passages, it would not be sufficient, since the witnesses, though many in number, are not all independent of each other, and there are marks, in the former of the passages from Euse- bius, of a wish to enhance the authority of the Gospel by Peter’s approval, whilst the latter pas- sage does not allege the same sanction. But there are peculiarities in the Gospel which are best ex- plained by the supposition that Peter in some way superintended its composition. Whilst there is hardly any part of its narrative that is not com- mon to it and some other Gospel, in the manner of the narrative there is often a marked character, which puts aside at once the supposition that we have here a mere epitome of Matthew and Luke. The picture of the same events is far more vivid; touches are introduced such as could only be noted by a vigilant eye-witness, and such as make us almost eye-witnesses of the Redeemer's doings. The most remarkable case of this is the account of the demoniac in the country of the Gadarenes, where the following words are peculiar to Mark. “And no man could bind him, no, not with chains: because that he had often been bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asun- der by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always night and day he was in the mountains crying and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran,’’ etc. Here we are indebted for the picture of the fierce and hopeless wanderer to the Evangelist whose work is the briefest, and whose style is the least perfect. He sometimes adds to the account of the others a notice of our Lord’s look (iii. 34, viii. 33, x. 21, x. 23); he dwells on human feelings and the tokens of them; on our Lord’s pity for the leper, and his strict 1788 MARK, GOSPEL OF sharge not to publish the miracle (i. 41, 44); He ‘loved ’? the rich young man for his answers (x. 21); He “looked round ”’ with anger when another occasion called it out (iii. 5); He groaned in spirit (vii. 84, viii. 12). All these are peculiar to Mark; and they would be explained most readily by the theory that one of the disciples most near to Jesus had supplied them. To this must be added that whilst Mark goes over the same ground for the most part as the other Evangelists, and especially Matthew, there are many facts thrown in which prove that we are listening to an independent wit- ness. Thus the humble origin of Peter is made known through him (i. 16-20), and his connection with Capernaum (i. 29); he tells us that Levi was ‘sthe son of Alpheus ”’ (ii. 14), that Peter was the name given by our Lord to Simon (iii. 16), and Boanerges a surname added by Him to the names of two others (iii. 17); he assumes the existence of another body of disciples wider than the Twelve (iii. 82, iv. 10, 36, viii. 84, xiv. 51, 52); we owe to him the name of Jairus (v. 22), the word ‘ car- penter ’’ applied to our Lord (vi. 3), the nation of the Syropheenician ? woman (vii. 26); he substi- tutes Dalmanutha for the “ Magdala”’ of Matthew (viii. 10); he names Bartimeeus (x. 46); he alone mentions that our Lord would not suffer any man to carry any vessel through the Temple (xi. 16); and that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alex- ander and Rufus (xv. 21). All these are tokens of an independent writer, different from Matthew and Luke, and in the absence of other traditions it is natural to look to Peter. One might hope that much light would be thrown on this question from the way in which Peter is mentioned in the Gospel; but the evidence is not so clear as might have been expected. Peter is often mentioned without any special occasion for it (i. 86, v. 87, xi. 20-26, xiil. 3, xvi. 7); but on the other hand there are passages from which it might seem that the writer knew less of the great Apostle. Thus in Matt. xv. 15, we have “ Peter;’”’ in the parallel place in Mark only “the disciples.” The Apostle’s walking on the sea is omitted: so the blessing pronounced on him (Matt. xvi. 17-19), and the promise made to all the Apostles in answer to him (Matt. xix. 28). Peter was one of those who were sent to prepare the Passover; yet Mark omits his name. ‘The word “ bitterly” of Matthew and Luke is omitted by Mark from the record of Peter’s repentance; whilst the account of his denials is full and cireum- stantial. It has been sought to account for these omissions on the ground of humility; but some may think that this cannot be the clew to all the places. But what we generalize from these pas- sages is, that the name Peter is peculiarly dealt with, added here, and there withdrawn, which