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. .
' HOUSE HOUSE 1108
re usually of one story only, namely, the ground | houses of the first rank. The prevailing plan of
oor, and sometimes contain only one apartment. |eastern houses of this class presents, as was the
ometimes a small court for the cattle is attached; | case in ancient Egypt, a front of wall, whose blank
ad in some cases the cattle are housed in the same |and mean appearance is usually relieved only by
uilding, or the people live on a raised platform, | the door and a few latticed and projecting windows
nd the cattle round them on the ground (1 Sam. | ( Views in Syria, ii. 25). Within this is a court
cvili. 24; Irby and Mangles, p. 70; Jolliffe, Let-|or courts with apartments opening into them.
ws, i. 43; Buckingham, Arab Tribes, p. 170; |Some of the finest houses in the East are to be
urekhardt, Travels, ii. 119). In Lower Egypt |found at Damascus, where in some of them are
ie oxen occupy the width of the chamber farthest |seven such courts. When there are only two, the
om the entrance; it is built of brick or mud, |innermost is the hareem, in which the women and
yout four feet high, and the top is often used as | children live, and which is jealously secluded fron,
sleeping place in winter. The windows are small|the entrance of any man but the master of the
yertures high up in the walls, sometimes grated | house (Burckhardt, T’ravels, i. 188; Van Egmont,
ith wood (Burckhardt, Travels, i. 241, ii. 101, |ii. 246, 253; Shaw, p. 207; Porter, Damascus, i.
19, 301, 829; Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 44). The roofs | 34, 57, 60; Chardin, Voyages, vi. 6; Lane, Mod.
commonly but not always flat, and are usually | y. i. 179, 207). Over the door is a projecting
rmed of a plaster of mud and straw laid upon | window with a lattice more or less elaborately
sughs of rafters; and upon the flat roofs, tents or | wrought, which, except in times of public celebra-
booths ’’ of boughs or rushes are often raised to
2 used as sleeping-places in summer (Irby and
=
=
‘
Hyile
ull
nat
Wi
i ee AS Te ee
‘A Nestorian house, with stages upon the roof for Entrance to house in Cairo. (Lane, Modern
Sleeping. (Layard, Nineveh, i. 177.) Egyptians.)
angles, 71; Niebuhr, Deser. pp. 49, 53; Layard, | tions, is usually closed (2 K. ix. 30; Shaw, Trav-
in. and Bab. p. 112; Nineveh, i. 176; Burckhardt, | els, p. 207; Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 27). The doorway
ria, p. 280; Travels, i. 190; Van Egmont, ii. 32;|or door bears an inscription from the Kuran, as
alan, Magdala and Bethany, p. 15). To this de-| the ancient Egyptian houses had inscriptions over
ription the houses of ancient Egypt and also of | their doors, and as the Israelites were directed to
ssyria, as represented in the monuments, in great | write sentences from the Law over their gates.
casure correspond (Layard, Monuments of Nine-|[GAtE.] The entrance is usually guarded within
h, pt. ii. pl. 49, 50; bas-relief in Brit. Mus. | from sight by a wall or some arrangement of the
syrian room, No. 49; first Egypt. room, case|passages. In the passage is a stone seat for the
+ Wilkinson, Anc. Fg. porter and other servants (Lane, Mod. /q. i. 32;
18; Martineau, Last. Shaw, Travels, p. 207; Chardin, Voyages, iv. 111).
ife, i. 19, 97). In the Beyond this passage is an open court like the
wns the houses of the Roman tmpluvium, often paved with marble. Into
ferior kind do not differ this the principal apartments look, and are citker
uch from the above open to it in front, or are entered from it by doors. -
scription, but they are An awning is sometimes drawn over the court, and
metimes of more than the floor strewed with carpets on festive occasions
e story, and the roof-tern (Shaw, p. 208). On the ground floor there is
ces are more carefully generally an apartment for male visitors, called
nstructed. In Palestine mandarah, having a portion of the floor sunk be-
ey are often of stone low the rest, called durka’ah. This is often paved
olliffe, i. 26). with marble or colored tiles, and has in the centre
2. The difference be- Assyrian house, Ko- |a fountain. The rest of the floor is a raised plat-
een the poorest houses younjik. form called leewan, with a mattress and cushions
d those of the class next at the back on each of the three sides. This seat
ove them is greater than between these and the | or sofa is called deewdn. Every person on entrance
1104 HOUSE
takes off his shoes on the durka’ah before stepping
on the leewan (Ex. iii. 5; Josh. v. 15; Luke vii.
38). The ceilings over the leewdn and durkd’ah
are often richly paneled and ornamented (Jer. xxii.
14). [Cumine.] The stairs to the upper apart-
ments are in Syria usually in a corner of the court
(Robinson, iii. 3802). When there is no upper
story the lower rooms are usually loftier. In Per-
sia they are open from top to bottom, and only
divided from the court by a low partition (Wilkin-
gon, Anc. Hg. i. 10; Chardin, iv. 119; Burckhardt,
Travels, i. 18, 193 Views in Syria, i. 56).
Iruer court of house in Cairo, with Mak’ad.
(Lane, Modern Egyptians.)
Around part, if not the whole, of the court is a
verandah, often nine or ten feet deep, over which,
when there is more than one floor, runs a second
gallery of like depth with a balustrade (Shaw, p.
208). Bearing in mind that the reception room is
Court cf house at Antioch.
@ *See a full statement of this latter view in Nor-
ton’s Genuineness of the Gospeis, 2d ed., i. p. cxii. ff.
(Addit. Notes), or in his Zrans. ef the Gospels, with
Notes, ii. 218 t., 249 f. A.
b * Another view may he stated. hose who brought
the paralytic, finding it impossible to reach the Saviour
in the room where he was teaching (see especially
Mark ii. 2), may have hastened at once to the court of
an adjacent house. Taking advantage there of the
stairs leading up thence to the roof of that next house,
they could have crossed to the roof (separated from
HOUSE
raised above the level of the court (Chardin:
118; Views in Syria, i. 56), we may, in expla
the circumstances of the miracle of the para
(Mark ii. 8; Luke v. 18), suppose, (1.) that
Lord was standing under the verandah, and:
people in front in the court. The bearers of
sick man ascended the stairs ‘to the roof of
house, and taking off a portion of the boarded |
ering of the verandah, or removing the aw)
over the impluviwm, 7 wécov, in the former |
let down the bed through the verandah roof, ¢
the latter, down by way of the roof, 5:4 Tay k
pwv, and deposited it before the Saviour (S]
p. 212).¢ (2.) Another explanation presents i
in considering the room where the company ‘
assembled as the jrep@ov, and the roof opene
the bed to be the true roof of the house (Tre|
Miracles, p. 199; Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 89). |
And one still more simple is found in regar.
the house as one of the rude dwellings now t|
seen near the Sea of Galilee, a mere room “]
12 feet high and as many or more square,” |
no opening except the door. ‘he roof, used
sleeping-place, is reached by a ladder from the)
side, and the bearers of the paralytic, unab!
approach the door, would thus have ascendec
roof, -and having uncovered it (éfopvgavtes)
him down into the room where our Lord
(Malan, /. c.).5
The stairs to the upper apartments or to
Tete
roof are often shaded by vines or creeping 9!
and the courts, especially the inner ones, pli
with trees. The court has often a well or tal
it (Ps. exxviii. 3; 2 Sam. xvii. 18; Russell, Al
a ee
‘the other, if at all, by only a low parapet) whic!
over the room into which they let down the bel
fore Jesus, through the tiles, broken up for 4
| pose. Stairs on the outside of houses are almo
‘known in Palestine at present, and would only ¢!
‘the inmates to violence and pillage. The healt)
the paralytic took place at Capernaum (Mark |
| where the houses might be expected to be thus:
_tiguous to each other. Thomson informs ws (/
and Book, ii. 6 ff.) how the ordinary Arab hous’
constructed in the East. i.
Kiah of ‘house in Cairo. (lane.)
|
|
I
HOUSE
24, 32; Wilkinson, i. 6, 8; Lane, Mod. Eg. i.
2; Views in Syria, i. 56).
Besides the mandarah, there is sometimes a sec-
‘\d room, either on the ground or the upper floor,
led ka’ah, fitted with deewdans, and at the cor-
rs of these rooms portions taken off and inclosed
tm retiring rooms (Lane, i. 39; Russell, i. 31,
').
When there is no second floor, but more than
‘ecourt, the women’s apartments, hareem, harem,
- 5
param ( ry and
ited, with which may be compared the Hebrew
mon {VIS (Stanley, S. ¢ P. App. § 82), are
ually in the second court; otherwise they form a
varate building within the general inclosure, or
» above on the first floor (Lane, Mod. Eg. i. 179,
1; Views in Syria, i. 56). The entrance to the
tem is crossed by no one but the master of the
use and the domestics belonging to the female
‘ablishment. Though this remark would not
dy in the same degree to Jewish habits, the pri-
y of the women’s apartments may possibly be
licated by the “inner chamber ”’ ‘ein © Top
y: cubiculum) resorted to as a hiding-place (1
xx, 30, xxii. 25; see Judg. xv. 1). Solomon,
his marriage with a foreigner, introduced also
KO
Ta
; secluded, or pro-
py sec ;
Wile
"
——
Interior of house (harem) in Damascus.
‘gn usage in this respect, which was carried
ler in subsequent times (1 K. vii. 8; 2 K. xxiv.
[Women.] The harem of the Persian
arch (O°w3 Fm po F 6 yuvaiKkev: domus fem-
um) is noticed in the book of Esther (ii. 3).
Then there is an upper story, the kd@’ah forms
most important apartment, and thus probably
fers to the bwepgov, which was often the
est-chamber ” (Luke xxii. 12 [avd-yaov]; Acts
, 1X. 37, xx. 8: Burckhardt, Trav. i. 154).a
‘windows of the upper rooms often project one
vo feet, and form a kiosk or latticed chamber,
ceilings of which are elaborately ornamented
€, i. 27; Russell, i. 102; Burckhardt, Trav.
0). [Winpow.] Such may have been the
mber on the wall” (oy > brep@ov: caenac-
says Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res. ii.
ed.), we were ‘t conducted to an ‘ upper room,’
airy hall, forming a sort of third story, upon
‘a Toof of the house.” The prophet’s chamber
‘unem, 2 K. iv. 10 (‘ton the wall,” A. V., but
bly = wall-chamber, 7. ¢. one surrounded with a
duly finished), was uc doubt the modern alliyeh
70
HOUSE 1165
ulum ; Ges. p. 1030) made, or rather set apart for
Elisha, by the Shunammite woman (2 K. iv. 10,
11). So also the “summer parlor”? of Eglon
(Judg. iii. 20, 23, but see Wilkinson, i. 11), the
‘loft’ of the widow of Zarephath (1 K. xvii. 19).
The “lattice” (7327 > Sixruwrdy: cancelli)
through which Ahaziah fell, perhaps belonged to
an upper chamber of this kind (2 K. i. 2), as also
the “third loft” (rptoreyov) from which Euty-
chus fell (Acts xx. 9; comp. Jer. xxii. 13). There
are usually no special bedrooms in eastern houses,
and thus the room in which Ish-bosheth was mur.
dered was probably an ordinary room with a
deewdn, on which he was sleeping during the heat,
of the day (2 Sam. iv. 5, 6; Lane, i. 41).
Sometimes the deewdn is raised sufficiently to
allow of cellars underneath for stores of all kinda
(raueta, Matt. xxiy. 26; Russell, i. 32).
The outer doors
are closed with a
wooden lock, but in /j
some cases the fips
apartments are di-
vided from each
other by curtains
only (Lane, i. 42;
Chardin, iv. 123 ;
Russell, i. 21).
There are no
chimneys, but fire
is made when re-
quired with char-
coal in a chafing-
dish; or a fire of
wood might be kin-
dled in the open
court of the house
(Luke xxii. 55; Rus-
sell, i. 21; Lane, i.
41; Chardin, iy.
120). [Coau,
Amer. ed.]
Besides the man-
darah, some houses
in Cairo have an
apartment called
makad, open in
front to the court, soins
with two or more House in a street at Cairo.
arches, and a rail- (From Roberts.)
ing; and a pillar to support the wall above (Lane,
i. 88). It was in a chamber of this kind, probably
one of the largest size to be found in a palace, that
our Lord was being arraigned before the high-priest,
at the time when the denial of Him by St. Peter
took place. He ‘turned and looked’ on Peter as
he stood by the fire in the court (Luke xxii. 56,
61; John xviii. 25), whilst He himself was in the
“hall of Judgment,” the mak'ad. Such was the
“ porch of judgment’? built by Solomon (1 K. vii.
7), which finds a parallel in the golden alcove of
Mohammed Uzbek (Ibn Batuta, Trav. 76, ed.
Lee).
ijn a
(the Hebrew word is the same). ‘It is the most de-
sirable part of the establishment, is best fitted up, and
is still given to guests who are to be treated with
honor” (Thomson, Land and Book, i. 235). This is
the name also of Elijah’s room (°' loft,” A. V.) at Sa-
repta (1 K. xvii. 19). H.
1106 HOUSE ,
Before quitting the interior of the house we may
observe that, on the deewzdn, the dorner is the place
of honor, which is never quitted by the master of
the house in receiving strangers (Russell, i. 27;
Malan, Tyre and Sidon, p. 38).¢ The roofs of
eastern houses are, as has been said, mostly flat,
though there are sometimes domes over some of the
rooms. The flat portions are plastered with a com-
position of mortar, tar, ashes, and sand, which in
time becomes very hard, but when not laid on at
the proper season is apt to crack in winter, and the
rain is thus admitted. In order to prevent this,
every roof is provided with a roller, which is set
at work after rain. In many cases the terrace
roof is little better than earth rolled hard. On ill-
compacted roofs grass is often found springing into
a short-lived existence (Prov. xix. 13, xxvii. 15;
Ps. exxix. 6, 7; Is. xxxvii. 27; Shaw, p. 210;
Lane, i. 27; Robinson, iii. 89, 44, 60).
In no point do oriental domestic habits differ
more from European than in the use of the roof.
Its flat surface is made useful for various house-
hold purposes, as drying corn, hanging up linen,
and preparing figs and raisins (Shaw, p. 211;
Burckhardt, Trav. i. 191). The roofs are used as
places of recreation in the evening, and often as
sleeping-places at night (2 Sam. xi. 2, xvi. 22; Dan.
iv. 29; 1 Sam. ix. 25, 26; Job xxvii. 18; Prov.
xxi. 9; Shaw, p. 211; Russell, i. 85; Chardin, iv.
116; Layard, Nineveh, i. 177). They were also
used as places for devotion, and even idolatrous
worship (Jer. xxxii. 29, xix. 13; 2 K. xxiii. 12;
Zeph. i. 5; Acts x. 9). At the time of the Feast
of Tabernacles booths were erected by the Jews on
the tops of their houses, as in the present day huts
of boughs are sometimes erected on the housetops
as sleeping-places, or places of retirement from the
heat in summer time (Neh. viii. 16; Burckhardt,
Syria, p. 280). As among the Jews the seclusion
of women was not carried to the extent of Moham-
medan usage, it is probable that the housetop was
made, as it is among Christian inhabitants, more a
place of public meeting both for men and women,
than is the case among Mohammedans, who care-
fully seclude their roofs from inspection by parti-
tions (Burckhardt, Trav. i. 191; comp. Wilkinson,
i. 23). The Christians at Aleppo, in Russell's time,
lived contiguous, and made their housetops a means
of mutual communication to avoid passing through
the streets in time of plague (Russell, i. 35). In
the same manner the housetop might be made a
means of escape by the stairs [z. e. from the roof
into the court] by which it was reached without
entering any of the apartments of the house (Matt.
xxiv. 17, x. 27; Luke xii. 3).
Both Jews and heathens were in the habit of
wailing publicly on the housetops (Is. xv. 3, xxii.
1; Jer. xlviii. 38). Protection of the roof by par-
apets was enjoined by the Law (Deut. xxii. 8). The
parapets thus constructed, of which the types may
be seen in ancient Egyptian houses, were sometimes
of open work, and it is to a fall through, or over
one of these that the injury by which Ahaziah suf-
fered is sometimes ascribed (Shaw, p. 211). To
pass over roofs for plundering purposes, as well as
a *Hence in Am. iii. 12 “the corner of a bed”
(the “divan ” being meant there) is represented as the
place occupied by the proud nobles of Samaria, from
which only a miserable remnant of them would be
able to escape in the day of calamity. H.
6 *'The A. V. (1 Sam. ix. 25) states merely that
HOUSE OF GOD
for safety, would be no difficult matter (Joel ii.
In ancient Egyptian and also in Assyrian house
sort of raised story was sometimes built aboye
roof, and in the former an open chamber, roofed
covered with awning, was sometimes erected on
housetop (Wilkinson, i. 9; Layard, Jon. of J
ii. pl. 49, 50).
There are usually no fire-places, except in
kitchen, the furniture of which consists of a :
of raised platform of brick with receptacles
it for fire, answering to the “boiling plac
(MwaN: poryetpera: culine) of Ezekiel (3
23; Lane, i. 41; Ges. p. 249).
Special apartments were devoted in larger hor
to winter and summer uses (Jer. xxxvi. 22; 4
iii. 15; Chardin, iv. 119).
The ivory house of Ahab was probably a pa
largely ornamented with inlaid ivory. [PALA
The circumstance of Samson’s pulling down
house by means of the pillars, may be explai
by the fact of the company being assembled
tiers of balconies above each other, supported
central pillars on the basement; when these
pulled down the whole of the upper floors w
fall also (Judg. xvi. 26; Shaw, p. 211).
Houses for jewels and armor were built and
nished under the kings (2 K. xx. 18). The drau
house (MISTI : kompdv: latrince) was do
less a public latrine, such as exists in mo
eastern cities (2 K. x. 27; Russell, i. 34).
Leprosy in the house was probably a nit
efflorescence on the walls, which was injuriou
the salubrity of the house, and whose removal
therefore strictly enjoined by the Law (Lev.
34, 55; Kitto, Phys. Geogr. of Pal. p. |
Winer, s. v. Héuser).
The word 772 is prefixed to words constitu
a local name, as Bethany, Beth-horon, ete.
modern names it is represented by Beit, as J
lahm. .
* HOUSEHOLD, CAISAR’S. [Cas.
HOUSEHOLD. |
* HOUSEHOLDER. [Goopmay.]
* HOUSE OF GOD. This expression
curs in Judg. xx. 18 (A. V.), where no doubt
On, instead of being translated, should be reta
as a proper name, 7. e. Bethel; so also, ver. 26
xxi. 2. Bethel on the confines of Judah and B
min is the place there meant. The Ark o
Covenant having been brought to Bethel from
loh just at that time, for the purpose (it may
of more convenient access, the other tribes wel
thither to ‘ask counsel” of Jehovah in regal
the war on which they were about to enter ag
the Benjamites. The Ark of the Covenant is f
again not long after this in its proper sanctua'
Shiloh (1 Sam. i. 3). That in Judg. xx. 18 B
denotes the place where the Ark then was, ant
the Ark itself as called “the house of God
evident from Judg. xx. 27, where the narrative
tinguishes the two from each other, and recog
es
Samuel and Saul had a conversation or private }
view ‘on the roof.” But it appears from the He
(ver. 26) that Saul, at least, slept there during th
lowing night; for early the next morning Sa
called to him on the roof to arise and resum
journey s
* mn
“a
i ie
*,
—
HUKKOK
ie presence of the Ark at Bethel as the result of’
special emergency. Er.
HUK’KOK ()2)21 [incision, rock-eacavation,
ietr.; ditch, Fiirst]: *Ilaxava; Alex. Inwk: Huc-
1a), @ place on the boundary of Naphtali (Josh.
x. d4), named next to Aznoth-Tabor. It is men-
med by Eusebius and Jerome ( Qnomast. “Icoc” 4
it in such a manner as to show that they knew
thing of it but from the Text. By hap-Parchi
1320, and in our own times by Wolcott and
‘Robinson, Hukkok has been recovered in Yakik,
village in the mountains of Naphtali, west of the
per end of the Sea of Galilee, about 7 miles
S. W. of Safed, and at the head of Wady-el-
nud. An ancient Jewish tradition locates here
2 tomb of Habakkuk (Zunz, in B. ‘Tudela, ii.
1; Schwarz, p. 182; Robinson, iii. 81, 82).
G.
HU’KOK (Pan [perh. established, or en-
wed]: » ’Axdx; [Vat. Ixax;] Alex. Tokar}
omp. Ald. *Iidé:] Hucac), a name which in 1
t. vi. 75 is substituted for HELKATH in the par-
1 list of the Gershonite cities in Asher, in Josh.
HUL (an [circle, region, Fiirst]: “Ova; [in
Jhr., Rom. Vat. omit, Alex. Qys: Hul}), the
md son of Aram, and grandson of Shem (Gen.
43). The geographical position of the people
m he represents is not well decided. J osephus
t. i. 6, § 4) and Jerome fix it in Armenia;
ulthess (Parad. p. 262) on etymological grounds
though the name = 94T7, sand) proposes the
hern part of Mesopotamia; von Bohlen (/n-
. to Gen. ii. 249) places it in the neighborhood
haldsea. The strongest evidence is in favor
1¢ district about the roots of Lebanon, where
names Ard-el-/ileh, a district to the north of
» Merom; O#AxGa, a town noticed by Josephus
- xy. 10, § 3), between Galilee and Trachonitis ;
n, and its modern form Djaulan, bear some
ty to the original name ef Haul, or, as it should
x. be written, Chul. W... 1. B,
UL/DAH (Ton [weasel, Fiirst]: “Oa-
[Holda,] Olda), a prophetess, whose husband
wm was keeper of the wardrobe in the time
ng Josiah, and who dwelt in the suburb (Ros-
Mer, ad Zeph. i. 10) of Jerusalem. While
liah was still at Anathoth, a young man un-
n to fame, Huldah was the most distinguished
1 for prophetic gifts in Jerusalem; and it was
that Josiah had recourse when Hilkiah found
k of the Law, to procure an authoritative
mon it (2 K. xxii. 14; 2 Chr. xxxiy. 22).
, WT eB:
JM/TAH (TOMA [place of lizards, Ges. ;
88, First]: Evdud; Alex. Xappata: Ath-
), a city of Judah, one of those in the moun-
istrict, the next to Hebron (Josh. xv. 54).
3 not known to Eusebius and Jerome (see
asticon, “ Ammatha ”), nor has it since been
led. There is some resemblance between the
and that of Kimath (Kiud@), one of the
added in the Vat. LXX. to the list in the
¥ text of 1 Sam. xxx. 27-31. G.
INTING. The objects for which hunting
ticed, indicate the various conditions of so-
of civilization. Hunting,
md the progress
atter of necessity, whether for the extermi-
HUNTING 1107
nation of dangerous beasts, or for procuring suste-
nance, betokens a rude and _ semi-civilized state;
as an amusement, it betokens an advanced state.
In the former, personal prowess and physical
strength are the qualities which elevate a mar
above his fellows and fit him for dominion, and
hence one of the greatest heroes of antiquity is de-
scribed as a “mighty hunter before the Lord”
(Gen. x. 9), while Ishmael, the progenitor of a wild
race, was famed as an archer (Gen. xxi. 20), and
Esau, holding a similar position, was “a cunning
hunter, a man of the field” (Gen. xxv. 27). The
latter state may be exemplified, not indeed from
Scripture itself, but from contemporary records.
Among the accomplishments of Herod, his skill in
the chase is particularly noticed; he kept a regular
stud and a huntsman (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 10, § 3),
followed up the sport in a wild country (Ant. xv.
7, § 7) which abounded with stags, wild asses, and
bears, and is said to have killed as many as forty
head in a day (B. J. i. 21,§ 13). The wealthy in
Egypt and Assyria followed the sports of the field
with great zest; they had their preserves for the
express purpose of preserving and hunting game
(Wilkinson’s Anc. Lgypt. i, 215; Xen. Cyrop. i.
4, §§ 5, 14), and drew from hunting scenes subjects
for decorating the walls of their buildings, and even
the robes they wore on state occasions.
The Hebrews, as a pastoral and agricultural
people, were not given to the sports of the field;
the density of the population, the earnestness of
their character, and the tendency of their ritual
regulations, particularly those affecting food, all
combined to discourage the practice of hunting;
and perhaps the examples of Ishmael and Esau were
recorded with the same object. ‘There was no lack
of game in Palestine; on their entrance into the
land, the wild beasts were so numerous as to be
dangerous (Ex. xxiii. 29); the utter destruction of
them was guarded against by the provisions of the
Mosaic law (Ex. xxiii. 11; Lev. xxv. 7). Some of
the fiercer animals survived to a late period, as
lions (Judg. xiv. 5; 1 Sam. xvii. 34; 2 Sam. xxiii.
20; 1 K. xiii. 24, xx. 36), and bears (1 Sam. xvii.
34; 2 K. ii. 24); jackals (Judg. xv. 4) and foxes
(Cant. ii. 15) were also numerous; hart, roebuck,
and fallow deer (Deut. xi. 15; 1 K. iv. 23) formed
a regular source of sustenance, and were possibly
preserved in inclosures. The manner of catching
these animals was either by digging a pitfall
(Tw), which was the usual manner with the
larger animals, as the lion (2 Sam. xxiii. 20; Ez.
xix. 4, 8); or secondly by a trap (IT), which was
set under ground (Job xviii. 10), in the run of
the animal (Proy. xxii. 5), and caught it by the
leg (Job xviii. 9); or lastly by the use of the net,
of which there were various kinds, as for the
gazelle (?) (Is. li. 20, A. V. «wild bull’), and
other animals of that class. [Nrer.] The method
in which the net was applied is familiar to us from
the descriptions in Virgil (4n. iv. 121, 151 ff,
x. 707 ff.); it was placed across a ravine or narrow
valley, frequented by the animals for the sake of
water, and the game was driven in by the hunters
and then dispatched either with bow and arrc W, or
spears (comp. Wilkinson, i. 214). The gaine se-
lected was generally such as was adapted for food
(Prov. xii. 27), and care was taken to pour out the
blood of these as well as of tame animals (Lev. xvii.
13).
|
me
|
1108 | HUPHAM HUR
Birds formed an article of food among the a Aaron he stayed up the hands of Moses (12).
brews (Ley. xvii. 13), and much skill was exercised | is mentioned again in xxiv. 14, as being, with Aar
in catching them. ‘The following were the most| left in charge of the people by Moses during
. _. |ascent of Sinai. It would appear from this that,
approved methods. (1.) The trap (1B), which must have been a person connected with the fam
consisted of two parts, a net, strained over a frame, | o¢ ; :
and a stick to support it, ‘put so placed that it _ oo Te
should give way at the slightest touch; the stick | (dition, as preserved by Josephus (Ant. iii. 2, §
s termed WII WA (Am. iii. 5, “gin; ”’ | is that he was the husband of Miriam, and (iii
ual | § 1) that he was identical with — : ;
2. (“Qp-) The grandfather of Bezaleel, :
. hief artificer of the tabernacle — “ son of Uri,
(2.) The snare (SDL, from DDB, to braid; Job ‘ ; s ee
xviii. 9, A. V. “robber’’), consisting of a cord sPiperai oie thie tritte of da ae .
30, xxxviii. 22), the full genealogy being given
(pam, Job xviii. 10; comp. Ps. xviii. 5, exvi. 3,| each occasion (see also 2 Chr. i. 5). In the 1
exl. 5), so set as to catch the bird by the leg. (8.-) of the descendants of Judah in 1 Chr. the pedig
ore fully preserved. Hur there appears as
The net, which probably resembled those used in| is m A
Egypt, consisting of two sides or frames, over which | of the great family of Pharez. He was the son
network was strained, and so arranged that they Caleb ben-Hezron, by a second wife, Ephrath.
could be closed by means of a cord: the Hebrew 19, 20; comp. 5, also iv. 1), the first fruit of
names are various. [Nev.] (4.) The decoy, to marriage (ii. 50, iv. 4), and the father, besides
which reference is made in Jer. v. 26, 27a cage | (ver- 20), of three sons, who founded the towns
4 : Kirjath-jearim, Beth-lehem, and Beth-gader ()
of a peculiar construction (and) — was filled ene : Rais potion aks Bac tcheas is a!
with birds, which acted as decoys; the door of the| have been of a closer nature than with the ot
cage was kept open by a piece of stick acting as 4) of these places, for he himself is emphatically es
springe (Tw), and closed suddenly with a « Abi-Bethlehem ” the %& father of Bethlehe
clop (whence perhaps the term c’lib) on the en- (iv. 4). Certainly Beth-lehem enjoyed, down :
t Lema hake ae te very late period, a traditional reputation for
ccc ‘a . decoy cia ee 0 Have! rts which distinguished his illustrious grand
Wet Le Es Jesse, the father of David, is said to have be:
weaver of the vails of the sanctuary (Targ. Jonat.
HU’PHAM (DD [protector, Fiirst; coast-| 2 Sam. xxi. 19), and the dyers were still linge
inhabitant, Ges.]: LXX. omit in both MSS.;| there when Benjamin of Tudela visited Bethle
[Comp. ’Oddu:] Hupham), a son of Benjamin, | in the 13th century. :
founder of the family (Mishpachah) of the Hu- |
In the Targum on 1 Chr. ii. 19 and iy
pHAMITES (Num. xxvi. 39). In the lists of Gen.
Ephrath is taken as identical with Miriam:
xlvi. and 1 Chr. vii. the name is given as HupPi, | this would be to contradict the more trustwo
which see.
tradition given above from Josephus. .
HU’PHAMITES, THE (D577: om. In his comments on 1 Chr. iv. 1 ( Quest. E
in LXX.; [Comp. 6 ‘Opal:] Huphamite). De-
in Paralip.), Jerome overlooks the fact |
a 46 ”
scendants of HurHam of the tribe of Benjamin five persons theme pet of
(Num. xxvi. 39). We ay
really members of successive generations; an
attempts, as his manner is, to show that ene.
HUP’PAH (TOT [covering, veiling]: 6| them is identical with one of the immediate
’Oroa; [Vat. OxxXoppa; Comp.] Alex. ’O@@a: of the patriarch. Hur he makes to be ant
Hoppha), a priest in the time of David, to whom | name for Onan. |
was committed the charge of the 13th of the 24 3. (Op; Joseph. Ovpns.) The fourth o!
ein, the service of the house of God (1 Chr. five “kings ” i>) : LXX. and Joseph. |
iv. 7,§ 1, BaotAeis) of Midian, who were slain
HUP’PIM (87 [ protection, screen, First, Hae tee the esis of Peor ” (Num. a
Ges. | iz eae baa vil. bak an Gen.,|In a later mention of them (Josh. xiii. 21)
omitted in <. [Rom. Vat.], but Cod. Alex. has ‘ oy (NSSD ae.
Ogipuv; in 1 Chr. vii. 12, cae. [Yat. Amen] | CED) of Mao
and in Cod. Alex. Ages [ ver. 15, Vat. Apoety, «6 dukes *’ OD°03, not the word commonly
Alex. Age} the former is the correct form, if,| gered « duke,”’ gs ee probably with ‘the for’
as we read in Num. xxvi. 39, the name was Hu- dependence, see Keil ad loc. : LXX. evapa) of
pham: Ophim, [Hapham, Happhim|), head of 4| kino of the Amorites, who was killed at the
Benjamite family. According to the text of the|+ime with them. No further light can be obt
LXX. in Gen., a son of Bela [BELA; BECHER];| as to Hur.
but 1 Chr. vii. 12 tells us that he was son of Ir, or} 4, (Soup; [Vat. Alex. FA. omit.]) Fath
Iri (ver. 7), who was one of the five sons of Bela. Rephaiah, who was ruler of half of the en’
According to Num. xxvi., the Huphamites were :
one of the original families of the tribe of Benja-
min. The sister of Huppim married into the tribe
of Manasseh (1 Chr. vii. 15). PURER 3 5. The “son of Hur’? — Ben-Chur — was
missariat officer for Solomon in Mount Ep
HUR (77 [hole, hence a prison]: Hur). 1.| (1 K. iv. 8). The LXX. (both MSS. [rather,
(“Ap; Joseph. *Opos.) A man who is mentioned | and Alex.]) give the word Ben both in its oF
with Moses and Aaron on the occasion of the battle | and its translated form (Beév — Alex. Bev -
with Amalek at Rephidim (Ex. xvii. 10), when with! “Op [Vat. Baiwp for B. vi. “Op; Comp.
or springe wa
Ps. lxix. 22, “trap’’); this was the most us
method (Job xviii. 9; Eccl. ix. 12; Prov. vii. 23).
(P28, A. V. “part ’’) of Jerusalem, and as
Nehemiah in the repair of the wall (Neh. iii.
HURAI
tevdp]), & not infrequent custom with them.
oan (Ant. viii. 2, § 3) has Ovpns as the name
f the officer himself. The Vulg. (Benhur) follows
‘he Hebrew, and is in turn followed in the margin
'gthe A. V. It is remarkable that the same form
; observed in giving the names of no less than five
‘ut of the twelve officers in this list. G.
| HU’RAI [2 syl.] (YD5T [ free, noble, Fiirst:
rise WIT, linen-weaver, Ges.]: Odpl; [Vat. PA.
pet?) Hurai), one of David’s guard — Hurai of
‘ne torrents of Gaash — according to the list of 1
‘hr. xi. 32. In the parallel catalogue of 2 Sam.
‘xiii. the R is changed to D, as is frequently the
ase, and the name stands as Hippar. Kennicott
‘as examined the discrepancy, and, influenced by
1e readings of some of the MSS. of the LXX.,
ecides in favor of Hurai as the genuine name
Dissert. p. 194).
. HU/RAM (O77 [noble-born] : Odpdy ;
Vat. Quu;] Alex. Iwiu: Huram). 1. A Benjamite;
m of Bela, the first-born of the patriarch (1 Chr.
di. 5).
2. The form in which the name of the king of
yre in alliance with David ‘and Solomon — and
sewhere given as Hiram — appears in Chronicles.
t.) At the time of David’s establishment at Jeru-
lem (1 Chr. xiv. 1). In the A. V. the name is
ram, in accordance with the Cetib or original
‘ebrew text (OTT); but in the marginal cor-
ction of the Masorets (Keri) it is altered to
uram (O77), the form which is maintained
_all its other occurrences in these books. The
XX. Xeipdu [FA. Xipau], Vulg. Hiram, and
wgum, all agree with the Cetib. (b.) At the
‘cession of Solomon (2 Chr. ii. 3, 11, 12, viii. 2,
‘, ix. 10, 21: in each of these cases also the
XX. haye Xipdu, [ Vat. and } Alex. Xeipau, Vulg.
‘wam). ‘
3. The same change occurs in Chronicles in the
me of Hiram the artificer, which is given as
ram in the following places: 2 Chr. ii. 13, iv.
', 16. In the first and last of these a singular
le is given him—the word Ab, « father? —
Huram my father,” and “ Huram his father.”’
) doubt this denotes the respect and esteem in
tich he was held, according to the similar custom
the people of the East at the present day.” There
io the LXX. [Rom. Xipau, Vat. and Alex.
pau] and Vulgate follow the form Hiram.
HU’RI QT [linen-weaver] : [Ovpi, Vat.
ype:] Hurt), a Gadite; father of Abihail, a chief
jn in that tribe (1 Chr. v. 14).
HUSBAND. [Marriace.]
HU‘SHAH (MWAM [haste]: ‘aady; [Comp.
jod; Ald. ’Qe¢d:] Hosa), a name which occurs
the genealogies of the tribe of Judah (1 Chr. iv.
—“Ezer, father of Hushah.” It may well be
name of a place, like Etam, Gedor, Beth-lehem,
: others, in the preceding and succeeding verses;
HUSHIM 1109
but we have no means of ascertaining the fact,
since it occurs nowhere else. For a patronymic
possibly derived from this name see HUSHATHITE.
HU’SHAI [2 syl.] QWATM [quick, rapid]
Xovat [Vat. -ce., and so often Alex.], LXX. ana
Joseph.: Chusat), an Archite, 7. e. possibly a
inhabitant of a place called Erec (2 Sam. xv. 32 ff.,
xvi. 16 ff.). He is called the “friend” of David
(2 Sam. xv. 37; in 1 Chr. xxvii. 33, the word is
rendered “ companion; ’’ comp. Joseph. Ant. vii. 9,
§ 2: the LXX. has a strange confusion of Archite
and apx.eraipos = chief friend). To him David
confided the delicate and dangerous part of a pre-
tended adherence to the cause of Absalom. His
advice was preferred to that of Ahithophel, and
speedily brought to pass the ruin which it medi-
tated.
We are doubtless correct in assuming that the
Hushai, whose son Baana was one of Solomon’s
commissariat officers (1 K. iv. 16), was the famous
counsellor of his father. Hushai himself was prob-
ably no longer living; at any rate his office was
filled by another (comp. ver. 5). [ARCHITE.]
HU’SHAM (Own, in Chron. QWATT [hast-
ing, swift}: "Aodu, [in 1 Chr.,] ’Acéu, [and so
Alex. in Gen.:] Husam), one of the kings of Edom,
before the institution of monarchy in Israel (Gen.
xxxvi. 34, 35; 1 Chr. i. 45, 46). He is described
as “ Husham of the land of the Temanite;”’ and
he succeeded Jobab, who is taken by the LXX. in
their addition to the Book of Job as identical with
that patriarch.
HU’SHATHITE, THE (WHT, and
twice in Chron. YYW [patr. from TWAT,
see above]: § "Acrarw6l, Oicabl, Soveadl, [ete. :]
de Husati, Husathites), the designation of two of
the heroes of David’s guard. 1. SrpBECHAL (2
Sam. xxi. 18; 1 Chr. xi. 29, xx. 4, xxvii. 11). In
the last of these passages he is said to have be-
longed to the Zarhites, that is (probably) the
descendants of Zerah of the tribe of Judah. So
far this is in accordance with a connection between
this and HusHan, a name, apparently of a place,
in the genealogies of Judah. Josephus, however
(Ant. vii. 12, § 2), mentions Sibbechai as a Hit-
tite.
2. [’AvwOirns; Vat. -@e-; Alex. AcwOerns:
de Husati.| MrsBuNNAt (2 Sam. xxiii. 27). There
seems no doubt that this name is a mere corruption
of SIBBECHAI.
HU’SHIM (rer [the hasting, Fiirst;
hastes (pl.) Ges.]: "Aodu : Husim). 1. In Gen. xlvi.
23, “the children [sons] (SID) of Dan” are said
to have been Hushim. The name is plural, as if
of a tribe rather than an individual, which perhaps
is sufficient to account for the use of the plural ¢ in
‘children.’ In the list of Num. xxvi. the name
is changed to SHUHAM.
Hushim figures prominently in the Jewish tradi-
" The A. V. of 2 Chr. ii. 13 renders the words * of
‘Tam my father’s,” meaning the late king; but this
(unnecessary, and the Hebrew will well bear the
‘dering given above.
» Analogous to this, though not exactly similar, is
ph’s expression (Gen. xlv. 8), ‘* God hath made me
ther unto Pharaoh.” Compare also 1 Macc. xi.
Where note the use of the two terms “cousin ”
(ovyyevyjs, ver. 31) and * father” (82). Somewhat
analogous, too, is the use of terms of relationship —
“brother,” ‘ cousin” — in legal and official docu-
ments of our own and other countries.
¢ Gen. xxxvi. 25, adduced by Knobel ad loc. asa
parallel case to this, is hardly so, since a daughter of
Anah is given as well as his son, and the word Ben
covers both.
4110 HUSKS
tions of the recognition of Joseph, and of Jacob's
burial at Hebron. See the quotations from the |
Midrash in Weil's B2b. Legends, p. 88 note, and
the Targum Pseudojon. on Gen. 1. 13. In the
latter he is the executioner of Esau.
2. DWI (i. e. Chusshim: ’Agcdu; Alex. Aco:
Hasim), a member of the genealogy of Benjamin
(1 Chr. vii. 12); and here again apparently (as the
text now stands) the plural nature of the name is
recognized, and Hushim is stated to be “the sons
(Bene) of Aher.’? (See Bertheau in Lveg. Handb. |
ad. loc.)
oa (Dwar, and ap) eg fle -Aciv; [ Vat. Swou,
Qowev;|] Alex. Qo: Husim, but in ver. 11
Mehusim, by inclusion of the Hebrew particle.) |
The name occurs again in the genealogy of Benja-
min, but there as that of one of the two wives of |
Shaharaim (1 Chr. viii. 8), and the mother of two |
of his sons (11). In this case the plural significance
of the name is not alluded to.
HUSKS. The word kepdtia, which our trans-
Y
——
Ceratonia siliqua.
tors have rendered by the general term “ husks”
(Luke xv. 16), describes really the fruit of a partic-
ular kind of tree, namely, the carob or Ceratonia
siliqua of botanists. This tree is very commonly
met with in Syria and Egypt; it produces pods,
shaped like a horn (whence the Greek name), vary-
ing in length from 6 to 10 inches, and about a
finger’s breadth, or rather more. ‘These pods, con-
taining a thick pithy substance, very sweet to the
taste, were eaten; and afforded food not only for
cattle (Mishn. Shabb. 24, § 2), and particularly
pigs (Colum. #. FR. vii. 9), but also for the poorer
classes of the population (Hor. Xp. ii. 1, 123; Juv.
xi. 58). The same uses of it prevail in the present
day; as the tree readily sheds its fruit, it forms a
convenient mode of feeding pigs. The tree is also
Lae
\ i
- |
J i
eo:
mh
HUZZAB
named St. Juhn’s Bread, from a tradition that {
Baptist lived upon its fruit in the wilderness. —
W. L. B.
* The carob-tree is very common also in ¢
Greek islands, and its fruit is still in great reque
there as a nutritious article for fattening swin
It may be seen exposed for sale in the markets
Smyrna and Athens. The writer has seen it
far north as Trieste, on the Gulf of Venice. T
pod, though considerably larger, resembles ye
much that of our common locust-tree. It contai
a sweetish pulp when tender, but soon becomes d
and hard, with small seeds, which rattle in the p
when shaken. It emits a slight odor when fi
gathered, not a little offensive to those unaee
tomed to it.