would: be explained if the writer had access to special information about Peter. On the whole, in spite of the doubtfulness of Eusebius’s sources, and the almost self-contradiction into which he falls, the internal evidence inclines us to accept the account that this inspired Gospel has some connection with St. Peter, and records more exactly the preaching which he, guided by the Spirit of God, uttered for the instruction of the world. Il. Relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke. — The results of criticism as to the relation of the three Gospels are somewhat humiliating. Up to this day three views are maintained with equal ardor: (a) that Mark’s Gospel is the original Gospel out of which the other two have been de- MARK, GOSPEL OF veloped; (b) that it was a compilation from the other two, and therefore was written last; and (c} that it was copied from that of Matthew, and forms a link of transition between the other two. (a.) Of | the first view Thiersch may serve as the expositor. ‘¢ No one,”’ he says, “ will now venture to call Mark a mere epitomizer of Matthew and Luke. Were his Gospel an epitome of theirs, it would bear the marks of the attempt to combine in one the excel- lences of both; else the labor of epitome would have been without an object. But the very opposite is the case. We miss the peculiarities of Matthew and Luke. We find that which is common to both. And therefore, were Mark’s Gospel a mere epitome of the others, we should have a third repetition of that which had been already twice related, with so little additional or more exact matter, that the intention and conduct of the writer would remain a riddle. This difficulty disappears, and a great step is made in threading the labyrinth of the Gospel harmony, when we see that Mark formed the basis of Matthew and Luke. Where they fol- low him they agree. Where they do not, as in the history of our Lord’s childhood, in his discourses, and in his appearances after his resurrection, they differ widely, and each takes his own way” (Thiersch, Church History, p. 94, Carlyle’s trans- lation). is too great, in each of the others, to admit of their having derived their Gospels from Mark; and in the places which they have in common, each treats the events in an independent way, and not as a copyist. Still this opinion has been held by Herder, Storr, Wilke, Weisse, Reuss, Ewald, and others. (6.) The theory that Mark's Gospel is a compilation and abridgment of that of Matthew is maintained by Augustin, and after him by Euthymius and Michaelis. The facts on which it rests are clear enough. ‘There are in St. Mark only about three events which St. Matthew does not narrate (Mark i. 23, viii. 22, xii. 41); and thus the matter of the two may be regarded as almost the same. But the form in St. Mark is, as we have seen, much briefer, and the omissions are many and. important. The explanation is that Mark had the work of Matthew before him, and only condensed it. But many would make Mark a compiler from both the others where there is a curious resemblance to both (see De Wette, Handbuch, § 94 a). (c.) Lastly, the theory that the Gospel before us forms a sort of transition-link between the other two, standing midway between the Judaic tendency of Matthew and the Universalist or Gentile Gospel of St. Luke, need not trouble us much here [see above, p. 1697]. An account of these views may be found in Hilgen- feld’s Evangelien. It is obvious that they refute one another: the same internal evidence suffices to prove that Mark is the first, and the last, and the intermediate. Let us return to the facts, and, taught by these contradictions what is the worth of ‘ internal evidence,’’ let us carry our speculations no further than the facts. The Gospel of Mark contains scarcely any events that are not recited by the others. There are verbal coincidences with each of the others, and sometimes peculiar words from both meet together in the parallel place in Mark. On the other hand, there are unmistakable marks of independence. He has passages peculiar to himself (as iii. 20, 21, iv. 26-29, vii. 31-37, vill. 99-96, xi. 11-14, xiv. 51, 52, xvi. 9-11), and a peculiar fullness of detail where he goes over the (Griesbach, De Wette, etc.), arguing from passages But the amount of independent narrative SSS er ae x awe ae Pr — ee Ey ae and Pharisees for a sign, Matt. xii. “parable of the king’s son, Matt. xxii. 1-14; and » tenet is mentioned (Mark xii. 18); tz). MARK, GOSPEL OF same ground as the others. The beginning of his Gospel is peculiar; so is the end. Remarkable is the