The occasional use of this product for food (g
above) is not at variance with the parable. It
not said there that the prodigal resorted to fo
eaten only by swine; but that in his wretchedne
having no friend to give him anything better,
was glad to share (émeOdmueu yeuloa) * the husks
which the swine were eating, which he was se
into the fields to watch. Yet the expressi
here (ka) oddels édid0v avr@) some und
stand differently, namely, that no one ge
the prodigal even so much as any of t
husks, and if he obtained them, it was wit
out permission and by stealth. This
Meyer’s view (Lukas, p. 450, 4te Aufi.), a
it appears to be that of Luther. The Gre
does not require this interpretation; for t
clause cited above (added in the [Hebrais
way by cal = 6rz) may assign a reason w
(there being no other alternative) the prodi:
must eat the husks to save himself fr
starvation. The ellipsis of +} after diéwm
very common (Matt. xix. 21, xxv. 8; Me
vi. 37; Luke vi. 30, &.). In the other c
we supply xepdria as the object. H.
HUZ (VAD [perh., fruitful in tre
Dietr.], 2. e. Uz, in which form the name
uniformly given elsewhere in the A. V.: Oi
Alex. Q&: Hus), the eldest son of Nahor a
Milcah (Gen. xxii, 21). [Buz; Uz.] |
HUZZAB (AST [Assyrian, Fiirst:
infra]: 4 brécracts: miles captivus), ¢
cording to the general opinion: of the Je
(Buxtorf’s Lexicon ad voc. DB), was t
queen of Nineveh at the time when Nahv
delivered his prophecy. This view appe:
to be followed in our version (Nah. ii. °
and it has been recently defended by Ewa:
Most modern expositors, however, incline,
the belief that Huzzab here is not a proper name
all, but ‘the Hophal of the verb EQ (see Buxto
as above; Gesenius, Lea. p. 903), and this is allow
as possible by the alternative rendering in the mé
gin of our English Bible — “ that which was |
tablished.’’ Still there are difficulties in the way '
such an understanding of the passage, and it is D
improbable that after all Huzzab may really be
proper name. That a Ninevite queen otherwi
unknown should suddenly be mentioned, is inde
exceedingly unlikely; for we cannot grant to Ewa
that ‘the Ninevite queens were well nigh as powé
ful as the kings.”’ But there is no reason why tl
word should not be a geographic term — an equi
alent or representative of Assyria, which the proph
HYANA HYMEN ZUS 1111
ntends to threaten with captivity. 77wzzab may
sean “the Zab country,” or the fertile tract east
f the Tigris, watered by the upper and lower Zab
vers (Zab Ala and Zab Asfal), the A-diab-ené
fthe geographers. This province — the most yal-
able part of Assyria — might well stand for Assyria
‘self, with which it is identified by Pliny (H. N. vy.
2) and Ammianus (xxiii. 6). The name Zab, as
plied to the rivers, is certainly very ancient, being
und in the great inscription of Tiglath-Pileser L.,
hich belongs to the middle of the twelfth century
"Ge tre Its
HYAGNA. Authorities are at variance as to
hether the term tzdbi’a (PAQY) in Jer. xii. 9
eans a “hyena,’’ as the LXX. has it, or a
speckled bird,” as in the A. V. The etymolog-
al foree of the word is equally adapted to either,
e hyena being streaked. The only other instance
‘which it occurs is as a proper name, Zeboim
Sam. xiii. 18, “ the valley of hyenas,’ Aquila;
eh. xi. 84). The Talmudical writers describe the
ena by no less than four names, of which ¢zdbi’a
‘one (Lewysohn, Zodl.§ 119). The opinions of
‘chart (Hiervz. ii. 163) and Gesenius (Thes. p.
49) are in favor of the same view; nor could any
m for doubt remain, were it not for the word ait
NY; A.V. “ bird’) connected with it, which
all other passages refers to a bird. The hyena
3common in ancient as in modern Egypt, and
constantly depicted on monuments (Wilkinson,
213, 225): it must therefore have been well
own to the Jews, if indeed not equally common
Palestine.¢ The sense of the passage in Jeremiah
lies a fierce strong beast, not far below the lion
‘the parallel passage (v.-8); the hyzena fully
ers to this description. Though cowardly in
nature, he is very savage when once he attacks,
_ the strength of his jaws is such that he can
ach the thigh-bone of an ox (Livingstone’s
wels, p. 600). [ZeBoim.] W. L. B.
Ssior=
| The etymological affinity of the Arabic :
the context of the former passage (ver. 19), surely
warrant our understanding both passages of the
same person, notwithstanding the interval between
the dates of the two letters. When the first was
written he had already made one proselyte; before
the second was penned he had seduced another ;
and if so, the only points further to be considered
are, the error attributed to him, and the sentence
imposed upon him.
I. The error attributed to him was one that had
been in part appropriated from others, and has
frequently been revived since with additions. What
initiation was to the Pythagoreans, wisdom to the
Stoics, science to the followers of Plato, contempla-
tion to the Peripatetics, that “knowledge” (yv@-
ois) was to the Gnostics. As there were likewise
in the Greek schools those who looked forward to a
complete restoration of all things (amroxatdoracts,
v. Heyne ad Virg. Ecl. iv. 5, comp. in. vi. 745);
so there was “a regeneration” (Tit. iii. 5; Matt.
xix. 28), ‘‘a new creation ” (2 Cor. v. 17, see Alford
ad loc.; Rev. xxi. 1), “a kingdom of heaven and
of Messiah or Christ *’ (Matt. xiii.; Rey. Vii.) — and
herein popular belief among the Jews coincided —
unequivocally propounded in the N. T.; but here
with this remarkable difference, namely, that in a
great measure, it was present as well as future —
the same thing in germ that was to be had in per-
fection eventually. “ The kingdom of God is within
you,”’ said our Lord (Luke xvii. 21). «He that is
spiritual judgeth all things,” said St. Paul (1 Cor.
ii. 15). ‘“ He that is born of God cannot sin,’’ said
St. John (1 Ep. iii. 9). There are likewise two
deaths and two resurrections spoken of in the N.
T.; the first of each sort, that of the soul to and
from sin (John iii. 3-8), ‘ the hour which now is ”
(tbid. v. 24, 25, on which gee Aug. De Civ. Dei,
xx. 6); the second, that of the body to and from
corruption (1 Cor. xv. 36-44; also John v. 28, 29),
which last is prospective. Now as the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body was found to involve
immense difficulties even in those early days (Acts
xvii. 82; 1 Cor. xv. 35; how keenly they were
pressed may be seen in St. Aug. De Civ. Dei, xxii.
12 ff.); while, on the other hand, there was so great
a predisposition in the then current philosophy
(not even extinct now) to magnify the excellence
of the soul above that of its earthly tabernacle, it
was at once the easier and more attractive course
to insist upon and argue from the force of those
passages of Holy Scripture which enlarge upon the
glories of the spiritual life that now is, under Christ,
and to pass over or explain away allegorically all
that refers to a future state in connection with the
resurrection of the body. In this manner we may
derive the first errors of the Gnostics, of whom
Hymenzeus was one of the earliest. They were on
the spread when St. John wrote; and his grand-
disciple, St. Irenzeus, compiled a voluminous work
against them (Adv. Her.). A good account of their
full development is given by Gieseler, /. H., per. i.
div. i. § 44 ff.
If. As regards the sentence passed upon him —
it has been asserted by some writers of eminence
(see Corn. & Lapide ad 1 Cor. y. 5), that the
“delivering to Satan” is a mere synonym for-
ecclesiastical excommunication. Such can hardly
be the case. The Apostles possessed many extra-
ordinary prerogatives, which none have since arro-
gated. Even the title which they bore has been
set apart to them ever since. The shaking off the
dust of the'r .eet against a city that would not
ht to decide that the animal intended is the
na. This animal is common in Palestine and
a. Goek.oP.
{YDAS’PES (YSdorns: [Jadason]), a river
ved in Jud. i. 6, in connection with the
hrates and Tigris. It is uncertain what river
‘ferred to: the well-known Hydaspes of India
Telum of the Punjd) is too remote to accord
_ the other localities noticed in the context.
‘may perhaps identify it with the Choaspes of
ana. } Weed De
YMEN AYUS [A. V. Hymene‘us] (‘tué-
), the name of a person occurring twice in the
‘spondence between St. Paul and Timothy; the
/time classed with Alexander, and with him
-vered to Satan, that they might learn not to
heme” (1 Tim. i. 20); and the second time
‘d with Philetus, and with Him charged with
g “erred concerning the truth, saying that
“esurrection is past already,’’ and thereby
rthrown the faith of some” (2 Tim. ii. 17,
ese latter expressions, coupled with “the
(Teck of faith’ attributed to Hymeneeus in
ee
’rof. Stanley records (S. § P. p. 162, note) that
uF Wild animal he saw in Palestine was a hyena,
1112 HYMEN AUS
receive them (St. Matt. x. 14), even though the
same injunction was afterwards given to the Seventy
(St. Luke x. 11), and which St. Paul found it
necessary to act upon twice in the course of his
ministry (Acts xiii. 51, and xviii. 6), has never
been a practice since with Christian ministers.
« Anathema,” says Bingham, “is a word that
occurs frequently in the ancient canons” (Antag.
xvi. 2, 16), but the form ‘“ Anathema Maranatha,”’
is one that none have ever ventured upon since St.
Paul (1 Cor. xvi. 22). As the Apostles healed all
manner of bodily infirmities, so they seem to have
possessed and exercised the same power in inflicting
them —a power far too perilous to be continued
when the manifold exigencies of the Apostolical age
had passed away. Ananias and Sapphira both feil
down dead at the rebuke of St. Peter (Acts v. 5
and 10); two words from the same lips, “ Tabitha,
arise,’’ sufficed to raise Dorcas from the dead (dd.
ix. 40). St. Paul’s first act in entering upon his
ministry was to strike Elymas the sorcerer with
blindness, his own sight having been restored to
him through the medium of a disciple (bid. ix. 17,
and xiii. 11); while soon afterwards we read of his
healing the cripple of Lystra (2bid. xiv. 8).
apart from actual intervention by the Apostles,
bodily visitations are spoken of in the case of those
who approached the Lord's Supper unworthily,
when as yet no discipline had been established:
‘For this cause many are weak and sickly among
you, and a good number (icavol, in the former
case it is woAAol) sleep’’ (1 Cor. xi. 30).
On the other hand Satan was held to be the
instrument or executioner of all these visitations.
Such is the character assigned to him in the book
of Job (i. 6-12, ii. 1-7). Similar agencies are
described 1 K. xxii. 19-22, and 1 Chr. xxi. 1. In
Ps. Ixxviii. 49, such are the causes to which the
plagues of Egypt are assigned. Even our Lord
submitted to be assailed by him more than once
(Matt. iv. 1-10: Luke iv. 13 says, ‘ departed from
Him for a season”); and ‘+a messenger of Satan
was sent to buffet ’’ the very Apostle whose act of
delivering another to the same power is now under
discussion. At the same time large powers over
the world of spirits were authoritatively conveyed
by our Lord to his immediate followers (to the
Twelve, Luke ix. 1; to the Seventy, as the results
showed, ibid. x. 17-20).
It only remains to notice five particulars con-
nected with its exercise, which the Apostle supplies
himself. (1.) That it was no mere prayer, but a
solemn authoritative sentence, pronounced in the
name and power of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. v. 3-5).
(2.) That it was never exercised upon any without
the Church: “them that are without God judgeth ”
(ibid. v. 13), he says in express terms. (3.) That it
was “for the destruction of the flesh,’’ 7 e. some
bodily visitation. (4.) That it was for the improve-
ment of the offender; that “his spirit might be
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (iid. v. 5);
and that “he might learn not to blaspheme”’ while
upon earth (1 Tim. i. 20). (5.) That the Apostle
could in a given case empower others to pass such
sentence in his absence (1 Cor. v. 3, 4).
Thus, while the “delivering to Satan’? may
resemble ecclesiastical excommunication in some
respects, it has its own characteristics likewise,
which show plainly that one is not to be confounded
or placed on the same level with the other. Nor
again does St. Paul himself deliver to Satan all
those in whose company he bids his converts “ not
Even |
HYMN
even to eat’? (1 Cor. vy. 11). See an able ren
of the whole subject by Bingham, Antig. vi. 2, 1
EK. S. Ff.
HYMN. This word is not used in the Engli
version of the O. T., and only twice in the N.
(Eph. v. 19; Col. iii. 16); though in the origh
of the latter the derivative verb “ occurs in th
places (Matt. xxvi. 30; comp. Mark xiv. 26; A
xvi. 25; Heb. ii. 12). The LXX., however, emp!
it freely in translating the Heb. names for alm
every kind of poetical composition (Schleusn. L
%uvos). In fact the word does not seem to he
had for the LXX. any very special meaning; a
they called the Heb. book of Yehzllim the book
psalms, not of hyrans. Accordingly the word pso
had for the later Jews a definite meaning, wl
the word hymn was more or less vague in its apy
cation, and capable of being used as occasion sho
arise. If a new poetical form or idea should
produced, the name of hymn, not being emb
rassed by a previous determination, was ready
associate itself with the fresh thought of anot!
literature. And this seems to have been actus
the case.
Among Christians the Hymn has always bi
something different from the Psalm; a differ
conception in thought, a different type in comp
tion. There is some dispute about the hymn st
by our Lord and his Apostles on the occasion
the Last Supper; but even supposing it to h:
been the Hallel, or Paschal Hymn, consisting
Pss. exiii—cxviii., it is obvious that the word hy
is in this case applied not to an individual psa
but to a number of psalms chanted successive
and altogether forming a kind of devotional exer
which is not unaptly called a hymn. The pra
in Acts iv. 24-30 is not a hymn, unless we al
non-metrical as well as metrical hymns. It n
have been a hymn as it was originally altered;
we can only judge by the Greek translation, «
this is without metre, and therefore not proper!
hymn. In the jail at Philippi, Paul and 8:
“sang hymns” (A. V. “ praises ’’) unto God, :
so loud was their song that their fellow-prisor
heard them. This must have been what we mi
by singing, and not merely recitation. It was
fact a veritable singing of hymns. And it
remarkable that the noun hymn is only used
reference to the services of the Greeks, and in
same passages is clearly distinguished from
psalm (Eph. v. 19, Col. iii. 16), “psalms,
hymns, and spiritual songs.”’
It is probable that no Greek version of
Psalms, even supposing it to be accommodated
the Greek metres, would take root in the affecti
of the Gentile converts. “It was not only a quest
of metre, it was a question of tune; and Gr
tunes required Greek hymns. So it was in Sy
Richer in tunes than Greece, for Greece had
eight, while Syria had 275 (Benedict. Pref. vol
Op. Eph. Syr.), the Syrian hymnographers reve
in the varied luxury of their native music; and
result was that splendid development of the Hy:
as moulded by the genius of Bardesanes, Harmon
and Ephrem Syrus. In Greece the eight tv
which seem to have satisfied the exigencies
church-music were probably accommodated to fi
metres, each metre being wedded to a partict
a * Hymn occurs also in Matt. xxvi. 80, and M
xiv. 26, where ‘when they had sung an hy®
(A. V.) stands for buvicavtes. I
HYMN HYSSOP 1118
in@; an arrangement to which we can observe a
ndency in the Directions about tunes and measures
_the end of our English metrical version of the
salms. This is also the case in the German
mmnology, where certain ancient tunes are recog-
zed as models for the metres of later compositions,
id their names are always prefixed to the hymns
common use.
It is worth while inquiring what profane models
e Greek hymnographers chose to work after. In
e old religion of Greece the word hymn had
eady acquired a sacred and liturgical meaning,
lich could not fail to suggest its application to
e productions of the Christian muse. So much
the name. The special forms of the Greek
mn were various. ‘The Homeric and Orphic
mms were written in the epic style, and in hex-
eter verse. ‘Their metre was not adapted for
ging; and therefore, though they may have been
ited, it is not likely that they were sung at the
ebration of the mysteries. We turn to the Pin-
tie hymns, and here we find a sufficient variety
metre, and a definite relation to music. ‘These
mns were sung to the accompaniment of the
@; and it is very likely that they engaged the
ention of the early hymn-writers. The dith yramb,
h its development into the dramatic chorus, was
ficiently connected with musical traditions to
ke its form a fitting vehicle for Christian poetry ;
| there certainly is a dithyrambie savor about
earliest known Christian hynin, as it appears
As an exponent of Christian feeling they soon sg".
perseded the accentual hexameters; they were usec
mnemonically against the heathen and the heretics
by Commodianus and Augustine. The introduc-
tion of hymns into the Latin church is commonly
referred to Ambrose. But it is impossible to con-
ceive that the West should have been so far behind
the East; similar necessities must have produced
similar results; and it is more likely that the tra-
dition is due to the very marked prominence of
Ambrose as the greatest of all the Latin hymnog-
raphers.
The trochaic and iambic metres, thus impressed
into the service of the church, have continued to
hold their ground, and are in fact the £ By Se Dike
C. M., and L. M. of our modern hymns; many of
which are translations, or at any rate imitations,
of Latin originals. These metres were peculiarly
adapted te the grave and sombre spirit of Latin
Christianity. Less ecstatic than the varied chorus
of the Greek church, they did not soar upon the
pinion of a lofty praise, so much as they drooped
and sank into the depths of a great sorrow. T hey
were subjective rather than objective; they appealed
to the heart more than to the understanding; and
if they contained less theology, they were fuller of
a rich and Christian humanity. (Daniel’s The-
saurus Hymnologicus, Halis et Lipsiz, 1841-1855 ;
Lateinische Hymnen, etc., by F. G. Mone; Gesdnge
Chrisilicher Vorzeit, by C. F ortlage, Berlin, 1844;
Sucred Latin Poetry, by R. C. Trench; Ephrem
Aem. Alex. pp. 312, 313, ed. Potter. Syrus, by Dr. Burgess; Hahn’s Bardesanes f
the first impulse of Christian devotion was to [Lamson’s Church of’ the First Three Centuries,
into the moulds ordinarily used by the wor- p. 343 ff., 2d ed.]) TE. B.
pers of the old religion. ‘This was more than oy, A
mpulse, it was a necessity, and a twofold neces-| . HYSSOP (AN, é26b: f0 gwmos). Perhaps
- The new spirit was strong; but it had two | no plant mentioned in the Scriptures has given rise
tations: the difficulty of conceiving a new/|to greater differences of opinion than this. The
ico-poetical literature; and the quality so pecu- | question of the identification of the éz6b of the
to devotional music, of lingering in the heart | Hebrews with any plant known to modern botan-
“the head has been convinced and the belief | ists was thought by Casaubon ‘adeo difficilis ad
iged. The old tunes would be a real necessity | explicandum, ut videatur Esias expectandus, qui
he new life; and the exile from his ancient | certi aliquid nos doceat.’’? Had the botanical
| would delight to hear on the foreign soil of a | works of Solomon survived they might have thrown
religion the familiar melodies of home. Dean some light upon it. The chief difficulty arises from
ich has indeed labored to show that the reverse | the fact that in the LXX. the Greek ggowmos is
the case, and that the early Christian shrank | the uniform rendering of the Hebrew ézéb, and that
horror from the sweet, but polluted, enchant- | this rendering is endorsed by the Apostle in the
8 of his unbelieving state. We can only as- | Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 19, 21), when speaking
to this in so far as we allow it to be the second | of the ceremonial observances of the Levitical law.
2 in the history of hymns. When old tradi- Whether, therefore, the LXX. made use of the
died away, and the Christian acquired not | Greek Soow2os as the word most nearly resembling
a new belief, but a new social humanity, it | the Hebrew in sound, as Stanley suggests (S. Gre
dossible, and it was desirable too, to break for- | 21, note), or as the true representative of the plant
the attenuated thread that bound him to the j indicated by the latter, is a point which, in all
nt world. And go it was broken; and the | probability, will never be decided. Botanists differ
aic and iambic metres, unassociated as they | widely even with regard to the identification of the
with heathen worship, though largely associa- | Seaw2mos of Dioscorides. The name has been given
‘ith the heathen drama, obtained an ascendant |to the Satureia Greca and the S. Juliana, to
e Christian church. In 1 Cor. xiv. 26 allu-| neither of which it is appropriate, and the hyssop
1s made to improvised hymns, which being | of Italy and South France is not met with in
utburst of a passionate emotion would proba- | Greece, Syria, or Egypt. Daubeny (Lect. on Rom.
sume the dithyrambie form. But attempts | Husbandry, p. 313), following Sibthorpe, identifies
been made to detect fragments of ancient | the mountain-hyssop with the Thymbra spicata,
S$ conformed to more obvious metres in Eph. | but this conjecture is disapproved of by Kiihn
; Jam. i. 17; Rey. i.-8 ff., xv. 3. These pre-| (Comm. in Diose. iii. 27), who in the same passage
1 fragments, however, may with much greater | gives it as his opinion that the Hebrews used the
ood be referred to the swing of a prose com-| Origanum Aigyptiacum in Egypt, the O. Syria-
0 unconsciously culminating into metre. It | cwm in Palestine, and that the hyssop of Diosco-
‘ the Latin church that the trochaie and iam- | rides was the O. Smyrneum. The Greek botanist
describes two kinds of hyssop, dpe and knrevrh
2tres became most deeply rooted, and acquired
Teatest depth of tone and grace of finish. |and gives mecaAdu as the Egyptian equivalent,
1114 HYSSOP
The Talmudists make the same distinction be-
tween the wild hyssop and the garden-plant used
for food.