absence of passages quoted from the Old Testa- ‘ment by the writer himself, who, however, recites such passages when used by our Lord. There are only two exceptions to this, namely, the opening verses of the Gospel, where Mal. iii. 1 and Is. xl. 3 are cited; and a verse in the account of the cruci- fixion (xv. 28), where he quotes the words, “and He was numbered with the transgressors” (Is. liii. 12); but this is rejected by Alford and Tischendorf as spurious, inserted here from Luke xxii. 37. After deducting these exceptions, 23 quotations from or references to the O. T. remain, in all of which it is either our Lord Himself who is speaking, or some one addressing Him. The hypothesis which best meets these facts is, that whilst the matter common to all three Evan- gelists, or to two of them,“ is derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles, which they had purposely reduced to a common form, our Evangelist writes as an independent witness to the truth, and not as a compiler; and that the tradition that the Gospel was written under the sanction of Peter, and its matter in some degree derived from him, is made probable by the evident traces of an eye-witness in many of the narratives. The omission and abridg- ment of our Lord’s discourses, and the sparing use of O. T. quotations, might be accounted for by the special destination of the Gospel, if we had surer data for ascertaining it; but it was for Gentiles, with whom illustrations from the O. T. would have less weight, and the purpose of the writer was to present a clear and vivid picture of the acts of our Lord’s: human life, rather than a full record of his divine doctrine. We may thankfully own that, with little that is in substance peculiar to himself, _the Evangelist does occupy for us a distinct position, and supply a definite want, in virtue of these char- acteristics. Ill. This Gospel written primarily for Gentiles. _— We have seen that the Evangelist scarcely refers to the O. T. in his own person. The word Law (vduos) does not once occur. The genealogy of our Lord is likewise omitted. Other matters interesting chiefly to the Jews are likewise omitted; such as _ the references to the O. T. and Law in Matt. xii. 5-7, the reflections on the request of the Scribes 38-45; the the awful denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees, in Matt. xxiii. Explanations are given in some places, which Jews could not require: thus, Jordan is a “ river’? (Mark i. 5; Matt. iii. 6); the Phari- sees, etc. “‘used to fast’? (Mark ii. 18; Matt. ix. 14), and other customs of theirs are described (Mark vi. 1-4; Matt. xv. 1, 2); “the time of figs was not yet,” 2. ¢. at the season of the Passover (Mark xi. 13; Matt. xxi. 19); the Sadducees’ worst the Mount of Olives is “ over against the temple’ (Mark xiii. 3; Matt. xxiv. 3); at the Passover men eat “ un- leavened bread” (Mark xiv. 1, 12; Matt. xxvi. 2, 17), and explanations are given which Jews would not need (Mark xv. 6, 16, 42; Matt. xxvii. 15, 27, Matter that might offend is omitted, as Matt. x. 5, 6, vi. 7, 8. Passages, not always peculiar to Mark, abound in his Gospel, in which the an- _ @ Mark has 39 sections common to all three; 23 - sommon to him and Matthew; and 18 common to him and Luke. i MARK, GOSPEL OF ~— 1789 tagonism between the pharisaic legal spirit and the Gospel. come out strongly (i. 22, ii. 19, 22, x. 5, Vili. 15), which hold out hopes to the heathen ot admission to the kingdom of heaven even without the Jews (xii. 9), and which put ritual forms below the worship of the heart (ii. 18, iii. 1-5, vii. 5-23). Mark alone preserves those words of Jesus, “ The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath ”’ (ii. 27). Whilst he omits the invective against the Pharisees, he indicates by a touch of his own how Jesus condemned them “ with anger’ (iii. 5). When the Lord purges the Temple of those that polluted it, He quotes a passage of Isaiah (Ivi. 7); but Mark alone reports as part of it the words ‘of all nations” (xi. 17). Mark alone makes the Scribe admit that love is better than sacrifices (xii. 33). From the general testimony of these places, whatever may be objected to an inference from one or other amongst them, there is little doubt but that the Gospel was meant for use in the first instance amongst Gentiles. But the facts give no warrant for the dream that the first Evangelist represents the Judaic type of Christianity, and the third the Pauline; and that Mark occupies an in- termediate position, marking the transition from one to the other! In St. Mark we have the Gospel as it was preached to all the world, and it is so presented as to suit the wants of Gentiles. But there is not a trace of the wish, conscious or un- conscious, to assist in any change of Christian belief or modes of thinking. In all things it is a calm history, not a polemical pleading. IV. Time when the Gospel was written. —It will be understood from what has been said, that nothing positive can be asserted as to the time when this Gospel was written. The traditions are contradictory. lIrenzus says that it was written after the death (%o5oy, but Grabe would translate, wrongly, departure from Rome) of the Apostle Peter (Eusebius, H. /. v. 8); but we have seen above, that in other passages it is supposed to be written during Peter’s lifetime (Kus. H. £. vi. 14, and ii. 15). In the Bible there is nothing to decide the question. It is not likely that it dates before the reference to Mark in the Epistle to the Colos- sians (iv. 10), where he is only introduced as a relative of Barnabas, as if this were his greatest distinction; and this epistle was written about A. D. 62. If after coming to Asia Minor on Paul’s send- ing he went on and joined Peter at Babylon, he may have then acquired, or rather completed, that knowledge of Peter's preaching, which tradition teaches us to look for in the Gospel, and of which there is so much internal evidence; and soon after this the Gospel may have been composed. On the other hand, it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (xiii. 13, 24-30, 33, &c.). Probably, therefore, it was written between A. D. 63 and 70. But nothing can be certainly determined on this point. V. Place where the Gospel was written. — The place is as uncertain as the time. Clement, Euse- bius, Jerome, and Epiphanius, pronounce for Rome, and many moderns take the same view. The Latin expressions in the Gospel prove .nothing; for there is little doubt that, wherever the Gospel was written, the writer had been at Rome, and so knew its lan- guage. Chrysostom thinks Alexandria; but this is not confirmed by other testimony. VI. Language. — The Gospel was written in Greek; of this there can be no doubt if ancient testimony is to weigh. Baronius indeed, on the 17°90 MARK, GOSPEL OF authority of an old Syriac translation, asserts that Latin was the original language; and some MSS. referred to in Scholz (Greek Test. p. xxx.) repeat the same; but this arises no doubt from the belief that it was written at Rome and for Gentiles. This opinion and its grounds Wahl has travestied by supposing that the Gospel was written at Alex- andria in Coptic. A Latin Gospel written for the use of Roman Christians would not have been lost without any mention of it in an ancient writer. VII. Genuineness of the Gospel. — Schleiermacher was the first perhaps to question that we have in our present Gospel that of which Papias speaks, on the ground that his words would apply to a simpler and less orderly composition (Studien wu. Kritiken, 1832). Accordingly the usual assumption of a later editor is brought in, as in the case of St. Luke’s Gospel [see p. 1697]. But the words of Papias require no such aid (Euseb. H. L&. iii. 39), nor would such authority be decisive if they did. All ancient testimony makes Mark the author of a certain Gospel, and that this is the Gospel which has come down to us, there is not the least his- torical ground for doubting. Owing to the very few sections peculiar to Mark, evidence from patristic quotation is somewhat difficult to produce. Justin Martyr, however, quotes ch. ix. 44, 46, 48, xii. 30, and iii. 17, and Ireneus cites both the opening and closing words (iii. 10, 6). An important tes- timony in any case, but doubly so from the doubt that has been cast on the closing verses (xvi. 9-19). Concerning these verses see Meyer's, Alford’s, and Tischendorf’s notes. The passage is rejected by the majority of modern critics, on the testimony of MSS. [particularly the Vatican and the Sinaitic] and of old writers and on the internal evidence of the diction. Though it is probable that this sec- tion is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospel soon after the time of the Apostles, it must be remembered that it is found in three of the four great uncial MSS. (A C D), and is quoted without any question by Ireneus. Among late critics Olshausen still pronounces for its genuine- ness. With the exception of these few verses the genuineness of the Gospel is placed above the reach of reasonable doubt. VILL. Style and Diction. — The purpose of the Evangelist seems to be to place before us a vivid picture of the