The é26b was used to sprinkle the doorposts of
the Israelites in Egypt with the blood of the pas-
chal lamb (Ex. xii. 22); it was employed in the
purification of lepers and leprous houses (Lev. xiv.
4, 51), and in the sacrifice of the red heifer (Num.
xix. 6). In consequence of its detergent qualities,
or from its being associated with the purificatory
services, the Psalmist makes use of the expression,
“purge me with éz6b”’ (Ps. li. 7). It is described
in 1 K. iy. 33 as growing on or near walls. In
John xix. 29 the phrase bacém@ mepievTes corre-
sponds to mepidels KaAdu@ ID Matt. xxvii. 48 and
Mark xv. 36. If therefore ckaAduw be the equiva-
lent of Sc0érq, the latter must be a plant capa-
bie of producing a stick three or four feet in length.
Five kinds of hyssop are mentioned in the Tal-
mud. One is called DVS simply, without any
epithet: the others are distinguished as Greek,
Roman, wild hyssop, and hyssop of Cochali (Mishna,
Negaim, xiv. 6). Of these the four last-mentioned
were profane, that is, not to be employed in puri-
fications (Mishna, Parah, xi. 7). Maimonides (de
Vacca Ruf, iii. 2) says that the hyssop mentioned
in the law is that which was used as a condiment.
According to Porphyry (De Adstin. iv. 7), the
Egyptian priests on certain occasions ate their
bread mixed with hyssop; and the zaatar, or wild
marjoram, with which it has been identified, is often
an ingredient in a mixture called dukkah, which is
to this day used as food by the poorer classes in
Egypt (Lane, Mod. Hg. i. 200). It is not improb-
able, therefore, that this may have been the hyssop
of Maimonides, whe wrote in Egypt; more espe-
cially as R. D. Kimchi (Lez. s. v.), who reckons
seven different kinds, gives as the equivalent the
Arabic
and the German Dosten or Wohlgemuth (Rosenm.
Handb.). With this agrees the Tanchum Hieros.
MS. quoted by Gesenius. So in the Judso-Span-
ish version, Ex. xii. 22 is translated “ y tomarédes
manojo de ovigano.”? But Dioscorides makes a
distinction between origanum and hyssop when he
describes the leaf of a species of the former as
resembling the latter (cf. Plin. xx. 67), though it
is evident that he, as well as the Talmudists, re-
garded them as belonging to the same family. In
the Syriac of 1 K. iv. 33 hyssop is rendered by
Jaa, lifo, ‘houseleek,’’ although in other
ARO, zwutar, origanum, or marjoram,
passages it is represented by LaofJ, zifo, which
the Arabic translation follows in Ps. li. 7 and Heb.
ix. 19, while in the Pentateuch it has zaatcr for the
same. Patrick (on 1 K. iv. 33) was of opinion
that éz6b is the same with the Ethiopic azub, which
represents the hyssop of Ps. li. 7, as well as 75ud0-
pov, or mint, in Matt. xxiii. 23.
Bochart decides in favor of marjoram or some
plant like it (Hveroz. i. b. 2, ¢. 50), and to this
conclusion, it must be admitted, all ancient tradi-
tion points. The monks on Jebel Musa give the
name of hyssop to a fragrant plant called ja’deh,
which grows in great quantities on that mountain
‘Robinson, Bibl. Res. i. 157). Celsius (Hterobot.
i. 423), after enumerating eighteen different plants,
thyme, southernwood, rosemary, French lavender,
wall rue, and the maidenhair fern among others,
which have been severally identified with the hys-
HYSSOP :
sop of Scripture, concludes that we have no alt
native but to accept the Hyssopus officinahs, x
velimus apostolum corrigere qui 7) AVS fg
roy reddit Heb. ix. 19.” He avoids the difficu
in John xix. 29 by supposing that a sponge fil
with vinegar was wrapped round a bunch of hyss
and that the two were then fastened to the end
a stick. Dr. Kitto conceived that he had fou
the peculiarities of the Hebrew éz0b in the Phi
lacca decandra, a native of America. Tremell
and Ben Zeb render it by “moss.’”’ It has b
reserved for the ingenuity of a German to trac
connection between Alsop, the Greek fabulist, ;
the éz6b of 1 K. iv. 33 (Hitzig, Die Spriiche 8c
mo’s, Hinl. § 2).
An elaborate and interesting paper by the |
Dr. J. Forbes Royle, On the Hyssop of Seripta
in the Journ. of the Roy. As. Soc. viii. 193-2
goes far to throw light upon this difficult questi
Dr. R., after a careful investigation of the subj
arrived at the conclusion that the hyssop is
other than the caper-plant, or capparis spinosa
Linneus. The Arabic name of this plant, a:
by which it is sometimes, though not commo
described, bears considerable resemblance to.
Hebrew. It is found in Lower Egypt (Fors
Flor. Eg.-Arab.; Plin. xiii. 44). Burekh:
(Trav. in Syr., p. 586) mentions the aszef a
tree of frequent occurrence in the valleys of
peninsula of Sinai, “the bright green creeper wl
climbs out of the fissures of the rocks” (Stan
S. Gf P. p. 21, &e.), and produces a fruit of
size of a walnut, called by the Arabs Felfel Jil
or mountain-pepper (Shaw, Spec. Phytogr.
p. 39). Dr. R. thought this to be undoubted
species of capparis, and probably the caper-pl
The capparis spinosa was found by M. Boyé (
d'un Voy. Botan. en Eg., etc.) in the desert of 8:
at Gaza, and at Jerusalem. Lynch saw it 1
ravine near the convent of Mar Saba (Laped
388). It is thus met with in all the local
where the ézéb is mentioned in the Bible. V
regard to its habitat, it grows in dry and r
places, and on walls: “ quippe quum capparis «
que seratur siccis maxime”’ (Plin. xix. 48).
Candolle describes it as found “ in muris et ru
tribus.”” The caper-plant was believed to be
sessed of detergent qualities. According to F
(xx. 59) the root was applied to the cure of a
ease similar to the leprosy. Lamarck (ne. Be
art. Caprier) says, ‘les capriers . . . sont rega
comme. . . antiscorbutiques.” Finally, the ca
plant is capable of producing a stick three or
feet in length. Pliny (xiii. 44) describes 1
Egypt as “ firmioris ligni frutex,’’ and to this p
erty Dr. Royle attaches great importance, iden
ing as he does the bco#mw of John xix. 29°
the xaAduw of Matthew and Mark. He thus
cludes: “‘A combination of circumstances,
some of them apparently too improbable to be
ted in one plant, I cannot believe to be accide
and have therefore considered myself entitle
infer, what I hope I have succeeded in proyini
the satisfaction of others, that the caper-plat
the hyssop of Scripture.’’ Whether his conclu
is sound or not, his investigations are well wo
of attention; but it must be acknowledged
setting aside the passage in John xix., which
possibly admit of another solution, there seem
reason for supposing that the properties of the
of the Hebrews may not le found in some or
= a
a
HYSSOP
: plants with which the tradition of centuries
s identified it. That it may have been possessed
some detergent qualities which led to its signifi-
it employment in the purificatory service is pos-
le; but it does not appear from the narrative in
riticus that its use was such as to call into action
7 medicinal properties by which it might have
\
n characterized. In
lence, therefore, there does not seem sufficient
son for departing from the old interpretation,
ich identified the Greek foowmos with the He-
w DUN.
*I. I design to give reasons, conclusive in my
id, against the supposition that the Capparis
(1.) It is a thorny plant
hly unsuitable to the use intended; i. e. the be-
formed into a sort of wisp or brush, or bunch,
able for sprinkling. Its branches are straggling
quite incapable of assuming the required form,
its harsh thorns would make it impossible to
litin the hand. Can it be supposed that it
stripped of these to prepare it for use?
wsa is the hyssop.
aas no affinity with the Ls by which is one of
Labiate, and which
a its etymological
tity with AVN is
tled to be considered
plant referred to in
Scriptures.
[. I desire to present
evidence which satis-
my mind that the
ganum maru is the
t intended.
l.) The definition of
) in Arabic is “a
t growing on a slen-
‘square stem’ (a
acteristic of the La-
e) “with a leaf like
slender
, definition makes it
in that the Arabic
ha is very near the
janum maru, for the
ris one of the nume-
species included hy
Arabs under the in-
ite term ( G2u0:
wt, it is the most
non of them all.
-) It grows on the
' of all the terraces
ighout Palestine
Syria,
-) It is free from
18, and its slender
» free from spread-
ranches, and ending
» cluster of heads,
ig a highly aromatic
exactly fits it to
nade into a bunch
a
IBRI 1115
for purposes of sprinkling. No plant growing in
the East is so well fitted for the purpose. These
considerations have long persuaded me that this is
the plant intended.
Its leaves are commonly eaten in Syria with bread,
and as a seasoning, as we use summer savory, which
it resembles in taste. Its effects on sheep and
goats are very salutary. GeEP:
the present state of the
12
IB’/HAR ain. [whom God chooses]: “EBedp,
"EBadp, Badp; [Vat. Baap in 1 Chr.;] Alex. Ie-
Bap, IeBaap: Syr. Jucobor: Jebahar, Jebaar),
one ot the sons of David, mentioned in the lists
next after Solomon and before Elishua (2 Sam. y.
15; 1 Chr. iii. 6, xiv. 5). Ibhar was born in Je-
rusalem, and from the second of these passages it
appears that he was the son of a wife and not of a
concubine. He never comes forward in the history
in person, nor are there any traditions concerning
him. For the genealogy of David's family see
ar Vs
(2.)
Davi.
Ve IB’/LEAM (nya [conqueror or devourer
IE y, of the people]: {in Josh., Rom. Vat. Alex. omit,
SX [3 Comp. ’IaBAadu; in Judg.,] "TeBAadu, Alex. Ba-
\\ ar Aaa; [in 2 K., Vat. ExBraau, Rom. Alex. ‘leB-
rn gy ge" Aadu:] Jeblaam), a city of Manasseh, with villages
ZAK | or towns (Hebrew “daughters’’) dependent on it
Moras: (Judg. i. 27). Though belonging to Manasseh, it
Wal appears not to have lain within the limits allotted
a ay to that tribe, but to have been situated in the ter-
i ritory of either Issachar or Asher (Josh. xvii. 11).
= NI It is not said which of the two, though there is no
Be y. wy | doubt from other indications that it was the former.
GR) \. Xe & yy | The ascent of Gur, the spot at which Ahaziah re-
uy All? ceived his death wound from the soldiers of Jehu,
“2g been was “at (2) Ibleam” (2 K. ix. 27), somewhere
BX Se | near the present J enin, probably to the north of it,
7, about where the village Jelama now stands.
In the list of cities given out of Manasseh to
the Kohathite Levites (1 Chr. vi. 70), BrLEAm is
mentioned, answering to Gathrimmon in the list
of Josh. xxi. Bileam is probably a mere alteration
of Ibleam (comp. the form given in the Alex. LXX.
above), though this is not certain. G.
IBNE‘IAH [3 syl.] GT." [Jehovah builds] :
Teuvad; [ Vat. Bayaay; Comp. Ald.] Alex. leB-
vad: Jobania), son of Jeroham, a Benjamite, who
was a chief man in the tribe apparently at the
time of the first settlement in Jerusalem (1 Chr.
ix. 8).
IBNVJAH (rat; [as above]: *Teuvai ’
[Vat. Bavaia;] Alex. IeBavaa: Jebunia), a Ben-
jamite (1 Chr. ix. 8).
IB/RI MAY [Hebrew]: ’ABat; Alex. OBS:3
[Comp. "ABapi :] Hebri), a Merarite Levite of the
family of Jaaziah (1 Chr. xxiv. 27), in the time of
king David, concerned in the service of the house
of Jehovah.
The word is precisely the same as that elsewhere
rendered in the A. V. “ Hebrew,’’ which see.
Origanum maru.
Post fecit.)
(@. E.
*The fact that many stalks grow up from one] tended. The hand could easily gather in a single
eminently fits this species for the
purpose in-| grasp the requisite bundle or bunch all re?-ly for use
a EP
1116
IB/ZAN ({E AN [swift, fleet, Dietr.; splen-
did, beautiful, First]: "ABaicodv; [Vat. ABa-
cav;] Alex. EceBwv; Joseph. "Avdyns: Abesan),
a native of Bethlehem, who judged Israel for seven
years after Jephthah (Judg. xii. 8,10). He had
30 sons and 30 daughters, and took home 380 wives
for his sons, and sent out his daughters to as many
husbands abroad. He was buried at Bethlehem.
From the non-addition of “ Ephratah,”’ or Judah,”
after Bethlehem, and from Ibzan having been suc-
ceeded by a Zebulonite, it’ seems pretty certain that
the Bethleheni here meant is that in the tribe of
Zebulun (Josh. xix. 15: see Joseph. Ant. v. 7, §
73). There is not a shadow of probability in the
notion which has been broached as to the identity of
Ibzan with Boaz (7Y5). The history of his large
family is singularly at variance with the impression
of Boaz given us in the book of Ruth.
AY On H.
ICH’ABOD (TAI, from ‘8S, “ where?”
equivalent to the negative, and 7122, “ glory,”
IBZAN
ICONIUM |
Ges. Thes. p. 79, inglorious: [in 1 Sam. iy
| OvaiBapxaBwd, [Alex. OvaixaBwd, Comp. 5
Bdd; in 1 Sam. xiv. 3, IwxaB7d], which x
to derive from ‘VS, “woe,” oval, 1 Sam. iy
Ges. p. 39: Jchabod), the son of Phinehas,
grandson of Eli. In giving birth to him
mother died of grief at the news of the su
deaths of her husband and father-in-law.
brother’s name was Ahiah or Ahimelech (1 §
iv. 21, xiv. 3). H. 4gee
ICO’NIUM (‘Indviov), the modern Konie
situated in the western part of an extensive p
on the central table-land of Asia Minor, and
far to the north of the chain of Taurus.
level district was anciently called LYCAONIA, |
ophon (Anab. i. 2, 19) reckons Iconium as
most easterly town of PHryGi1A; but all <
writers speak of it as being in Lycaonia, of w
it was practically the capital. It was on the {
line. of communication between Ephesus and
western coast of the peninsula on one side,
Tarsus, Antioch, and the Euphrates on the o
We see this indicated by the narrative of Xeno:
:
q
(i. c.) and the letters of Cicero (ad Fam. iii. 8, v.
20, xv. 4). When the Roman provincial system
was matured, some of the most important roads in- |
tersected one another at this point, as may be seen
from the map in Leake’s Asia Minor. These cir-
cumstances should be borne in mind, when we trace
St. Paul’s journeys through the district. Iconium
was a well-chosen place for missionary operations.
The Apostle’s first visit was on his first circuit, in
company with Barnabas; and on this occasion he
approached it from Antioch in Pisidia, which lay
to the west. From that city he had been driven
by the persecution of the Jews (Acts xiii. 50, 51).
There were Jews in Iconium also; and St. Paul’s
first. efforts here, according to his custom, were
made in the synagogue (xiv. 1). The results were
considerable both among the Hebrew and Gentile
population of the place (¢bid.). We should notice
that the working of miracles in Iconium is emphat-
ically mentioned (xiv. 3). The intrigues of the
Jews again drove him away; he was in danger of
being stoned, and he withdrew to LysrrRa and |
DERBF, in the eastern and wilder part of Lycaonia
Sy iy
‘xiv. 6).
< Tun Se
Peet
Ny (en
ig ih
Zant)
SS << :
Thither also the enmity of the Jews of ,
MUTT
B SU nin IM}
2 ane
=
Se
» «ie
aati
acd en
These sufferings and difficulties are alluded
2 Tim. iii. 11; and this brings us to the eon
ation of his next visit to this neighborhood, '
was the occasion of his first practically assoc
himself with Trrorny. Paul left the Syria
tioch, in company with Silas (Acts xv. 40), (
second missionary circuit; and trayelling th
Cruicra (xv. 41), and up through the pass
Taurus into Lycaonia, approached Iconium
the east, by Derbe and Lystra (xvi. 1,2).
apparently a native of Lystra, Timothy wa
dently well known to the Christians of Ie
(xvi. 2); and it is not improbable that his et
cision (xvi. 3) and ordination (1 Tim. . 18,1
vi. 12; 2 Tim. i. 6) took place there. On kt
Iconium St. Paul and his party travelled t
N. W.; and the place is not mentioned ag
the sacred narrative: though there is little |
that it was visited by the Apostle again in the
ICONIUM
of his third circuit (Acts xviii. 23). From its
ion it could not fail to be an important centre
hristian influénce in the early ages of the
sh. The curious apocryphal legend of St.
la, of which Iconium is the scene, must not
itirely passed by. The “ Acta Pauli et Theclee”’
riven in full by Grabe (Spied. vol. i.), and by
3 (On the Canon, vol. ii. pp. 353-411). It is
ral here to notice one geographical mistake in
document, namely, that Lystra is placed on
vest instead of the east. In the declining
d of the Roman empire, [conium was made a
ia. In the middle ages it became a place of
consequence, as the capital of the Seljukian
ns. Hence the remains of Saracenic archi-
re, which are conspicuous here, and which are
ibed by many travellers. Konieh is still a
of considerable size. A ay IN a ix
Lhe origin ef the name is obscure. Some find
ied to eixay Or eixdyiov (= place of images ’’)
_ others derive it from a Semitic root (see
7's Real-Encykl. iv. 51). It was situated on
f the largest plains in Asia Minor, and, like
ascus, formed an oasis in the desert. “The
ihat flowed from mountain ranges on the west
e city irrigated, for a little distance, the low
ids which stretched away towards the east,
rardens and orchards were seen in luxuriance,
joon the water, the source of vegetation, was
isted, and then commenced the dry barren
of Lycaonia.”’ (See Lewin’s Life and Epistles
» Paul, i. 158.) ‘The eyes of Paul and Bar-
Must have rested for hours on the city both
» reaching it from Antioch and after leaving
Lystra. “We travelled,” says Ainsworth,
hours along the plain of Koniyeh, always
ht of the city, before we reached it” ( Travels
ia Minor, ii. 65). Leake says, “ We saw
ty with its mosques and ancient walls still at
istance of 12 or 14 miles from us” (7ravels
it Minor, p. 45).
se’s statement that Paul found there “a great
mude both of Jews and Greeks”? (Acts xiv. 1),
ls with the extent and variety of the ruins
ound on the spot. It accords also with the
wphieal position of the place so well situated
ide and intercourse with other regions. ‘The
s and Jews were the commercial factors of
veriod, as they are so largely at the present
and hence the narrative mentions them as
qumerous precisely here. The bulk of the
ition belonged to a different stock.: The pos-
1 of a common language gave the missionaries
at once to the Greek-speaking foreigners.
2 Apostle’s narrow escape from being stoned
mium (Acts xiv. 5) recalls to us a passage in
{ the epistles. Paul was actually stoned at
) (Acts xiv. 19), soon after his departure from
m, and referring to that instance when he
to the Corinthians, he says (2 Cor. xi. 25):
»was I stoned.” Hence, says Paley (Hore
we), “had this meditated assault at Iconium
ompleted, had the history related that a stone
irown, as it relates that preparations were
both by Jews and Gentiles to stone Paul and
mpanions, or even had the account of this
stion stopped, without going on to inform us
aul and his companions were ‘aware of the
‘and fled,’ a contradiction between the his-
id the epistles would have ensued. Truth is
wily consistent; but it is scarcely possible
Adependent accounts, not having truth to
IDDO 1117
guide them, should thus advance to the very brink
of contradiction without falling into it.’ H.
ID’ALAH (TINT [memorial stone of Et
(God), Fiirst]: ‘Ie 1X@ [ Vat. -pet-]; Alex. Iad-
naa: Jedala and Jeralw), one of the cities of the
tribe of Zebulun, named between Shimron and
Bethlehem (Josh. xix. 15). Schwarz (p. 172),
without quoting his authority, but probably from
one of the Talmudical books, gives the name as
“ Yidalah or Chirii,’’ and would identify it with
the village “Kellah al-Chiré, 6 miles S. W. of
Semunii.”” Semuniyeh is known and marked on
many of the maps, rather less than 3 miles S. of
Beit-lahm; but the other place mentioned by
Schwarz has evaded observation. It is not named
in the Onomasticon. G.
ID’BASH (wat [stout, corpulent]: *IeB-
Sds;.[Vat. laBas; Comp. ledeBds;] Alex. IyaBns:
Jedebos), one of the three sons of Abi-Etam —
“the father of Etam’’—among the families of
Judah (1 Chr. iy. 3). The Tzelelponite is named
as his sister. This list is probably a topographical
one, a majority of the names being those of places.
ID’DO $1. (STD: a5; [Vat. corrupt;]
Alex. SaSwx: Addo.) The father of Abinadab,
one of Solomon’s monthly purveyors (1 K. iy. 14).
2. (VY: asdf; [Vat. Ader; Comp. Ald. *A3-
56:] Addo.) A descendant of Gershom, son of
Levi (1 Chr. vi. 21). In the reversed genealogy
(ver. 41) the name is altered to UpAtaAu, and we
there discover that he was one of the forefathers
of Asaph the seer.
3. (wT [ favorite] : *ladat; [ Vat. Taddaz3]
Alex. Jaddat! Jaddo.) Son of Zechariah, ruler
(ndgid) of the tribe of Manasseh east of Jordan in
the time of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 21).
4. (TD, t. €. Ye'doi [born on a festival,
First]; but in the correction of the Keri 1TY%,
Ye'do: *Iwha, ’A556 [Vat. ASw]: Addo.) A seer
(7377) whose “visions” (S137) against Jero
boam incidentally contained some of the acts of
Solomon (2 Chr. ix. 29). He also appears to have
written a chronicle or story (Jidrash, Ges. p. 357)
relating to the life and reign of Abijah (2 Chr. xiii.
22), and also a book concerning genealogies,” in
which the acts of Rehoboam were recorded (xii.
15). These books are lost, but they may have
formed part of the foundation of the existing books
of Chronicles (Bertheau, On Chron. Introd. § 3).
The mention of his having prophesied against Jero-
boam probably led to his identification in the an-
cient Jewish traditions (Jerome, Quest. Heb. in
2 Chr. xii. 15, Jaddo; Joseph. Ant. viii. 3, § 5
"Iad@v) with the “Man of God” out of Judah,
who denounced the altar of that king (1 K. xiii. 1).
He is also identified with Oded (see Jerome on 2
Chr. xv. 1).
5. (NVTY; in Zech. [i. 7,] VY: °Asd6; [in
Ezr., Vat. Adw; in Neh., Vat. Alex. FA. omit,
and so Rom. in xii. 4:] Addo.) The grandfather of
the prophet Zechariah (Zech. i. 1, 7), although in
other places Zechariah is called “the son of Iddo”
(Ezr. v. 1, vi. 14). Iddo returned from Babylon
with Zerubbabel and Jeshua (Neh. xii. 4), and in
the next generation — the “days of Joiakim”’ son
of Jeshua (vv. 10, 12) — his house was represente.
1118 IDOL
by Zechariah (ver. 14). In 1 Esdr. vi. 1 the name
is ADDO.
6. (VIS: [LXX. omit, exc. Comp. once ’A6-
Sael:| Hddo.) The chief of those who assembled
at Casiphia, at the time of the second caravan from
Babylon, in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus
B. C. 458. He was one of the Nethinim, of whom
220 responded to the appeal of Ezra to assist in
the return to Judea (Ezr. viii. 17; comp. 20). In
the Apocr. Esdras the name is SADDEUS and Dap-
- DEUS. G.
IDOL, IMAGE. As no less than twenty-one
different Hebrew words have been rendered in the
A. V. either by idol or image, and that by no
means unifornily, it will be of some advantage to
attempt to discriminate between them, and assign,
as nearly as the two languages will allow, the Eng-
lish equivalents for each. But, before proceeding
to the discussion of those words which in them-
selves indicate the objects of false worship, it will
be necessary to notice a class of abstract terms,
which, with a deep moral significance, express the
degradation associated with it, and stand out as a
protest of the language against the enormities of
idolatry. Such are—
1. JUS, dven, rendered elsewhere “ nought,”
“vanity,’’ ‘iniquity,’ ‘wickedness,’ ‘ sorrow,”
etc., and once only “idol” (Is. Ixvi. 8). The pri-
mary idea of the root seems to be emptiness, nothing-
ness, as of breath or vapor; and, by a natural tran-
sition, in a moral sense, wickedness in its active
form of mischief, ad then, as the result, sorrow
and trouble. Hence dven denotes a vain, false,
wicked thing, and expresses at once the essential
nature of idols, and the consequences of their wor-
ship. ‘The character of the word may be learnt
from its associates. It stands in parallelism with
DON, ephes (Is. xli. 29), which, after undergoing
various modifications, comes at length to signify
“nothing; ’’ with Sail, hebel, * breath ’’ or ‘ va-
por,” itself applied as a term of contempt to the
objects of idolatrous reverence (Deut. xxxii. 21; 1
K. xvi. 18; Ps. xxxi. 6; Jer. viii. 19, x. 8); with
NW, shdv, “nothingness,” “ vanity;”” and with
PW, sheker, “ falsehood” (Zech. x. 2): all indi-
cating the utter worthlessness of the idols to whom
homage was paid, and the false and delusive nature
of their worship. It is employed in an abstract
sense to denote idolatry in general in 1 Sam. xv.
23. There is much significance in the change of
name from Beth-el to Beth-aven, the great centre
of idolatry in Israel (Hos. iv. 15).
2. Dy, élil, is thought by some to have a
sense akin to that of apy, sheker, ‘ falsehood,”’
with which it stands in parallelism in Job xiii. 4,
and would therefore much resemble dven, as ap-
plied to an idol. Delitzsch (on Hab. ii. 18) derives
it from the negative particle On al, die Nich-
tigen.”? But according to Fiirst (Handw. s. v.) it
is a diminutive of On, “god,” the additional syl-
lable indicating the greatest contempt. In this
case the signification above mentioned is a sub-
sidiary one. ‘The same authority asserts that the
word denotes a small image of the god, which was
sonsulted as an oracle among the Egyptians and
Pheenicians (Is. xix. 3; Jer. xiv. 14). It is cer-
te
(
IDOL
tainly used of the idols of Noph or Memphi
xxx. 13). In strong contrast with Jehovah
pears in Ps. xcvi. 5, xevii. 7: the contrast pr
being heightened by the resemblance betwe
lin. and élohim. A somewhat similar play
words is observable in Hab. ii. 18, =)
OMSDN, elilim illémim (« dumb idols,” A.)
8. TWAS, émah, “horror”? or terror,’
hence an object of horror or terror (Jer. 1. 3
reference either to the hideousness of the ic
to the gross character of their worship. h
respect it is closely connected with —
4. DISD, miphletseth, a « fright,” “ho
applied to the idol of Maachah, probably of
which Asa cut down and burned (1 K. xy.
Chr. xv. 16), and which was unquestionab!
Phallus, the symbol of the productive poy
nature (Movers, Phen. i. 571; Selden, de Di
ii. 5), and the nature-goddess Ashera. Alu:
supposed to be made to this in Jer. x. 5, and
of Jer. 70 [in the Apocrypha]. In 2 Chr,
the Vulg. render “ simulacrum Priapi’’ (cf.
“ furum aviumgue maxima formido”’). The
had a different reading, which it is not é
determine. They translate in 1 K. xv. 18 the
word both by gvvodos (with which correspon
Syr. JaLs, ‘idé. ‘a festival,’ reading p
IVEY, 'dtsereth, as in 2 K. x. 20; Jer. ix.
katadvoes, While in Chronicles it is efé
Possibly in 1 K. xv. 18 they may have
PINES 1, m’tsullathadh, for mAy DOM,
latstah, as the Vulg. specum, of which “simul
turpissimum ’’ is a correction. With this m
noticed, though not actually rendered, “ imag
*¢ idol.”
5. IVA, bisheth, “shame,” or “sh
thing” (A. V. Jer. xi. 13; Hos. ix. 10), app
Baal or Baal-Peor, as characterizing the obs
of his worship. With élil is found in clos
nection -—
6. peaks) gillilim, also a term of con
but of uncertain origin (Ez. xxx. 13). The
binical authorities, referring to such passa
Ez. iv. 12, Zeph. i. 17, have favored the in
tation given in the margin of the A. V. to
xxix. 17, “ dungy gods”’ (Vulg. “ sordes,””
idolorum,”’ 1 K. xv. 12). Jahn connects 1
pee: galal, “ to roll,” and applies it to the
of trees of which idols were made, and in m
called gillilim, “rolling things”’ (a volver
says, though it is difficult to see the point
remark). Gesenius, repudiating the derivatio
the Arab. he, jalla, “to be great, illust
gives his preference to the rendering “ stones
gods,” thus deriving it from Ds gal, “ab
stones;’? and in this he is followed by Furs
translates gillil by the Germ. “ Steinhaufe.”
expression is applied, principally in Ezekiel, t
gods and their symbols (Deut. xxix. 17; E
10, &e.). It stands side by side with othe
temptuous terms in Ez. xvi. 36, xx. 8;
example Y72W’, shekets, “ filth,” “ abomin
coee
(Ez. viii. 10), and —
IDOL
.. The cognate YAW, shikkiits, « filth,” “im-
rity,” especially applied, like shekets, to that
ich produced ceremonial uncleanness (Ez. XXXVil.
. Nah. iii. 6), such as food offered in sacrifice to
Is (Zech. ix. 7; comp. Acts xv. 20, 29). As
rring to the idols themselves, it primarily denotes
obscene rites with which their worship was
ociated, and hence, by metonymy, is applied both
the objects of worship and also to their worship-
s, who partook of the impurity, and thus “ be-
1¢ loathsome like their love,’”’ the foul Baal-Peor
os. ix. 10).
We now come to the consideration of those
ds which more directly apply to the images or
ls, as the outward symbols of the deity who was
‘shipped through them. These may be classified
ording as they indicate that the images were
de in imitation of external objects, and to repre-
t some idea, or attribute; or as they denote the
‘kmanship by which they were fashioned. To
first class belong —
. Sn, semel, or Sno, sémel, with which
enius compares as cognate win, mashdal, and
3, tselem, the Lat. similis and Greek dSuadrds
ri) ’ Me ’
ifies a “likeness,” ‘semblance.”” The Targ.
Deut. iv. 16 gives NTIS, isda, « figure,” as
equivalent; while in Ez. viii. 3, 5, it is rendered
ny, islam, “image.’’ In the latter passages
“ 9
Syriac has JAso.8, koimté, “a statue”?
> grhan of the LXX.), which more properly
esponds to muatstsébdh (see No. 15 below); and
Deut. CALS , genés, kind” (= yévos).
passage in 2 Chr. xxxiii. 7 is rendered “ images
our faces,” the latter words representing the
under consideration. In 2 Chr. xxxiii. 15 it
2ars as “ carved images,” following the LXX. 7)
roy. On the whole the Greek eixdy of Deut.
l6, 2 Chr. xxxiii. 7, and the “simulacrum ” of
Vulgate (2 Chr. xxxiii. 15) most nearly resem-
the Hebrew semel.
ey, tselem (Ch. id. and OOY
=, tselam) is
all lexicographers, ancient and modern, con-
ed with bx, tsél, ‘a shadow.” It is the
lage” of God in which man was created (Gen.
’; ef. Wisd. ii. 23), distinguished from S13"J,
uth, or ‘“ likeness,” as the “image”? from the
2” which it represents (Schmidt, de Imag.
m Hom. p. 84), though it would be rash to
it upon this distinction. In the N. T. €lK@V
‘ars to represent the latter (Col. iii. 10; ef.
X. of Gen. v. 1), as duolwua the former of the
words (Rom. i. 23, viii. 29; Phil. ii. 7), but
Petr. 1 clip is opposed to gxia as the sub-
ce to the unsubstantial form, of which it is the
ct representative. The LXX. render demith
Holwors, Gpolwua, cixév, Buoros, and tselem
frequently by cindy, though éuolwua, efSwAor,
Tmos also occur. But whatever abstract term
best define the meaning of tselem, it is un-
tionably used to denote the visible forms of
nal objects, and is applied to figures of gold
ee ee
‘Chere are many passages in the Syr. of Chronicles
b it is impossible to reconcile with the received
vw text; and the translation of these books is on |
IDOL 1119
and silver (1 Sam. vi. 5; Num. xxxiii. 52; Dan
iii. 1), such as the golden image of Nebuchadnez-
zar, as well as to those painted upon walls (Ez.
xxiii. 14). “Image’’ perhaps most nearly repre-
sents it in all passages. Applied to the human
countenance (Dan. iii. 19) it signifies the ‘“ expres-
sion,’’ and corresponds to the idéq of Matt. xxviii.
3, though demith agrees rather with the Platonic
usage of the latter word.
10. TTIVAIN, temidndh, rendered “image” in
Job iy. 16; elsewhere “ similitude ” (Deut. iy. 12) .
“likeness? (Deut. vy. 8): “form,” or “shape”
would be better. In Deut. iv. 16 it is in parallelism
with WIA, tabnith, literally “build; hence
“ plan,” or “model” (2 K. xvi. 10; cf. Ex. xx.
4; Num. xii. 8).
11. ALY, 'dtsdb, 12. ARY, vetsed (Jer. xxii.
28), or 13. aE, ’Otseb (Is. xlviii. 5), “a figure,”
all derived from a root AEY, *dtsab, “ to work,”
or “ fashion’? (akin to 2377, chatsab, and the
like), are terms applied to idols as expressing that
their origin was due to the labor of man. The
verb in its derived senses indicates the sorrow and
trouble consequent upon severe labor, but the latter
seems to be the radical idea. If the notion of
sorrow were most prominent the words as applied
to idols might be compared with dven above. Is.
lviii. 3 is rendered in the Peshito Syriac “idols”
(A. V. “labors’’), but the reading was evidently
different. In Ps. exxxix. 24, 2ED TINT, derec’-
dtseb, is “ idolatry.”’
14. WE, tsir, once only applied to an idol (Is.
xlv. 16; LXX. yijco, as if ON, tyyim). The
word usually denotes “a pang,’’ but in this instance
is probably connected with the roots AN, tsir,
and “V3*, ydisar, and signifies “a shape,” or
‘¢mould,’’ and hence an “ idol.’
15. TED, matsisébdh, anything set up, a
“statue (= DZ), n’tsib, Jer. xliii. 13), applied
to a memorial stone like those erected by Jacob on
four several occasions (Gen. xxviii. 18, xxxi. 45,
xxxv. 14, 15) to commemorate a crisis in his life,
or to mark the grave of Rachel. Such were the
stones set up by Joshua (Josh. iv. 9) after the pas-
sage of the Jordan, and at Shechem (xxiv. 26), and
by Samuel when victorious over the Philistines (1
Sam. vii. 12). When solemnly dedicated they were
anointed with oil, and libations were poured upon
them. The word is applied to denote the obelisks
which stood at the entrance to the temple of the
Sun at Heliopolis (Jer. xliii. 13), two of which were
a hundred cubits high and eight broad, each of a
single stone (Her. ii. 111). It is also used of the
statues of Baal (2 K. iii. 2), whether of stone (2 K.
x. 27) or wood (id. 26), which stood in the inner-
inost recess of the temple at Samaria. Movers
(Phan. i. 674) conjectures that the latter were
statues or columns distinct from that of Baal, which
was of stone and conical (673), like the “meta”
of Paphos (Tac. H. ii. 3), and probably therefore
he whole inferior in accuracy to that of the rest of
the 0. 'T
1120 IDOL
belonging to other deities who were his mdpedpor
or giuBwyot, The Phoenicians consecrated and
anointed stones like that at Bethel, which were
called, as some think, from this circumstance
Betylia. Many such are said to have been seen on
the Lebanon, near Heliopolis, dedicated to various
gods, and many prodigies are related of them
(Damascius in Photius, quoted by Bochart, Canaan,
ii. 2). The same authority describes them as
aérolites, of a whitish and sometimes purple color,
spherical in shape, and about a span in diameter.
The Palladium of Troy, the black stone in the
Kaaba at Mecca, said to have been brought from
heaven by the angel Gabriel, and the stone at
Ephesus “ which fell down from Jupiter’? (Acts
xix. 35), are examples of the belief, anciently so
common, that the gods sent down their images
upon earth. In the older worship of Greece stones,
according to Pausanias (vii. 22, § 4), occupied the
place of images. Those at Phare, about thirty in
number, and quadrangular in shape, near the statue
of Hermes, received divine honors from the Pha-
rians, and each had the name of some god con-
ferred upon it. ‘The stone in the temple of Jupiter
Ammon (umbilico maxime similis), enriched with
emeralds and gems (Curt. iv. 7, § 381); that at
Delphi, which Saturn was said to have swallowed
(Paus. Phoc. 24, § 6); the black stone of pyramidal
shape in the temple of Juggernaut, and the holy
stone at Pessinus in Galatia, sacred to Cybele, show
how widely spread and almost universal were these
ancient objects of worship. Closely connected with
these “statues’’ of Baal, whether in the form of
obelisks or otherwise, were —
16. EXE, chamménim, rendered in the mar-
gin of most passages “sun-images.’’ The word has
given rise to much discussion. In the Vulgate it
is translated thrice simulacra, thrice delubra, and
once fana. The LXX. give rewévn twice, efdwra
twice, {VAiva xelpotointa, BdeAvypata, and ra
iwnad. With one exception (2 Chr. xxxiv. 4,
which is evidently corrupt) the Syriac has vaguely
either ‘fears,’ 2. e. objects of fear, or *idols.’? The
Targum in all passages translates it by SP7DID°I0,
chdnisn sayyd, “houses for star-worship” (Fiirst
a?
compares the Arab. (jwdAc>, Chunnas, the planet
Mercury or Venus), a rendering which Rosenmiiller
supports. Gesenius preferred to consider these
chanisn’ sayya as “veils”? or “shrines surrounded
or shrouded with hangings’ (Ez. xvi. 16; Targ.
on Is. iii. 19), and scouted the interpretation of
Buxtorf — “statue solares’? — as a mere guess,
though he somewhat paradoxically assented to
Rosenmiiller’s opinion that they were ‘shrines
dedicated to the worship of the stars.” Kimchi,
inder the root }?377, mentions a conjecture that
they were trees like the Asherim, but (s. v. OX 17)
elsewhere expresses his own belief that the Nun is
epenthetic, and that they were so called ‘“ because
the sun-worshippers made them.’’ Aben Ezra (on
Ley. xxvi. 30) says they were ‘houses made for
worshipping the sun,’ which Bochart approves
(Canaan, ii. 17), and Jarchi, that they were a kind
of idol placed on the roofs of houses. Vossius (de
Idol. ii. 853), as Scaliger before him, connects the
word with Amanus, or Omanus, the sacred _ fire,
the symbol of the Persian sun-god, and renders it | Lev. xxvi. 1, give “stone of devotion,” and |
.
at
bi
“Sy
ag
IDOL A
pyrea (cf. Selden, ii. 8). Adelung (Mithm
159, quoted by Gesen. on Is. xvii. 8) suggested
same, and compared it with the Sanskrit, hc
But to such interpretations the passage in 2 (
xxxiv. 4, is inimical (Vitringa on Is. xvii,
Gesenius’ own opinion appears to have fluctu;
considerably. In his notes on Isaiah (/. ¢.) he pri
the general rendering “columns” to the n
definite one of ‘‘sun-columns,’’ and is incline
look to a Persian origin for the derivation of
word. But in his Thesaurus he mentions
occurrence of Chamman as a synonym of Bag
the Pheenician and Palmyrene inscriptions in
sense of “ Dominus Solaris,” and its after appl
tion to the statues or columns erected for
worship. Spencer (de Legg. Hebr. ii. 25),
after him Michaelis (Suppl. ad Lex. Hebr. s,
maintained that it signified statues or lofty colun
like the pyramids or obelisks of Egypt. Ma
(Pham. i. 441) concludes with good reason 1
the sun-god Baal and the idol “ Chamman”
not essentially different. In his discussion of Ch
manim, he says, ‘These images of the fire-god y
placed on foreign or non-Israelitish altars, in ;
junction with the symbols of the nature-god
Asherah, as giuBwuor (2 Chr. xiv. 3, 5, xxxiy
7; Is. xvii. 9, xxvii. 9), as was otherwise usual y
Baal and Asherah.’? They are mentioned with
Asherim, and the latter are coupled with the sta’
of Baal (1 K. xiv. 23; 2 K. xxiii. 14). The ch
manim and statues are used promiscuously (ef. £
xxili. 14, and 2 Chr. xxxiv. 4; 2 Chr. xiv. 3 and
but are never spoken of together. Such are
steps by which he arrives at his conclusion. H
supported by the Palmyrene inscription at Oxf
alluded to above, which has been thus rendei
“ This column (SIT, Chamménim), and
altar, the sons of Malchu, etc. have erected
dedicated to the Sun.” The Veneto-Greek Ver
leaves the word untranslated in the strange f
axadBavres- J|'rom the expressions in Ez. vi. 4
and Ley. xxvi, 30, it may be inferred that t]
columns, which perhaps represented a rising fi
of fire and stood upon the altar of Baal (2 (
xxxly. 4), were of wood or stone. |
17. FWEWID, mascith, occurs in Ley. xxvi
Num. xxxiii, 52; Ez. viii. 12: ‘ device” n
nearly suits all passages (ef. Ps. Ixxiii. 7; P
xviii. 11, xxv. 11). This word has been the fi
ful cause of as much dispute as the preced
The general opinion appears to be that " 1,
eben mascith, signifies a stone with figures gre
upon it. Ben Zeb explains it as ‘a stone)
figures or hieroglyphics carved upon it,’’ anc
Michaelis; and it is maintained by Movers (P7/
i. 105) that the detylia, or columns with pail
figures, the “ lapides eftigiati’”’? of Minucius I
(c. 3), are these “ stones of device,” and that
characters engraven on them are the fepa oTolx,
or characters sacred to the several deities.
invention of these characters, which is ascribe;
Taaut, he conjectures originated with the
Gesenius explains it as a stone with the imag¢|
an idol, Baal or Astarte, and refers to his J)
Phen. 21-24 for others of similar chara
Rashi (on Lev. xxxi. 1) derives it from the
Tw, to cover, “ because they cover the floor!
a pavement of stones.” The Targum and £
£4
IDOL
wmer in Num. xxxiii. 52, has “house of their
evotion,’’ where the Syr. only renders “their ob-
acts of devotion.’”? For the former the LXX.
ave Al@os cxo7ds, and for the latter ras oxomads
bray, connecting the word with the root TTIW,
to look,” a circumstance which has induced Saal-
hiitz (Mos. Recht, pp. 8382-385) to conjecture that
ren mascith was originally a smooth elevated stone
nployed for the purpose of obtaining from it a
eer prospect, and of offering prayer in prostration
yon it to the deities of heaven. Hence, generally,
+ concludes it signifies a stone of prayer or devo-
on, and the “chambers of imagery’? of Ez. viii.
are “chambers of devotion.’ The renderings
the last-mentioned passage in the LXX. and
wgum, are curious as pointing to a various read-
iy awn, or more probably \ADwr.