earthly acts of Jesus. The style is peculiarly suitable to this. He uses the present tense instead of the narrative aorist, almost in every chapter. The word ed@éws, “ straightway,”’ is used by St. Mark forty-one times. The first person is preferred to the third (iv. 39, v. 8, 9, 12, vi. 2, 3, ol, 33, ix. 25, 33, xii. 6). Precise and minute de- tails as to persons, places, and numbers, abound in the narrative. All these tend to give force and vividness to the picture of the human life of our Lord. On the other side, the facts are not very exactly arranged; they are often connected by nothing more definite than raf and dA. Its conciseness sometimes makes this Gospel more obscure than the others (i. 13, ix. 5, 6, iv. 10-34). Many peculiarities of diction may be noticed; amongst them the following: 1. Hebrew (Ara- maic) words are used, but explained for Gentile readers (iii. 17, 22, v. 41, vii. 11, 34, ix. 43, x. 46, xiv. 36, xv. 22, 34). 2. Latin words are very fre- quent, as Snvdpiov, Aeyedy, OmEKOVAaT wp, KeVTU- olwy, Khvoos, KodpdyTns, ppayyeAAdw, mpaiTta- tov, Eéorns. 3» Unusual words or phrases are found ere; as ¢idmiva, ix. 8; emicuyTpéxerv, ix. 25; ‘courses of Jesus, which, interposed between his MARK, GOSPEL OF vouvex@s, xi. 84; vdpdos motinh, XIV. 3; everAcw, — xv. 465 Hore, i. 34, xi. 16; mpookaprepety (of a — thing), iii. 9; éwl 73 mpooke@dAatoy Kabevdar, — iv. 38; ampoéAaBe uvpioat, xiv. 8. 4. Diminutives are frequent. 5. The substantive is often repeated _ instead of the pronoun; as (to cite from ch. ii. only) ii. 16, 18, 20, 22, 27, 28. 6. Negatives are accumulated for the sake of emphasis (vii. 12, ix. — 8, xii. 84, xv. 5, i. 44 (odmérs od mij, xiv. 25, ete., etc.). 7. Words are often added to adverbs for — the sake of emphasis; as rére ev exelyn TH hpucpa, — ii. 203 Siaravrds vunrds wal nuépas, ver. 5; ev- O€ws werd orovdys, Vi. 25; also vii. 21, viii. 4, x. 20, xiii. 29, xiv. 830, 43. 8. The same idea is often — repeated under another expression, as, i. 42, ii. 25, — vill. 15, xiv. 68, etc. 9. And sometimes the rep- etition is effected by means of the opposite, as in ij. 22, 44, and many other places. 10. Sometimes emphasis is given by simple reiteration, as in ii. 15, 19. 11. The elliptic use of fya, like that of érros in classical writers, is found, ver. 23. 12. — The word érepwrdy is used twenty-five times in this Gospel. 13. Instead of cuuBotAroy AapBd- ve of Matt., Mark has cupBovaArov morety, iil. 6, xv. 1. 14. There are many words peculiar to Mark; thus &Aados, vii. 37, ix. 17, 25; enxOap- BetoOar, ix. 15, xiv. 83, xvi. 5,6; évaryradl Ceca, ix. 36, x. 16; KevTuplov, xv. 39, 44, 45; TpOMep~ uuvay, xiii. 11; awpoomopeverOai, xX. 35; orlABew, — ix. 8; orotBds, xi. 8; cuvOAiBew, v. 24, 315 — ordaAnt, ix. 44, 46, 48; matdid0ev, ix. 21, opup- viCw, xy. 23. The diction of St. Mark presents the difficulty that whilst it abounds in Latin words, and in ex- pressions that recall Latin equivalents, it is stil] much more akin to the Hebraistic diction of St. Matthew than to the purer style of St. Luke. IX. Quotations from the Old Testament. —'The following list of references to the Old Testament is nearly or quite complete: — Mark i. #2. Mal. iii. 1. i. 8., Is. xl. 3: ji. 44. Lev. xiv. 2. ii 25. Sam te Gs iv, 1222s: vii. 6. Is. xxix. 138. vii. 10. Ex. xx. 12, xxi. 17. ix. 44. Is. lxvi. 24. x. 4. Deut. xxiv. 1. x. Te Gen, Alec x. ALO.) Bee xx le xi. 17. Is. lvi. 7; Jer. vii. 11. xii. 10. Ps. exviii. 22. xii. 19. Deut. xxv. 5. xii. 26. Ex. iii. 6. xii. 29. Deut. vi. 4. xii. 81. Lev. xix. 18. xii. 86. Ps. ex. 1. xiii. 14. Dan. ix. 27. xiii. 24. Is. xiii. 10. xiv. 27. Zech. xiii. 7, xiv. 62. Dan. vii. 13. xv. 28 (?) Is. liii. 12. xv. 84. Ps. xxii. 1. X. Contents of the Gospel. — Though this Gos- — pel has little historical matter which is not shared ~ with some other, it would be a great error to sup- pose that the voice of Mark could have been — silenced without injury to the divine harmony. — The minute painting of the scenes in which the ~ Lord took part, the fresh and lively mode of the — narration, the very absence of the precious dis- — MARK, GOSPEL OF deeds, would have delayed the action, all give to J. H. Scholten, this Gospel a character of its own. It is the his- tory of the war of Jesus against sin and evil in the world during the time that He dwelt as a Man among men. Its motto might well be, as Lange observes, those words of Peter: ‘“ How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the Devil; for God was with Him” (Acts x. 38). It develops a series of acts of this conflict, broken by times of rest and refreshing, in the wilderness or on the mountain. It records the exploits of the Son of God in the war against Satan, and the retirement in which after each He returned to commune with his Father, and bring back fresh strength for new encounters. ‘Thus the passage from ii. 1 to ili. 6 describes his first conflict with the Pharisees, and it ends in a conspiracy of Pharisees and Herodians for his destruction, before which He retires to the sea (iii. 7). The passage from iii. 13 to vi. 6 con- tains the account of’ his conflict with the unbelief of his own countrymen, ending with those remark- able words, * And He could there do no mighty work, save that He laid his hands upon a few sick folk and healed them; ’’ then, constrained (so to speak) in his working by their resistance, He retired for that time from the struggle, and “ went round about the villages teaching ”” (vi. 6). The principal divisions in the Gospel are these: — 1. John the Baptist and Jesus (i. 1-13). 2. Acts of Jesus in Galilee (i. 14-ix. 50). 3. Teaching in Persea, where the spirit of the new kingdom of the Gospel is brought out (x. 1-34). 4. Teaching, trials, and sufferings in Jerusalem. Jesus revealing Himself as Founder of the new kingdom (x. 35- and xv. 47). 5. Resurrection (xvi.). Sources. —The works quoted under LUKE, and besides them, Davidson, /ntroduction to N. T. (Bagster, 1848); Lange, Bibelwerk, part ii., and Leben Jesu; Fritzsche on St. Mark (Leipzig, 1830); Kuhn, Leben Jesu, vol. i, (Mainz, 1838), and Sepp, Leben Christi (1843-46). eee it * Additional Literature. — The most important works on the Gospel of Mark are mentioned in the supplement to the article GosPELs, vol. ii. p. 959 ff. In addition, however, to the critical works of Wilke (1838), Hilgenfeld (1850), Baur (1851), James Smith of Jordanhill (1853), Holtzmann (1863), Weizsicker (1864), with others there re- ferred to, and the commentaries of Kuinoel, Ols- hausen, DeWette, Meyer, Bleek, Lange, Nast, etc., the following deserve to be noted: Knobel, De Lv. Marci Origine, Vratisl. 1831; Hitzig, Ueber Johannes Marcus u. seine, Schriften, oder welcher Johannes hat die Offenbarung verfasst? Ziirich, 1843; Giider, art. Marcus Evangelist, in Herzog’s Real-Encykl. ix. 44-51 (1858); Kenrick, The (ros- pel of Mark the Protevangelium, in his Biblical Essiys, Lond. 1864, 12mo, pp. 1-68; Hilgenfeld, Das Marcus- Evangelium u. die Marcus- Hypothese, in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1864, vii. 287-333 ; and Marcus zwischen Matthdus wu. Lucas, ibid., 1866, ix. 82-113; Zeller, Zum Marcus-Evange- lium, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1865, viii. 308-328, 385-408; H. U. Maijboom, Ges- chiedenis en Critiek der Marcus-Hypothese, Amst. 1866; J. H. A. Michelsen, Het Evangelie van Markus, 1¢ gedeelte, Amst. 1867; Aug. Kloster- mann, Das M urkusevangelium nach seinem Quel- lenwerthe jf. d. evang. Geschichte, Gott. 1867; MAROTH ‘1791 Het oudste evangelie. Critesch onderzoek naar de zamenstelling ... de hist. waarde en den oorsprong der evangelien naar Mate theus en Marcus, Leiden, 1868; Davidson, Introd. to the Study of the N. T., Lond. 1868, ii. 76-123. For an historical outline of the discussions respecting the relation of Mark’s Gospel to those of Matthew and Luke, see Holtzmann in Bunsen’s Bidelwerk, vol. viii. (1866), pp. 29-55. Many recent critics, besides those mentioned in the preceding article (p. 1788 6), as Smith of Jordanhill, Kenrick, Ritschl (Theol. Jahrb. 1851), Holtzmann, Weiss ( Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861), Schenkel, Weizsiicker, and Meyer in the later editions of his Kommentar, re gard Mark as the earliest and most original of the first three Gospels, most of them, however, resort- ing to the hypothesis of an earlier, perhaps Petrine Gospel, which forms its basis. The subject has been discussed with great fullness by Holtzmann. On the other hand, Hilgenfeld strenuously maintains the ‘secondary and derivative character of Mark's Gos- pel, and Dayidson, in his new Introduction (1868), as well as Bleek, adheres substantially to the view of Griesbach, arguing that it was mainly compiled from Matthew and Luke. Against the supposition that any one of the Evangelists copied from the others, see particularly the dissertation of Mr. Nor- . ton, * On the Origin of the Correspondences among — the First Three Gospels,” in his /vidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed. (1846), vol. i. Addit. Note D., pp. evi.—cexiii. Among the special commentaries we may notice the following: Victor Antiochenus (fl. A. D. 401), ed. by C. F. Matthxi (Bixtopos mpecB.