18, DYD IA. terdphim. [Terarnt.]
The terms which follow have regard to the mate-
land workmanship of the idol rather than to its
aracter as an object of worship.
‘19. Sop, pesel, and 20. ny'"D8, pesilim,
‘ally translated in the A. V. « graven or carved
ages.” In two passages the latter is ambigu-
sly rendered “quarries”? (Judg. iii. 19, 26) fol-
ving the Targum, but there seems no reason for
darting from the ordinary signification. In the
jority of instances the LXX. have yaumrdy,
e yAvuua. The verb is employed to denote
| finishing which the stone received at the hands
‘the masons, after it had been rough-hewn from
| quarries (Ex. xxxiv. 4; 1 K. v. 18). It is
bably a later usage which has applied pese/¢ to
igure cast in metal, as in Is. xl. 19, xliv. 10.
ese “sculptured ”’ images were apparently of wood,
ii, or stone, covered with gold or silver (Deut.
'26; Is. xxx. 22; Hab. ii. 19), the more costly
ig of solid metal (Is. xl. 19). They could be
at (Deut. vii. 5; Is. xlv. 20; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 4),
down (Deut. xii. 3) and pounded (2 Chr. xxxiv.
or broken in pieces (Is. xxi. 9). In making
in, the skill of the wise iron-smith (Deut. xxvii.
Is. xl. 20) or carpenter, and of the goldsmith,
‘employed (Judg. xvii. 3, 4; Is. xli. 7), the
Cer supplying the rough mass of iron beaten
‘shape on his anvil (Is. xliv. 12), while the lat-
éwerlaid it with plates of gold and silver, prob-
4 from Tarshish (Jer. x. 9), and decorated it
| silver chains. The image thus formed re-
the further adornment of embroidered robes
‘xvi. 18), to which possibly allusion may be
2 in Is. iii. 19. Brass and clay were among
ate employed for the same purpose (Dan.
43, v. 23). A description of the three great,
al of Babylon on the top of the temple of
3 will be found in Diod. Sic. ii. 9 (comp. Lay-
Nin. ii. 433). The several stages of the pro-
by which the metal or wood became the « gra~
IDOL 1121
MII], massécdh, are evidently synonymous (Is.
xli. 29, xlviii. 5; Jer. x. 14) in later Hebrew, and
denote a “ molten’ image. Massécéh is frequently
used in distinction from pesel or pesilim (Deut.
xxvii. 15; Judg. xvii. 3, &e.). The golden calf
which Aaron made was fashioned with «the gra-
ver” (O77, cheret), but it is not quite clear for
What purpose the graver was used (Ex. xxxii. 4).
The cheret (cf. Gr. XaparTw) appears to have been
a sharp-pointed instrument, used like the stylus for
a writing implement (Is. viii. 1). Whether then
Aaron, by the help of the cheret, gave to the
molten mass the shape of a calf, or whether he
made use of the graver for the purpose of carving
hieroglyphics upon it, has been thought doubtful.
9 >
The Syr. has }oadQ., tiipsd (rumos), ‘the
mould,” for cheret. But the expression 39),
vayyatsar, decides that it was by the chevet, in
whatever manner employed, that the shape of a
calf was given to the metal.
In N. T. cindy is the “image” or head of the
emperor on the coinage (Matt. xxii. 20).
Among the earliest objects of worship, regarded
as symbols of deity, were, as has been said above,
the meteoric stones which the ancients believed to
have been the images of the gods sent down from
heaven. From these they transferred their regard
to rough unhewn blocks, to stone columns or pil-
lars of wood, in which the divinity worshipped was
supposed to dwell, and which were consecrated, like
the sacred stone at Delphi, by being anointed with
oil, and crowned with wool on solemn days (Paus.
Phoc. 24, § 6). Tavernier (quoted by Rosenmiiller,
Alt. g N. Morgenland, i. § 89) mentions a black
stone in the pagoda of Benares which was daily
anointed with perfumed oil, and such are the
“Lingams”’ in daily use in the Siva worship of
Bengal (cf. Arnobius, i. 39; Min. Fel. ec. 3). Such
customs are remarkable illustrations of the solemn
consecration by Jacob of the stone at Bethel, as
showing the religious reverence with which these
memorials were regarded. And not only were sin-
gle stones thus honored, but heaps of stone were,
in later times at least, considered as sacred to
Hermes (Hom. Od. xvi. 471; ef. Vulg. Prov. xxvi.
8, “sicut qui mittit lapidem in acervum Mer-
curii”’), and to these each passing traveller con-
tributed his offering (Creuzer, Symb. i. 24). The
heap of stones which Laban erected to commemo-'
rate the solemn compact between himself and Jacob,
and on which he invoked the gods of his fathers,
is an instance of the intermediate stage in which
such heaps were associated with religious obser-
vances before they became objects of worship. Ja-
cob, for his part, dedicated a single stone as his
memorial, and called Jehovah to witness, thus hold-
ing himself aloof from the rites employed by Laban,
which may have partaken of his ancestral idolatry.
Mage” are so vividly described in Is. xliv. 10-
iat it is only necessary to refer to that passage,
n've are at once introduced to the mysteries of
Manufacture, which, as at Ephesus, “ brought
tall gain unto the craftsmen.”
» D2, nesec, or JO2, nésec, and 22.
8 ES
_/40re probably still pesel denotes by anticipation
olten image in a later stage after it had been
sed into shape by the caster.
71
[JEGAR-SAHADUTHA. |
Of the forms .assumed by the idolatrous images
we have not many traces in the Bible. Dagon,
the fish-god of the Philistines, was a human figure
terminating in a fish [DAGON]; and that the
Syrian deities were represented in later times in a
symbolical human shape we know for certainty.
ae Te hae at Ee CeIn ee ed ee
b Images of glazed pottery have been found in
Egypt (Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. iii. 90; comp. Wisd xv
8).
1122 IDOLATRY IDOLATRY
made the objects of worship in his stead. Wi
its origin and progress the present article is 1
concerned. The former is lost amidst the de
mists of antiquity, and the latter is rather the sr
ject of speculation than of history. But unc
what aspect it is presented to us in the Scriptur
how it affected the Mosaic legislation, and wl
influence it had on the history of the Israelit
are questions which may be more properly d
cussed, with some hope of arriving at a satisfaete
conclusion. Whether, therefore, the deification
the powers of nature, and the representation
them under tangible forms, preceded the wors|
of departed heroes, who were regarded as the e
bodiment of some virtue which distinguished th
lives, is not in this respect of much importan
Some Jewish writers, indeed, grounding their ¢
ory on a forced interpretation of Gen. iv. 26, assi
to Enos, the son of Seth, the unenviable notori
of having been the first to pay divine honors to |
host of heaven, and to lead others into the |
error (Maimon. de /dol. i. 1). R. Solomon Jar
on the other hand, while admitting the same ve
to contain the first account of the origin of id
try, understands it as implying the deification
men and plants. Arabic tradition, according
Sir W. Jones, connects the people of Yemen »
the same apostasy. The third in descent fr
Joktan, and therefore a contemporary of Nal
took the surname of Abdu Shams, or “servant
the sun,’ whom he and his family worshipy
while other tribes honored the planets and fi
stars (Hales, Chronol. ii. 59, 4to ed.). Nim
again, to whom is ascribed the introduction |
Zabianism, was after his death transferred to |
constellation Orion, and on the slender foundai:
of the expression “‘ Ur of the Chaldees’’ (Gen..
31) is built the fabulous history of Abraham «
Nimrod, narrated in the legends of the Jews
Mussulmans (Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, i. |
Weil, Bibl. Leg. pp. 47-74; Hyde, Rel. Pers
2).
I. But, descending from the regions of fietio:
sober historic narrative, the first undoubted ailu
to idolatry or idolatrous customs in the Bible i
the account of Rachel’s stealing her father’s t
phim (Gen. xxxi. 19), a relic of the worshij!
other gods, whom the ancestors of the Israe
served ‘on the other side of the river, in old tir’
(Josh. xxiv. 2). By these household deities La!
was guided, and these he consulted as oracles (8
FOI Gen. xxx. 27, A. V. “learned by e?
rience’), though without entirely losing sight)!
the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor
whom he appealed when occasion offered (Gen. 3
53), while he was ready, in the presence of Jé?
to acknowledge the benefits conferred upon hit)}
Jehovah (Gen. xxx. 27). Such, indeed, was!
The Hebrews imitated their neighbors in this re-
spect as in others (Is. xliv. 13; Wisd. xiii. 13),
and from various allusions we may infer that idols
in human forms were not uncommon among them,
though they were more anciently symbolized by
animals (Wisd. xili. 14), as by the calves of Aaron
and Jeroboam, and the brazen serpent which was
afterwards applied to idolatrous uses (2 K. xviii.
4; Rom. i. 23). When the image caine from
the hands of the maker it was decorated richly with
silver and gold, and sometimes crowned (Hpist.
Jer. 9 [or Bar. vi. 9]); clad in robes of blue and
purple (Jer. x. 9), like the draped images of Pallas
and Hera (Miiller, Handb. d. Arch. d. Kunst, § 69),
and fastened in the niche appropriated to it by
means of chains and nails (Wisd. xiii. 15), in order
that the influence of the deity which it represented
might be secured to the spot. So the Ephesians,
when besieged by Croesus, connected the wall of
their city by means of a rope to the temple of
Aphrodite, with the view of ensuring the aid of
the goddess (Her. i. 26); and for a similar object
the Tyrians chained the stone image of Apollo to
the altar of Hercules (Curt. iv. 8, § 15). Some
images were painted red (Wisd. xiii. 14), like those
of Dionysus and the Bacchantes of Hermes, and
the god Pan (Paus. ii. 2, § 5; Miiller, //andb. d.
Arch. d. Kunst, § 69). This color was formerly
considered sacred. Pliny relates, on the authority
of Verrius, that it was customary on festival days
to color with red-lead the face of the image of
Jupiter, and the bodies of those who celebrated a
triumph (xxxiii. 36). The figures of Priapus, the
god of gardens, were decorated in the same man-
ner (“uber custos’”? Tibull. i. 1, 18). Among
the objects of worship enumerated by Arnobius (i.
39) are bones of elephants, pictures, and garlands
suspended on trees, the “rami coronati’’ of Apu-
leius (de Mag. c. 56).
When the process of adorning the image was
completed, it was placed in a temple or shrine ap-
pointed for it (oixta, Epist. Jer. 12, 19 [or Bar. vi.
12, 19]; o%enua, Wisd. xiii. 15; eiSwActoy, 1 Cor.
viii. 10; see Stanley’s note on the latter passage).
In Wisd. xiii. 15, ofenua is thought to be used
contemptuously, as in Tibull. i. 10, 19, 20 — “ cum
paupere cultu Stabat in exigua ligneus ede deus”
(Fritzsche and Grimm, Handb.), but the passage
quoted is by no means a good illustration. From
these temples the idols were sometimes carried in
procession (Epist. Jer. 4, 26 [or Bar. vi. 4, 26])
on festival days. ‘heir priests were maintained
from the idol treasury, and feasted upon the meats
which were appointed for the idols’ use (Bel and
the Dragon, 3, 13). These sacrificial feasts formed
an important part of the idolatrous ritual [IDoL-
ATRY}, and were a great stumbling-block to the
early Christian converts. They were to the hea-
then, as Prof. Stanley has well observed, what the
observance of circumcision and the Mosaic ritual
were to the Jewish converts, and it was for this
reason that St. Paul especially directed his atten-
tion to the subject, and laid down the rules of con-
duct contained in his first letter to the Corinthians
(viii.—x.). W. A. W.
IDOLATRY (52M, trdphim, « tera-
phim,” once only, 1 Sam. xv. 23: eidwAoAaTpeia),
strictly speaking, denotes the worship of deity in a
visible form, whether the images to which homage
is paid are symbolical representations of the true
God, or of the false divinities which have been
Israelites. Like the Cuthean colonists in Sam?
who “feared Jehovah and served their own g |?
(2 K. xvii. 33), they blended in a strange ma®
a theoretical belief in the true God with the ext
reverence which, in different stages of their his
they were led to pay to the idols of the natiot "
whom they were surrounded. For this speci
false worship they seem, at all times, to have
an incredible propension. On their journey
Shechem to Bethel, the family of Jacob put 4
from among them ‘the gods of the foreigm
not the teraphim of Laban, but the gods 0™
IDOLATRY
Janaanites through whose land they passed, and
he amulets and charms which were worn as the
ppendages of their worship (Gen. xxxy. 2, 4). And
his marked feature of the Hebrew character is
raceable throughout the entire history of the people.
Juring their long residence in Egypt, the country
f symbolism, they defiled themselves with the idols
f the land, and. it was long before the taint was
emoved (Josh. xxiv. 14; Ez. xx. 7). To these gods
loses, as the herald of Jehovah, flung down the
auntlet of defiance (Kurtz, Gesch. d. Alt. B. ii.
6), and the plagues of Egypt smote their symbols
Num. xxxiii. 4). Yet, with the memory of their
eliverance fresh in their minds, their leader absent,
ne Israelities clamored for some visible shape in
hich they might worship the God who had brought
rem up out of Egypt (Ex. xxxii.). Aaron lent
imself to the popular ery, and chose as the symbol
‘deity one with which they had long been familiar
-the calf — embodiment of Apis, and emblem of
ie productive power of nature. But, with a weak-
88 of character to which his greater brother was
stranger, he compromised with his better im-
uses by proclaiming a solemn feast to Jehovah
Ix. xxii. 5). How much of the true God was
cognized by the people in this brutish symbol it
impossible to conceive; the festival was charac-
tized by all the shameless licentiousness with
lich idolatrous worship was associated (ver. 25),
d which seems to have constituted its chief at-
vetion. But on this occasion, as on all others,
2 transgression was visited by swift vengeance,
d three thousand of the offenders were slain.
ra while the erection of the tabernacle, and the
ablishment of the worship which accompanied it,
istied that craving for an outward sign which
> Israelites constantly exhibited; and for the-
aainder of their march through the desert, with
+ dwelling-place of Jehovah in their midst, they
_ hot again degenerate into open apostasy. But
vas only so long as their contact with the nations
sof a hostile character that this seeming ortho-
‘Y Was maintained. The charms of the daughters
IDOLATRY 1123
turns each conquering nation strove to establish
the worship of its national god. During the rule
of Midian, Joash the father of Gideon had an altar
to Baal, and an Asherah (J udg. vi. 25), though he
proved but a lukewarm worshipper (ver. 31). Even
Gideon himself gave occasion to idolatrous worship
yet the ephod which he made from the spoils of the
Midianites was perhaps but a votive offering to the
true God (Judg. viii. 27). It is not improbable
that the gold ornaments of which it was composed
were in some way connected with idolatry (cf. Is.
iii. 18-24), and that from their having been worn
as amulets, some superstitious virtue was conceived
to cling to them even in their new form. But
though in Gideon’s lifetime no overt act of idolatry
was practised, he was no sooner dead than the
Israelites again returned to the service of the
Baalim, and, as if in solemn mockery of the cove-
nant made with Jehovah, chose from among them
Baal Berith, “ Baal of the Covenant” (cf. Zeds
dpkios), as the object of their special adoration
(Judg. viii. 33). Of this god we know only that
his temple, probably of wood (J udg. ix. 49), was a
stronghold in time of need, and that his treasury
was filled with the silver of the worshippers (ix. 4).
Nor were the calamities of foreign Oppression col-
‘Moab, as Balaam's bad genius foresaw, were
2nt for evil: the Israelites were « yoked to Baal-
‘T” in the trammels of his fair worshippers, and
‘character of their devotions is not obscurely
ted at (Num. xxv.). The great and terrible
‘ibution which followed left. so deep an impress
athe hearts of the people that, after the con-
st of the promised land, they looked with an
of terror upon any indications of defection from
Worship of Jehovah, and denounced as idolatrous
emorial so slight as the altar of the Reubenites
Ae passage of Jordan (Josh. xxii. 16).
‘uring the lives of Joshua and the elders who
ved him, they kept true to their allegiance; but
‘Seneration following, who knew not Jehovah,
‘the works he had done for Israel, swerved from
olain path of their fathers, and were caught in
toils of the foreigner (Judg. ii.). From this
forth their history becomes little more than a
‘nicle of the inevitable sequence of offense and
shment.
” (Judg. ii. 12,14). The
Judges, contemporaneous
Ceessive, tell of the fierce struggle maintained
‘st their hated foes, and how women forgot
| tenderness and forsook their retirement to
the song of victory over the oppressor. By
fined to the land of Canaan. ‘The tribes on the
east of Jordan went astray after the idols of the
land, and were delivered into the hands of the chil-
dren of Ammon (Judg. x. 8). But they put away
from among them “the gods of the foreigner,”’ and
with the baseborn Jephthah for their leader gained
a signal victory over their oppressors. The exploits
of Samson against the Philistines, though achieved
within a narrower space and with less important
results than those of his predecessors, fill a brilliant
page in his country’s history. But the tale of his
marvelous deeds is prefaced by that ever-recurring
phrase, so mournfully familiar, «the children of
Israel did evil again in the eyes of Jehovah, and
Jehovah gave them into the hand of the Philis-
tines.” Thus far idolatry is a national sin. The
episode of Micah, in Judg. xvii. xviii., sheds a lurid
light on the secret practices of individuals, who
without formally renouncing J ehovah, though ceas-
ing to recognize him as the theocratic King (xvii.
6), linked with his worship the symbols of ancient
idolatry. The house of God, or sanctuary, which
Micah made in imitation of that at Shiloh, was
decorated with an ephod and teraphim dedicated to
God, and with a graven and molten image conse-
crated to some inferior deities (Selden, de Dis Syris,
Synt. i. 2). It is a significant fact, showing how
deeply rooted in the people was the tendency tu
idolatry, that a Levite, who, of all others, should
have been most sedulous to maintain Jehovah's
worship in its purity, was found to assume the
office of priest to the images of Micah; and that
this Levite, priest afterwards to the idols of Dan,
was no other than Jonathan, the son of Gershom,
the son of Moses. Tradition says that these idols
were destroyed when the Philistines defeated the
army of Israel and took from them the ark of the
covenant of Jehovah (1 Sam. iv.). The Danites
are supposed to have carried them into the field, as
the other tribes bore the ark, and the Philistines
the images of their gods, when they went forth to
battle (2 Sam. v. 21; Lewis, Orig. Hebr. y. 9).
But the Seder Olam Rabba (c. 24) interprets “the
captivity of the land” (Judg. xviii. 30), of the
captivity of Manasseh; and Benjamin of Tudela
mistook the remains of later Gentile worship for
1124 IDOLATRY
traces of the altar or statue which Micah had dedi-
cated, and which was worshipped by the tribe of
Dan (Selden, de Dis Syr. Synt. i. c. 2; Stanley,
S. § P. p. 398). In later times the practice of secret
idolatry was carried to greater lengths. Images
were set up on the corn-floors, in the wine-vats,
and behind the doors of private houses (Is. lvii. 8;
Hos. ix. 1, 2); and to check this tendency the
statute in Deut. xxvii. 15 was originally promul-
gated.
Under Samuel’s administration a fast was held,
and purificatory rites performed, to mark the public
renunciation of idolatry (1 Sam. vii. 3-6). But in
the reign of Solomon all this was forgotten. Each
of his many foreign wives brought with her the
gods of her own nation; and the gods of Ammon,
Moab, and Zidon, were openly worshipped. Three
of the summits of Olivet were crowned with the
high-places of Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Molech
(1 K. xi. 7; 2 K. xxiii. 13), and the fourth, in
memory of his great apostasy, was branded with
the opprobrious title of the ‘‘ Mount of Corruption.”
Rehoboam, the son of an Ammonite mother, per-
petuated the worst features of Solomon’s idolatry
(1 K. xiv. 22-24); and in his reign was made the
great schism in the national religion: when Jero-
boam, fresh from his recollections of the Apis
worship of Egypt, erected golden calves at Bethel
and at Dan, and by this crafty state-policy severed
for ever the kingdoms of Judah and Israel (1 K.
xii. 26-33). To their use were temples consecrated,
and the service in their honor was studiously copied
from the Mosaic ritual. High-priest himself, Jero-
boam ordained priests from the lowest ranks (2 Chr.
xi. 15); incense and sacrifices were offered, and a
solemn festival appointed, closely resembling the
feast of tabernacles (1 K. xii. 82, 33; cf. Am. iv.
4,5). [JEROBOAM.] The worship of the calves,
“the sin of Israel”’ (Hos. x. 8), which was appar-
ently associated with the goat-worship of Mendes
(2 Chr. xi. 15; Herod. ii. 46) or of the ancient
Zabii (Lewis, Orig. Hebr. v. 3), and the Asherim
(1 K. xiv. 15; A. V. “groves’’), ultimately spread
to the kingdom of Judah, and centred in Beer-sheba
(Am. vy. 5, vii. 9). At what precise period it was
introduced into the latter kingdom is not certain.
The Chronicles tell us how Abijah taunted Jero-
boam with his apostasy, while the less partial nar-
rative in 1 Kings represents his own conduct as far
rom exemplary (1 K. xv. 3). Asa’s sweeping
reform spared not even the idol of his grandmother
Maachah, and, with the exception of the high-
places, he removed all relics of idolatrous worship
(1 K. xv. 12-14), with its accompanying impurities.
His reformation was completed by Jehoshaphat
(2 Chr. xvii. 6).
The successors of Jeroboam followed in his steps,
till Ahab, who married a Zidonian princess, at her
instigation (1 K. xxi. 25) built a temple and altar
to Baal, and revived all the abominations of the
Amorites (1 K. xxi. 26). For this he attained the
bad preéminence of having done ‘+more to provoke
Jehovah, the God of Israel, to anger than all the
kings of Israel that were before him” (1 K. xvi.
33). Compared with the worship of Baal, the
a The Syr. supports the rendering of “pa in v.
15, which the A. V. has adopted — “ to enquire by”:
put Keil translates the clause, “it will be for me to
sonsiler,” i. e. what shall be done with the altar, in
wder to support his theory that this altar erected by
IDOLATRY
worship of the calves was a yenial offense, probal
because it was morally less detestable and also ke
anti-national (1 K. xii. 28; 2 K. x. 28-81). [Ei
JAH, vol. i. p. 703 6.) Henceforth Baal-worsh
became so completely identified with the northe
kingdom that it is described as walking in the w:
or statutes of the kings of Israel (2 K. xvi. 3, xvii. §
as distinguished from the sin of Jeroboam, whi
ceased not till the Captivity (2 K. xvii. 23), and t
corruption of the ancient inhabitants of the lan
The idolatrous priests became a numerous and ii
portant caste (1 K. xviii. 19). living under the pa
ronage of royalty, and fed at the royal table. T°
extirpation of Baal’s priests by Elijah, and of his f
lowers by Jehu (2 K. x.), in which the royal fami
of Judah shared (2 Chr. xxii. 7), was a death-bl
to this form of idolatry in Israel, though oth
systems still remained (2 K. xiii. 6). But wh
Israel thus sinned and was punished, Judah w
more morally guilty (Ez. xvi. 51). The allian
of Jehoshaphat with the family of Ahab transferr
to the southern kingdom, during the reigns of |
son and grandson, all the appurtenances of Ba:
worship (2 K. viii. 18, 27). In less than ten yee
after the death of that king, in whose praise it
recorded that he “sought not the Baalim,” n
walked “after the deed of Israel’’ (2 Chr. xvii.
4), a temple had been built for the idol, statues a
altars erected, and priests appointed to minister
his service (2 K. xi. 18). Jehoiada’s vigore
measures checked the evil for a time, but his refo1
was incomplete, and the high-places still remaine
as in the days of Asa, a nucleus for any fresh s)
tem of idolatry (2 K. xii, 3). Much of this mig
be due to the influence of the king’s mother, Zibi
of Beer-sheba, a place intimately connected with {
idolatrous defection of Judah (Am. viii. 14). Af
the death of Jehoiada, the princes prevailed uy
Joash to restore at least some portion of his fathe
idolatry (2 Chr. xxiv. 18). The conquest of |
Edomites by Amaziah introduced the worship
their gods, which had disappeared since the di
of Solonion (2 Chr. xxv. 14, 20). After this per
even the kings who did not lend themselves to.
encouragement of false worship had to contend w'
the corruption which still lingered in the hearts
the people (2 K. xv. 85; 2 Chr. xxvii. 2). Hithe:
the temple had been kept pure. ‘The statues
Baal and the other gods were worshipped in tl
own shrines, but Ahaz, who “sacrificed unto |
gods of Damascus, which smote him” (2 ¢
xxviii. 23), and built altars to them at every cor!
of Jerusalem, and high-places in every city of J ud:
replaced the brazen altar of burnt-offering by |
made after the model of “ the altar” of Damast:
and desecrated it to his own uses (2 K. xvi.
15).@ |
The conquest of the ten tribes by Shalmap!
was for them the last scene of the drama of abi’
inations which had been enacted uninterruptt)
for upwards of 250 years. In the northern ki
dom no reformer arose to vary the long line
royal apostates; whatever was effected in the ‘J
of reformation, was done by the hands of the pes
(2 Chr. xxxi. 1). But even in their captivity N
Ieuan URIEAINETMEM Lea setece eet
Ahaz was not directly intended to profane the ter'*
by idolatrous worship. But it is clear that sometl &
of an idolatrous nature had been introduced inte!
temple, and was afterwards removed by Hezekia
Chr. xxix. 5; ef. Ear. vi. 21, ix. 11). It i pos
that this might have reference to the brazen ser
i
IDOLATRY
helped to perpetuate the corruption. The colonists,
whom the Assyrian conquerors placed in their
stead in the cities of Samaria, brought with them
their own gods, and were taught at Bethel by a
riest of the captive nation “the manner of the
God of the land,’’ the lessons thus learnt resulting
in a strange admixture of the calf-worship of Jero-
boam with the homage paid to their national deities
(2 K. xvii. 24-41). Their descendants were in
consequence regarded with suspicion by the elders
who returned from the Captivity with Ezra, aud
their offers of assistance rejected (Ezr. iv. 3).
_ The first act of Hezekiah on ascending the
throne was the restoration and purification of the
‘Temple, which had been dismantled and closed dur-
ing the latter part of his father’s life (2 Chr. xxviii.
24; xxix. 3). The multitudes who flocked to Je-
rusalem to celebrate the passover, so long in abey-
ance, removed the idolatrous altars of burnt-offering
and incense erected by Ahaz (2 Chr. xxx. 14).
The iconoclastic spirit was not confined to Judah
and Benjamin, but spread throughout Ephraim and
Manasseh (2 Chr. xxxi. 1), and to all external ap-
pearance idolatry was extirpated. But the reform
‘extended little below the surface (Is. xxix. 13).
Among the leaders of the people there were many
in high position who conformed to the necessities
of the time (Is. xxviii. 14), and under Manasseh’s
‘gatronage the false worship, which had been merely
Triven into obscurity, broke out with tenfold vir-
‘ilence. Idolatry of every form, and with all the
‘wecessories of enchantments, divination, and witch-
“raft, was again rife; no place was too sacred, no
‘\ssociations too hallowed, to be spared the contam-
‘nation. If the conduct of Ahaz in erecting an
utar in the temple court is open to a charitable con-
truction, Manasseh’s was of no doubtful character.
The two courts of the temple were profaned by
‘tars dedicated to the host of heaven, and the
mage of the Asherah polluted the holy place (2
X. xxi. 7; 2 Chr. xxxiii. 7, 15; ef. Jer. xxxii. 34).
iven in his late repentance he did not entirely de-
troy all traces of his former wrong. The people,
asily swayed, still burned incense on the high
‘laces; but Jehovah was the ostensible object of
Nee? worship. The king’s son sacrificed to his
ather’s idols, but was not associated with him in
‘is repentance, and in his short reign of two years,
‘stored all the altars of the Baalim, and the im-
ges of the Asherah. With the death of Josiah
aded the last effort to revive among the people a
rer ritual, if not a purer faith. The lamp of
avid, which had long shed but a struggling ray,
ickered for a while and then went out in the dark-
ess of Babylonian captivity.
' But foreign exile was powerless to eradicate the
ep inbred tendency to idolatry. One of the first
ficulties with which Ezra had to contend, and
hich brought him well nigh to despair, was the
iste with which his countrymen took them foreign
‘ives of the people of the land, and followed them
‘all their abominations (zr. ix.). The priests
ad rulers, to whom he looked for assistance in his
‘eat enterprise, were among the first to fall away
Jar. ix. 2, x. 18; Neh. vi. 17, 18, xiii. 23). Even
wing the Captivity the devotees of false worship
‘ied their craft as prophets and diviners (Jer. xxix.
_ Ez. xiii.), and the Jews who fled to Egypt car-
*d with them recollections of the material pros-
‘tity which attended their idolatrous sacrifices in
dah, and to the neglect of which they attributed
ar exiled condition (Jer. xliv. 17, 18). The con-
cry
IDOLATRY 11Ya
quests of Alexander in Asia caused Greek influence
to be extensively felt, and Greek idolatry to be first
tolerated, and then practiced, by the Jews (1 Mace.
i. 43-50, 54). The attempt of Antiochus to es-
tablish this form of worship was vigorously resisted
by Mattathias (1 Mace. ii. 23-26), who was joined
in his rebellion by the Assideans (ver. 42), ana
destroyed the altars at which the king commanded
them to sacrifice (1 Mace. ii. 25,45). The erection
of synagogues has been assigned as a reason for the
comparative purity of the Jewish worship after the
Captivity (Prideaux, Connect. i. 374), while an-
other cause has been discovered in the hatred for
images acquired by the Jews in their intercourse
with the Persians.
It has been a question much debated whether
the Israelites were ever so far given up to idolatry
as to lose all knowledge of the true God. It would
be hard to assert this of any nation, and still more
difficult to prove. That there always remained
among them a faithful few, who in the face of
every danger adhered to the worship of Jehovah,
may readily be believed, for even at a time when
Baal worship was most prevalent there were found
seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed before
his image (1 K. xxix. 18). But there is still room
for grave suspicion that among the masses of the
people, though the idea of a supreme Being — of
whom the images they worshipped were but the
distorted representatives — was not entirely lost, it
was so obscured as to be but dimly apprehended.
And not only were the ignorant multitude thus led
astray, but the priests, scribes, and prophets be-
came leaders of the apostasy (Jer. ii. 8). Warbur-
ton, indeed, maintained that they never formally
renounced Jehovah, and that their defection con-
sisted “in joming foreign worship and idolatrous
ceremonies to the ritual of the true God” (Div.
Leg. bk. v. § 3). But one passage in their history,
though confessedly obscure, seems to point to a
time when, under the rule of the judges, “Israel
for many days had no true God, and no teaching
priest, and no law”? (2 Chr. xv. 3). The correl-
ative argument of Cudworth, who contends from
the teaching of the Hebrew doctors and rabbis “ that
the pagan nations, anciently, at least the intelligent
amongst them, acknowledged one supreme God of
the whole world; and that all other gods were but
creatures and inferior ministers,’ is controverted
by Mosheim (Jntell. Syst. i. 4, § 30, and notes).
There can be no doubt that much of the idolatry
of the Hebrews consisted in worshipping the true
God under an image, such as the calves at Bethel
and Dan (Joseph. Ant. viii. 8, § 5: SaudAers érw-
vuwous TH es), and in associating his worship with
idolatrous rites (Jer. xli. 5), and places consecrated
to idols (2 K. xviii. 22). From the peculiarity of
their position they were never distinguished as the
inventors of a new pantheon, nor did they adopt
any one system of idolatry so exclusively as ever to
become identified with it.¢ But they no sooner
came in contact with other nations than they readily
adapted themselves to their practices, the old spirit
of antagonism died rapidly away, and intermarriage
was one step to idolatry.
II. The old religion of the Semitic races con-
sisted, in the opinion of Movers (Phdén. i. c. 5), in
the deification of the powers and laws of nature;
these powers being considered either as distinct and
@ As the Moabites with the worship of Chemosd
(Num, xxi. 29).
1126 IDOLATRY
mdependent, or as manifestations of one supreme
and all-ruling being. In most instances the two
ideas were co-existent. The deity, following human
analogy, was conceived as male and female: the
one representing the active, the other the passive
principle of nature; the former the source of spir-
itual, the latter of physical life. The transference
of the attributes of the one to the other resulted
either in their mystical conjunction in the her-
maphrodite, as the Persian Mithra and Pheenician
Baal, or the two combined to form a third, which
symbolized the essential unity of both@ With
these two supreme beings all other deities are iden-
tical; so that in different nations the same nature-
worship appears under different forms, representing
the various aspects under which the idea of the
power of nature is presented. The sun and moon
were early selected as outward symbols of this all-
pervading power, and the worship of the heavenly
hodies was not only the most ancient but the most
prevalent system of idolatry. Taking its rise, accord-
ing to a probable hypothesis, in the plains of Chal-
deea, it spread through Egypt, Greece, Scythia, and
even Mexico and Ceylon. It was regarded as an of-
jense amenable to the civil authorities in the days of
Job (xxxi. 26-28), and one of the statutes of the
Mosaic law was directed against its observance
(Deut. iv. 19; xvii. 3); the former referring to the
star-worship of Arabia, the latter to the conerete
form in which it appeared among the Syrians and
Pheenicians. It is probable that the Israelites learnt
their first lessons in sun-worship from the Egyp-
tians, in whose religious system that luminary, as
Osiris, held a prominent place. The city of On
(Beth-shemesh or Heliopolis) took its name from
his temple (Jer. xliii. 13), and the wife of Joseph
was the daughter of his priest (Gen. xli. 45). The
Phoenicians worshipped him under the title of
“Lord of heaven,” DY? bya, Baal-shamayim
(BeeAoduny, acc. to Sanchoniatho in Philo Byb-
lius), and Adon, the Greek Adonis, and the Tham-
muz of Ezekiel (viii. 14). [THAmMuz.] As
Molech or Milcom, the sun was worshipped by the
Ammonites, and as Chemosh by the Moabites.
The Hadad of the Syrians is the same deity, whose
name is traceable in Benhadad, Hadadezer, and
Hadad or Adad, the Edomite. The Assyrian Bel
or Belus, is another form of Baal. According to
Philo (de Vit. Cont. § 3) the Essenes were wont
to pray to the sun at morning and evening (Joseph.
B. J. ii. 8, § 5). By the later kings of Judah,
sacred horses and chariots were dedicated to the
sun-god, as by the Persians (2 K. xxiii. 11; Bo-
chart, Hieroz. pt. 1, bk. ii. c. xi.; Selden, de Dis
Syr. ii. 8); to march in procession and greet his
rising (R. Sol. Jarchi on 2 K. xxiii. 11). The
Massagete offered horses in sacrifice to him (Strabo,
xi. p. 513), on the principle enunciated by Macro-
bius (Sat. vii. 7), “like rejoiceth in like’’ (‘ simili-
bus similia gaudent;” cf. Her. i. 216), and the
custom was common to many nations.
The moon, worshipped by the Pheenicians under
the name of Astarte (Lucian, de Dea Syra, c. 4),
@ This will explain the occurrence of the name of
Baal with the masculine and feminine articles in the
UXX.; cf. Hos. xi. 2; Jer. xix. 5; Rom. xi. 4. Phi-
ochorus, quoted by Macrobius (Sat. iii. 8), says that
men and women sacrified to Venus or the Moon, with
the garments of the sexes interchanged, because she
was regarded both as masculine and feminine (see Sel-
den, de Dis Syr. ii. 2). Hence Lunus and Luna.
IDOLATRY
or Baaltis, the passive power of nature, as Baal wr
the active (Movers, i. 149), and known to the Hi
brews as Ashtaroth or Ashtoreth, the tutelary goc
dess of the Zidonians, appears early among th
objects of Israelitish idolatry. But this Syro-Phe
nician worship of the sun and moon was of a gross
character than the pure star-worship of the Mag
which Movers distinguishes as Upper Asiatic ¢
Assyro-Persian, and was equally removed from th
Chaldean astrology and Zabianism of later time:
The former of these systems tolerated no images 0
altars, and the contemplation of the heavenly bodie
from elevated spots constituted the greater part o
its ritual.
But, though we have no positive historical ac
count of star-worship hefore the Assyrian period
we may infer that it was early practiced in a con
crete form among the Israelites from the allusion
in Amos v. 26, and Acts vii. 42, 43. Even in th
desert they are said to have been given up to wor
ship the host of heaven, while Chiun and Remphan
or Rephan, have on various grounds been identifie
with the planet Saturn. It was to counterac
idolatry of this nature that the stringent law o
Deut. xvii. 8 was enacted, and with the view o:
withdrawing the Israelites from undue contempla
tion of the material universe, Jehovah, the God o
Israel, is constantly placed before them as Jehovyal
Zebaoth, Jehovah of Hosts, the king of heave
(Dan. iv. 35, 37), to whom the heaven and _heaye
of heavens belong (Deut. x. 14). However thi
may be, Movers (Phén. i. 65, 66) contends tha
the later star-worship, introduced by Ahaz and fol
lowed by Manasseh, was purer and more spiritua
in its nature than the Israelito~Phcenician worshi:
of the heavenly bodies under symbolical forms a
Baal and Asherah: and that it was not idolatry i:
the same sense that the latter was, but of a simp],
contemplative character. He is supported, to som
extent, by the fact that we find no mention of an
images of the sun or moon or the host of heaven
but merely of vessels devoted to their service (2 K
xxiii. 4). But there is no reason to believe tha
the divine honors paid to the “ Queen of Heaven ’
(or as others render, “the frame” or “ structure 0:
the heavens ”’)> were equally dissociated from imag’
worship. Mr. Layard (én. ii. 451) discovered .
bas-relief at Nimroud, which represented four idol
carried in procession by Assyrian warriors. On
of these figures he identifies with Hera the Assyr
ian Astarte, represented with a star on her hea:
(Am. y. 26), and with the “queen of heaven,’
who appears on the rock-tablets of Pterium “stand
ing erect on a lion, and crowned with a tower, 0/
mural coronet,’’ as in the Syrian temple of Hie
rapolis (/d. p. 456; Lucian, de Dea Syra, 31, 82)
But, in his remarks upon a figure which resemble
the Rhea of Diodorus, Mr. Layard adds, “the a
resentation in a human form of the celestial bodies,
themselves originally but a type, was a corruptio)
which appears to have crept at a later period int)
the mythology of Assyria; for, in the more ancien)
bas-reliefs, figures with caps surmounted by star)
do not occur, and the sun, moon, and planets stan
alone”? (Jd. pp. 457, 458). a
sf
7
b Jer. vii. 18; xliv.19. In the former passage som|
MSS. have nosNby for no>n, a reading sup
ported by the LXX., ™m oTparia, as well as by th
Syr. erdQA9, ptlchon, its equivalent. But in thy
latter they both agree in the rendering “ queen.”
IDOLATRY IDOLATRY 1127
The allusions in Job xxxviii. 31, 32, are too ob-
mre to allow any inference to be drawn as to the
iysterious influences which were held by the old
itrologers to be exercised by the stars over human
xstiny, nor is there sufficient evidence to connect
1em with anything more recondite than the astro-
ymical knowledge of the period. The same may
» said of the poetical figure in Deborah’s chant
‘triumph, ‘the stars from their highways warred
ith Sisera ’’ (Judg. v. 20). In the later times of
ie monarchy, Mazzaloth, the planets, or the zodi-
al signs, received, next to the sun and moon,
eir share of popular adoration (2 K. xxiii. 5);
id the history of idolatry among the Hebrews
ows at all times an intimate connection between
e deification of the heavenly bodies, and the
perstition which watched the clouds for signs,
‘d used divination and enchantments. It was
‘ta step from such culture of the sidereal powers
‘the worship of Gad and Meni, Babylonian divin-
‘2s, symbols of Venus or the moon, as the goddess
‘luck or fortune. Under the latter aspect, the
‘on was reverenced by the Egyptians (Macrob.
‘4. 1, 19); and the name Baal Gad is. possibly an
‘imple of the manner in which the worship of
+ planet Jupiter as the bringer of luck was
\fted on the old faith of the Phcenicians. The
se gods of the colonists of Samaria were probably
imected with eastern astrology: Adrammelech,
‘vers regards as the sun-fire—the Solar Mars,
‘| Anammelech the Solar Saturn (Phdén. i. 410,
\). The Vulgate rendering of Prov. xxvi. 8,
‘cub qui mittit lapidem in acervum Mereurii,”
(ows the Midrash on the passage quoted by Jar-
/ and requires merely a passing notice (see
Hegde Dis Syris, ii. 15; Maim. de Idol. iii
:Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s. v. os 7).