- -AytT. Kad ddAwy tTwav warépwv ekfrynots eis Td Kara Mdp- KOV iry- evaryyéA tov), Moscow, 1775, Latin trans- lation in Mua, Bibl. Patrum, iv. 370 ff. (comp. Lardner, Works, iv. 581 ff., ed. 1829); Possinus, Catena Grecorum Patrum in Marcum, Rome, 1673, fol.; Cramer, Catena Greecorum Patrum in Evv. Matth. et Marci, Oxon. 1840; Euthymius Zigabenus (in Migne’s Patrol. Greeca, vol. cxxix.), and Theophylact (iid. vol. cxxiii.); see more fully under LUKE, GOSPEL OF, p. 1699 ; G. A. Heupe- lius, Marci Evang. Notis gram.-hist.-crit. illus- tratum, Argent. 1716; J. Elsner, Com. philol.-crit. in Ev. Marci, Traj. ad Rhen. 17738; C. F. A. Fritzsche, Luang. Marci recensuit et cum Comm. perpetuis edidit, Lips. 1830, a very elaborate philo- logical commentary; James Ford, The Gospel of St. Mark illustrated from Ancient and Modern Au- thors, Lond. 1849; J. A. Alexander, The Gospel according to Mark explained, New York, 1858, perhaps the best commentary in English, being at the same time scholarly and popular; (N. N. Whit- ing,) The Gospel according to Mark, translated from the Greek, on the Basis of the Common Eng- lish Version, with Notes, New York, 1858 (Amer. Bible Union). The translation of Lange’s Com- mentary by Prof. W. G. T. Shedd, New York, 1866, forming, with Oosterzee on Luke, vol. ii. of the N. T. series, and the new (5th) edition of Mey- er’s Krit. exeg. Handb. iib. d. Evv. des Markus et Lukas (Gott. 1867), should also be mentioned here. A. MAR’MOTH (Mapuw0l 3 Alex. Mapuaét: Marimoth) = Merremort# the priest, the son of Uriah (1 Esdr. viii. 62; comp. Ezr. viii. 33). MA’ROTH (979 [bitterness, pl. Ges.]: é5uvn in both MSS.: and so also Jerome, in 1792 MARKET Amaritudinibus), one of the towns of the western lowland of Judah whose names are alluded to or played upon by the prophet Micah in the warning with which his prophecy opens (i. 12). The allu- sion turns on the signification of Maroth — « bit- ternesses.” It is not elsewhere mentioned, nor has the name been encountered by travellers. Schwarz’s conjecture (107), that it is a contraction of Maarath, is not very happy, as the latter con- tains the letter ain, which but very rarely disap- pears under any process to which words are sub- jected. G. * MARKET occurs in the O. T. only in the 27th chap. of Ezekiel (vv. 13, 17, 19, 25), where it is the rendering of the Hebr. 27272, which in the same chapter is five times (in vv. 9, 27, 33, 34) translated “ merchandise.” In the N. T. it is used as the equivalent of the Greek word ayopd, which, however, is rendered market-place in Matt. xx. 3; Mark xii. 38; Luke vii. 32; Acts xvi. 19; and in Mark vi. 56 is translated “street” (apparently afcer the Vulg. in plateis). The market was not only a place of traffic, but also of general resort. It was frequented by per- sons in search of amusement (cf. Matt. xi. 16; Luke vil. 32) or of employment (Matt. xx. 3), and in time of calamity (Eccles. xii. 5 LXX.; ef. Is. xv. 3). There justice was commonly administered, and many other public affairs transacted; there, too, prophets and public teachers found their auditors (cf. Jer. xvii. 19; Prov. i. 20f., viii. 1 f.; Luke xili. 26). They were ‘“‘market-loungers ”’ (a-yopator) who aided the Jewish persecutors of Paul at Thes- salonica (Acts xvii. 5). Accordingly, the word sometimes appears to designate little more than a place of publicity (Matt. xxiii. 7; Mark xii. 38; Luke xi. 43, xx. 46). The market-places in the cities of Palestine, at least in the earlier times, lay just within the gates [GaTEs, vol. i. p. 871; see also Thomson’s Land and Book, i. 29 ff.]. They sometimes consisted of something more than a bare, open space, if we may judge from 1 Esdr. ii. 18 (17), where we read of “building (oixodouode1) the market-places ;”’ ef. Joseph. B. J. i. 21,§ 8. And it is doubtful whether they were always situated close to the city gates (Joseph. B. J. v. 4, § 1; v. 12, § 3; Vita, p. 22). Certainly in Jerusalem trade seems not to have been confined to the neighborhood of the MARKET | gates; for we read in Jer. xxxvii. 21 of the bakers’ _ street (YT) (cf. also Neh. iii. 32), in Josephus (B. J. v. 8, § 1), of the wool-mart, the copper- smiths’ shops, the clothes market, and (B. J. v. 4, § 1) of the valley of the cheese-makers, while in the rabbinical writings still other associated trades are mentioned, as the corn-market, meat-market, etc. (For illustrations of modern usages, see Tobler’s Denkblatter aus Jerusalem, pp. 139 ff., 142 f., 373 tf &c.) Accordingly, the supposition is not an im- probable one that in the larger cities a market for the sale of country produce, cattle, etc., was held in piazze near the gates, while traffic in manufac- tured articles was grouped in bazaars, or collections of shops within —a usage not unknown in the East at the present day [STREET] (see Hackett’s Jllus- trations of Scripture, p. 69 ff.). On the approach of the Sabbath, or of a festival, a signal from a trumpet was given “between the two evenings ”’ [DAy, vol. i. p. 568] that work should cease and the markets be closed. They remained shut also on days of public mourning. Foreigners seem to have been free to engage in traffic (Neh. xiii. 16, x. 31); indeed, the wandering habits of oriental traders are indicated by the primary signification (“one who travels about’) of “TTD and Sein two of the most common Hebrew words to denote a mer- chant, (see Jas. iv. 13, and Hackett’s //lustrations, etc. p. 70 f.). The falsification of weights and measures was vigorously proscribed by Moses and the prophets (Lev. xix. 35, 36; Deut. xxv. 13, 15; Ezek. xlv. 10 ff.; Amos viii. 5; Micah vi. 10 f.; ef. Proy. xi. 1, xvi. 11, xx. 10, 23). On the medium of trade see MONEY. Respecting “the market’’ at Athens, where Paul “disputed daily,” according to the practice of pub- lic teachers, at least from the time of Socrates, see ATHENS, vol. i. p. 194. A detailed account (of course somewhat conjectural) of the place and its environs is given in Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epp. of St. Paul, i. 354 f., Am. ed., and a lively description of the scenes that were to be witnessed there may be found in Felton’s Lectures on Ancient and Modern Greece, i. 375 ff.; ef. Becker’s Chari- cles, 2d Eng. ed., p. 277 ff. The “market-place ” of Philippi, and the proceedings before the “ pree- tors” there, must derive illustration from the foren- sic usages of Rome, of which Philippi as a Roman colony was a miniature likeness. J. H. T. ‘ ; ie x ka PNG Ue OE a —? om ee y ai a. -) fe “Wav. j i ’ , vie 4, 7 * ; - Ay, Y, ty feniged MEW HENS edie p PvE Eee Ue leg Le PE Ee Ns am dpvd eae Me WET MESTE AY UeheUP Neve ne He bh (i een ey WEL EATG HE Teta | PONENT EME hel id WAR Wear dieh AbDEUsHDEL CNR NTI Pals} Weed Matias Pipe Vitek We es hens vaile rie thinly \: Pete Whee cle ie edd oi Wes HEAP PO UE eae Fey Le bsinithne gine te hie as ties PLE Re hel ANGIE Fehr yp Wee yy bie Ate tl HERD UAE | HENLE IL, rile beheae Wik We ine etig Ny De RV OES Sieh ay ib <\e peyis tet Hie Miele hehe die weve Melee Weal yo Henley eRe nee iy ate ui} PEW ete ie We LeCHe BOR Rake y arena Waele te We ive fief Delete deur yey ip raha s)* ie Eee alates WOE Wehethe ie jet BEBE SN he Bis at APM S DML TED pede be ite ene wooed | PAT Eka bedi ea rp HEMP de heuiy Prenaene tice fey Aa ale care (Pei gins Hon ice eli’ | SWAMI NE aisilcde ye PSU LEH E Ke fb AME Hep Wea t Bae My We thy yie thy HEM Le lictk : VEUR AME § Pees eye yes + Wee Wel) if Be dee Ve ia Paar ea tater (cantar Be GEE he Hil JE Ke YR EE epee Tweeyt Piz ie tly Mie He la is Be Mee NOUS He lP eds bate he We ate | NRE Wetieki WS Aled Reile fede peli He fle ihe le AS (hi ibe Wen LHe IO Wewiearv ie dies Weep eae ar H Us line Ve giedie ion (enti HEME HEWES ine ite th Ve OE WEY Lie debtly Aiba WEN PUES Nie RE Lain {ei Nee ARA He We Ub HeWe We yf WME iy WENN Mea Acliene | MEMS Woah tte ¢ ete iy ray they AE Not bbe, PUNE welik be EEE WWE ie qied ei tehy Uasie Ter eat Wei yh Whee Wet tel f Hoven a ae Sey oie Mee ihe L Bind tee WON Ae Wie WET the fe fade Lieb Sit We Sie Wt Ue gi e4 WAN Wehe ded i ai anian FUE Cee lig al Wee iohve eae ihe ts / situ el Leiba hadley Weis Wate Wied FUGA A Tair Heep cate t A Hepie | soueavllcdigurarsljed Ve Ate as Set neg iMehle chaaie iar Hiiie US (ele Re se bey HIME Ge He him Aidih whey Male De ayes age (le fie | it i JURE PES ub yp iy : u) - Hee WEE Sale tingle ies TOR EDK Sry Wits ERG Mb (eit Wade ype | AVE ME RAE Pie Ve ee Liehatie sae We PP We Mee Hinde ed Mey iWin neste WEN Mele eet it Jiegieaienen PEP PEs BESET ae Me Sal ye We se Wrest hie Wr fevers HEN We dhe Cae fle Fy Heth Wied Qe Qa ye etait feist MRE te Ge ie di Well Me jiilliiee ye ivait hes ENA GeANe dei MB Aetye Yi syht italy qd rah pened Nhe Ue 1a NAW Hoyts ti AD Ube fie tie Us nae Le euro i AA WEN E NE Lieu lh ty He MEME ei > PM MEY, He fee Lis HEMP ELMAN Wes Hehehe dag HUE AE TAPE MO He Wale f He Uesledbe debe WT Fella LER We fh erred as bate Abe ils Slide be ing lh MEAL WEAR HH fix walieWe bo qit neat ‘i GE UE He ie We fin ati feb tiey Neb eer wea Her PHATE Tbe ewe UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA VON 12 125166972