Seast-worship, as exemplified in the calves of
}yboam and the dark hints which seem to point
jihe goat of Mendes, has already been alluded
/ There is no actual proof that the Israelites
| joined in the service of Dagon,® the fish-god
he Philistines, though Ahaziah sent stealthily
(jaal-zebub, the fly-god of Ekron (2 K. i.), and
iter times the brazen serpent became the object
yiolatrous homage (2 K. xviii. 4). But whether
Hatter was regarded with superstitious reverence
» memorial of their early history, or whether
Ase was offered to it as a symbol of some power
Hiture, cannot now be exactly determined. The
Hatening in Lev. xxvi. 30, -‘I will put your car-
8 upon the carcasses of your idols,” may fairly
“ onsidered as directed against the tendency to
td animals, as in Egypt, as the symbols of
K. Tradition says that Nergal, the god of the
N of Cuth, the idol of fire, according to Leusden
11. Hebr. Mizt. Diss. 43), was worshipped under
Horm of a cock; Ashima as a he-goat, the em-
Hof generative power; Nibhaz as a dog; Adram-
eh as a mule or peacock; and Anammelech as
| '8e or pheasant.
ha
Some have explained the allusion in Zeph. i. 9,
S‘ferring to a practice connected with the worship
f) gon; comp. 1 Sam. y. 5. The Syrians, on the
Yority of Xenophon (Anab. i. 4, § 9), paid divine
0'3 to fish.
-erome (Onomast. s. vy. Drys) mentions an oak
Hebron which existed in his infancy, and was the
jonal tree beneath which Abraham dwelt. It
‘garded with great reverence, anil was made an
‘Of Worship by the heathen. Modern Palestine
Of pure hero-worship among the Semitic races
we find no trace. Moses indeed seems to have en-
tertained some dim apprehension that his country-
men might, after his death, pay him more horor:
than were due to man; and the anticipation cf
th‘s led him to review his own conduct in terms of
strong reprobation (Deut. iv. 21, 22). The ex-
pression in Ps. cvi. 28, “the sacrifices of the dead,”
is in all probability metaphorical, and Wisd. xiv.
15 refers to a later practice due to Greek influence.
The rabbinical commentators discover in Gen.
xlviii. 16, an allusion to the worshipping of angels
(Col. ii. 18), while they defend their ancestors from
the charge of regarding them in any other light
than mediators, or intercessors with God (Lewis,
Orig. Hebr. y. 3). It is needless to add that their
inference and apology are equally groundless. With
like probability has been advanced the theory of
the demon-worship of the Hebrews, the only foun-
dation for it being two highly poetical passages
(Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. evi. 37). It is possible that.
the Persian dualism is hinted at in Is. xlv. 7.
But if the forms of the false gods were manifold,
the places devoted to their worship were almost
equally numerous. The singular reverence with
which trees have in all ages been honored is not
without example in the history of the Hebrews.
The terebinth at Mamre, beneath which Abraham
built an altar (Gen. xii. 7, xiii. 18), and the me-
morial grove planted by him at Beer-sheba (Gen.
xxi. 33), were intimately connected with patriarchal
worship, though in after-ages his descendants were
forbidden to do that which he did with impunity,
in order to avoid the contamination of idolatry.é
As a symptom of their rapidly degenerating spirit,
the oak of Shechem, which stood in the sanctuary
of Jehovah (Josh. xxiv. 26), and beneath which
Joshua set up the stone of witness, perhaps appears
in Judges (ix. 37), as “the oak (not ‘plain,’ as in
A. V.) of soothsayers”’ or ‘“ augurs.”’¢ Mouni-
tains and high places were chosen spots for offering
sacrifice and incense to idols (1 K. xi. 7, xiv. 23);
and the retirement of gardens and the thick shade
of woods offered great attractions to their worship-
pers (2 K. xvi. 4; Is. i. 29; Hos. iv. 13). It was
the ridge of Carmel which Elijah selected as the
scene of his contest with the priests of Baal, fight-
ing with them the battle of Jehovah, as it were, on
their own ground. [CARMEL.] Carmel was re-
garded by the Roman historians as a sacred moun-
tain of the Jews (Tac. H. ii. 78; Suet. Vesp. 7).
The host of heaven was worshipped on the house-
top (2 K. xxiii. 12; Jer. xix. 13, xxxii. 29; Zeph.
i. 5). In describing the sun-worship of the Naba-
tei, Strabo (xvi. p. 784) mentions two character-
istics which strikingly illustrate the worship of
Baal. They built their altars on the roofs of
houses, and offered on them incense and libations
daily. On the wall of his city, in the sight of the
besieging armies of Israel and Edom, the king of
Moab offered his eldest son as a burnt-offering.
abounds with sacred trees. They are found ‘all over
the land covered with bits of rags from the garments
of passing villagers, hung up as acknowledgments or
as deprecatory signals and charms: and we find beau-
tiful clumps of oak-trees sacred to a kind otf beings
called Jacob’s daughters’? (Thomson, Land and Book,
ii. 151). (See Grove,]
¢ Unless, indeed, this be a relic of the ancient
Canaanitish worship; an older name associated with
idolatry, which the conquering Hebrews were com:
manded and endeavored to obliterate (Deut. xii. 3)
1128 IDOLATRY
he Persians, who worshipped the sun under the
name of Mithra (Strabo, xv. p. 732), sacrificed on
an elevated spot, but built no altars or images.
The priests of the false worship are sometimes
designated Chemarim, a word of Syriac origin, to
which different meanings have been assigned. It
is applied to the non-Levitical priests who burnt
incense on the high-places (2 K. xxiii. 5) as well
as to the priests of the calves (Hos. x. 5); and the
corresponding word is used in the Peshito (Judg.
xviii. 80) of Jonathan and his descendants, priests
to the tribe of Dan, and in Targ. Onkelos (Gen.
xlvii. 22) of the priests of Egypt. The Rabbis,
followed by Gesenius, have derived it from a root
signifying ‘to be black,” and without any authority
assert that the name was given to idolatrous priests
from the black vestments which they wore. But
white was the distinctive color in the priestly gar-
ments of all nations from India to Gaul, and black
was only worn when they sacrificed to the subter-
ranean gods (Bahr, Symd. ii. 87, &c.). That a
special dress was adopted by the Baal-worshippers,
as well as by the false prophets (Zech. xiii. 4), is
evident from 2 K. x. 22 (where the rendering
should be “the apparel’’): the vestments were
kept in an apartment of the idol temple, under
the charge probably of one of the inferior priests.
Micah’s Levite was provided with appropriate robes
(Judg. xvii. 10). The “foreign apparel,’ men-
tioned in Zeph. i. 8, refers doubtless to a similar
dress, adopted by the Israelites in defiance of the
sumptuary law in Num. xv. 87-40.
In addition to the priests there were other per-
sons intimately connected with idolatrous rites, and
the impurities from which they were inseparable.
Both men and women consecrated themselves to
the service of idols: the former as Ow Ip, kedé-
shim, for which there is reason to believe the A. V.
(Deut. xxiii. 17, &.) has not given too harsh an
equivalent; the latter as VW 1)). kedéshéth. who
wove shrines for Astarte (2 K. xxiii. 7), and re-
sembled the ératpa: of Corinth, of whom Strabo
(viii. p. 378) says there were more than a thousand
attached to the temple of Aphrodite. Egyptian
prostitutes consecrated themselves to Isis (Juv. vi.
489, ix. 22-24). ‘The same class of women existed
among the Pheenicians, Armenians, Lydians, and
Babylonians (Her. i. 93, 199; Strabo, xi. p. 532;
Epist. of Jerem. ver. 43). They are distinguished
from the public prostitutes (Hos. iv. 14) and asso-
ciated with the performances of sacred rites, just
as in Strabo (xii. p. 559) we find the two classes
coexisting at Comana, the Corinth of Pontus,
much frequented by pilgrims to the shrine of Aph-
rodite.¢ The wealth thus obtained flowed into the
treasury of the idol temple, and against such a
practice the injunction in Deut xxiii. 18 is directed.
Dr. Maitland, anxious to defend the moral charac-
ter of Jewish women, has with much ingenuity
attempted to show that a meaning foreign to their
true sense has been attached to the words above
mentioned; and that, though closely associated
with idolatrous services, they do not indicate such
foul corruption (/ssay on False Worship). But
if, as Movers, with great appearance of probability,
has conjectured (Phén. i. 679), the class of persons
a An illustration, though not an example, of this
is found in the modern history of Europe. At a pe-
riod of great profligacy and corruption of morals,
licentiousness was carried to such an excess in Stras-~
IDOLATRY
alluded to was composed of foreigners, the Jey
women in this respect need no such adyoe:
That such customs existed among foreign nati
there is abundant evidence to prove (Lucian,
Syra Dea, c. 5); and from the juxtaposition
prostitution and the idolatrous rites against wl
the laws in Lev. xix. are aimed, it is probable {
next to its immorality, one main reason why it
visited with such stringency was its connec
with idolatry (comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9).
But besides these accessories there were the
dinary rites of worship which idolatrous syst
had in common with the religion of the Hebre
Offering burnt sacrifices to the idol gods 2 K
17), burning incense in their honor (1 K. xi.
and bowing down in worship before their im:
(1 K. xix. 18) were the chief parts of their rit
and from their very analogy with the ceremo
of true worship were more seductive than
grosser forms. Nothing can be stronger or n
positive than the language in which these ¢
monies were denounced by Hebrew law. Ey
detail of idol-worship was made the subject «
separate enactment, and many of the laws, whicl
themselves seem trivial and almost absurd, rec
from this point of view their true significance.
are told by Maimonides (Mor. Neb. c. 12) that
prohibitions against sowing a field with ming
seed, and wearing garments of mixed material, y
directed against the practices of idolaters, 1
attributed a kind of magical influence to the n
ture (Lev. xix. 19; Spencer, de Leg. Hebr. ii. |
Such too were the precepts which forbade that
garments of the sexes should be interchanged (D
xxli. 5; Maimon. de Jdol. xii. 9). According
Macrobius (Sat. iii. 8) other Asiatics when t
sacrificed to their Venus changed the dress of
sexes. ‘The priests of Cybele appeared in wom
clothes, and used to mutilate themselves (Creu
Symb. ii. 84, 42): the same custom was obse)
‘by the Ithyphalli in the rites of Bacchus, anc
the Athenians in their Ascophoria’’ (Young, J
Cor. in Rel. i. 105; ef. Lucian, de Dea Syn
15). To preserve the Israelites from contaminat)
they were prohibited for three years after their (
quest of Canaan from eating of the fruit-trees
the land, whose cultivation had been attended \
magical rites (Lev. xix. 23). They were forbic)
to ‘“‘round the corner of the head,” and to “1
the corner of the beard’’ (Lev. xix. 27), as
Arabians did in honor of their gods (Her. iii. 8
175). Hence, the phrase ISS VEAP |), hetss
phéah, (literally) “ shorn of the corner,” is espec'|
applied to idolaters (Jer. ix. 26, xxv. 23). Spe:
(de Leg. Hebr. ii. 9, § 2) explains the law for
ding the offering of honey (Lev. ii. 11) as inter
to oppose an idolatrous practice. Strabo desc?
the Magi as offering in all their sacrifices libat)
of oil mingled with honey and milk (xv. p. 7)
Offerings in which honey was an ingredient *t
made to the inferior deities and the dead (H
Od. x. 519; Porph. de Antr. Nymph. ec. 17). ?
also the practice of eating the flesh of sacrie
‘over the blood *’ (Lev. xix. 26; Ez. xxxiii. 26,
was, according to Maimonides, common among}
Zabii. Spencer gives a double reason for the
burg that the public prostitutes received the apy
tion of the swallows of the cathedral (Miller, Fat ,
Hist, ii 441).
i
IDOLATRY
nition: that it was a rite of divination, and
rination of the worst kind, a species of necro-
mey by which they attempted to raise the spirits
the dead (comp. Hor. Sat. i. 8). There are
yposed to be allusions to the practice of necro-
ney in Is. Ixv. 4, or at any rate to superstitious
»s in connection with the dead. The grafting
one tree upon another was forbidden, because
ong idolaters the process was accompanied by
ss obscenity (Maim. Mor. Neb. c. 12). Cutting
flesh for the dead (Lev. xix. 28; 1 K. xviii. 28),
| making a baldness between the eyes (Deut.
, 1) were associated with idolatrous rites: the
er being a custom among the Syrians (Sir G.
Ikinson in Rawlinson’s Herod. ii. p. 158, note).
» thrice repeated and much-vexed passage, “Thou
lt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk” (Ex.
i, 19, xxxiv. 26; Deut. xiv. 21), interpreted by
eas a precept of humanity, is explained by
(worth in a very different manner. He quotes
1a Karaite commentary which he had seen in
+ “Tt was a custom of the ancient heathens,
‘n they had gathered in all their fruit, to take
dand boil it in the dam’s milk, and then in a
ical way go about and besprinkle with it all
trees and fields and gardens and orchards;
king by this means they should make them
aify, and bring forth again more abundantly the
wing year”? (On the Lord's Supper, ec. 2).a
law which regulated clean and unclean meats
|. xx. 23-26) may be considered both as a san-
regulation, and also as having a tendency to
tate the Israelites from the surrounding idol-
4
is nations. It was with the same object, in the
on of Michaelis, that while in the wilderness
vat assigned by Lewis (Orig. Hebr. v. 1), that
(og was the symbol of an Egyptian deity, which
i rise to the prohibition in Deut. xxiii. 18.
(ts says the dog was offered in sacrifice to
(ih (i. 404), as swine to the moon and Dionysus
2 Egyptians, who afterwards ate of the flesh
|i. 47; Is. Ixv. 4). Eating of the things
él was a necessary appendage to the sacrifice
)). Hix. xviii. 12, xxxii. 6, xxxiv. 15; Num. xxv.
). Among the Persians the victim was eaten
‘Worshippers, and the soul alone left for the
Strabo, xv. 732). ‘Hence it is that the
¥y of the Jews in worshipping other gods is
n described synecdochically under the notion
iting. Is. lvii. 7, ‘Upon a high and lofty
ain thou hast set thy bed, and thither wentest
1p to offer sacrifice;’ for in those ancient
\ they were not wont to sit at feasts, but lie
m beds or couches. Ez. xxiii. 41: Amos ii.
‘1ey laid themselves down upon clothes laid
ge by every altar,’ 7. e. laid themselves down
of the sacrifice that: was offered on the altar:
ui Ez. xviii. 11° (Cudworth, wt supra, ec. 1;
+ or. viii. 10). The Israelites were forbidden
>| int any mark upon them ”’ (Lev. xix. 28),
4) it was a custom of idolaters to brand upon
sh some symbol of the deity they worshipped,
eal heb tte
’ Thomson mentions a favorite dish among the
D! led lebn immi, to which he conceives allusion
a (Lana and Book, i. 135).
!
IDOLATRY 1129
as the ivy-leaf of Bacchus (3 Mace. ii. 29). Accord-
ing to Lucian (de Dea Syra, 59), all the Assyrians
wore marks of this kind on their necks and wrists
(comp. Is. xliv. 5; Gal. vi. 17; Rev. xiv. Leet);
Many other practices of false worship are alluded
to, and made the subjects of rigorous prohibition
but none are more frequently or more severely de-
nounced than those which peculiarly distinguished
the worship of Molech. It has been attempted to
deny that the worship of this idol was polluted by
the foul stain of human sacrifice, but the allusions
are too plain and too pointed to admit of reasonable
doubt (Deut. xii. 31; 2 K. iii. 27; Jer. vii. aL APs:
evi. 87; Ez. xxiii. 39). Nor was this practice con-
fined to the rites of Molech; it extended to those
of Baal (Jer. xix. 5), and the king of Moab (2 K.
iii. 27) offered his son as a burnt-offering to his
god Chemosh. The Pheenicians, we are told by
Porphyry (de Abstin. ii. c. 56), on occasions of great,
national calamity sacrificed to Kronos one of their
dearest friends. Some allusion to this custom may
be seen in Micah vi. 7. Kissing the images of the
gods (1 K. xix. 18; Hos. xiii. 2), hanging votive
offerings in their temples (1 Sam. xxxi. 10), and
carrying them to battle (2 Sam. v. 21), as the Jews
of Maccabceus’ army did with the things conse-
crated to the idols of the Jamnites (2 Mace. xii.
40), are usages connected with idolatry which are
casually mentioned, though not made the objects
of express legislation. But soothsaying, interpre-
tation of dreams, necromancy, witchcraft, magic,
and other forms of divination, are alike forbidden
(Deut. xviii. 9; 2 K. i.2; Is. Ixv. 4: Ez. xxi. 21).
The history of other nations — and indeed the too
common practice of the lower class of the popula-
tion of Syria at the present day — shows us that
such a statute as that against bestiality (Lev. xviii.
23) was not unnecessary (ef. Her. ii. 46; Rom. i.
26). Purificatory rites in connection with idol-
worship, and eating of forbidden food, were visited
with severe retribution (Is. Ixvi. 17). It is evident,
from the context of Ez. viii. 17, that the votaries
of the sun, who worshipped with their faces to the
east (v. 16), and “ put the branch to their nose,”’
did so in observance of some idolatrous rite. Movers
(Phén. i. 66), unhesitatingly affirms that the
allusion is to the branch Barsom, the holy branch
of the Magi (Strabo, xv. p. 733), while Hivernick
(Comm. zu Ezech. p. 117), with equal confidence,
denies that the passage supports such an inference,
and renders, having in view the lament of the
women for Thammuz, “sie entsenden den Trauer-
gesang zu ihren Zorn.” The waving of a myrtle
branch, says Maimonides (de Idol. vi. 2), accom-
panied the repetition of a magical formula in incan
tations. An illustration of the usage of boughs in
worship will be found in the Greek iketnpia (Aisch.
Lum. 43; Suppl. 192; Schol. on Aristoph. Plut.
383; Porphyr. de Ant. Nymph. c. 33). For detailed
accounts of idolatrous ceremonies, reference must
be made to the articles upon the several idols.
IL. It remains now briefly to consider the light
in which idolatry was regarded in the Mosiac code,
and the penalties with which it was visited. If one
main object of the Hebrew polity was to teach the
unity of God, the extermination of idolatry was but
a subordinate end. Jehovah, the God of the Israel-
ites, was the civil head of the State. He was the
theocratic king of the people, who had delivered
them from bondage, and to whom they had taken a
willing oath of allegiance. They had entered into a
solemn league and covenant with him as their chosen
1130 IDOLATRY
king (comp. 1 Sam. viii. 7), by whom obedience
was requited with temporal blessings, and rebellion
with temporal punishment. This original contract
of the Hebrew government, as it has been termed,
is contained in Ex. xix. 3-8, xx. 2-5; Deut. xxix.
10-xxx.; the blessings promised to obedience are
enumerated in Deut. xxviii. 1-14, and the wither-
ing curses on disobedience in verses 15-68. That
this covenant was faithfully observed it needs but
slight acquaintance with Hebrew history to perceive.
Often broken and often renewed on the part of the
people (Judg. x. 10; 2 Chr. xv. 12, 13; Neh. ix.
38), it was kept with unwavering constancy on the
part of Jehovah. To their kings he stood in the
relation, so to speak, of a feudal superior: they were
his representatives upon earth, and with them, as
with the people before, his covenant was made
(1 K. iii. 14, xi. 11). Idolatry, therefore, to an
Israelite, was a state offence (1 Sam. xv. 23),% a
political crime of the gravest character, high treason
against the majesty of his king. It was a trans-
gression of the covenant (Deut. xvii. 2), “ the evil”
preéminently in the eyes of Jehovah (1 K. xxi. 25,
opp. to TWAT, “the right,” 2 Chr. xxvii. 2).
But it was much more than all this. While the
idolatry of foreign nations is stigmatized merely as
an abomination in the sight of God, which called
for his vengeance, the sin of the Israelites is re-
garded as of more glaring enormity, and greater
moral guilt. In the figurative language of the
prophets, the relation between Jehovah and his
people is represented as a marriage bond (Is. liv. 5;
Jer. iii. 14), and the worship of false gods with all
its accompaniments (Lev. xx. 56) becomes then the
greatest of social wrongs (Hos. ii.; Jer. ili. etc.).
This is beautifully brought out in Hos. ii. 16, where
the heathen name Baali, my master, which the
apostate Israel has been accustomed to apply to her
foreign possessor, is contrasted with Ishi, my man,
my husband, the native word which she is to use
when restored to her rightful husband, Jehovah.
Much of the significance of this figure was unques-
tionably due to the impurities of idolaters, with
whom such corruption was of no merely spiritual
character (Ex. xxxiv. 16; Num. xxv. 1, 2, &c.),
but manifested itself in the grossest and most
revolting forms (Rom. i. 26-82).
Regarded in a moral aspect, false gods are called
“ stumbling blocks ’’ (Ez. xiv. 3), ‘lies’? (Am. ii.
4; Rom. i. 25), “horrors”? or “frights”” (1 K. xv.
18; Jer. 1. 38), “abominations”? (Deut. xxix. 17,
xxxii. 16; 1. K. xi. 53.2 K. xxii, 18), % guilt.”
(abstract for concrete, Am. viii. 14, TVQWRS,
ashmah, comp. 2 Chr. xxix. 18, perhaps with a
play on Ashima, 2 K. xvii. 30), and with a pro-
found sense of the degradation consequent upon
their worship, they are characterized by the prophets,
whose mission it was to warn the people against
them (Jer. xliv. 4), as “‘shame”’ (Jer. xi. 13; Hos.
ix. 10). As considered with reference to Jehovah,
they are ‘‘ other gods ’’ (Josh. xxiv. 2, 16), “strange
gods” (Deut. xxxii. 16), “new gods ” (Judg. v. 8),
“¢ devils, — not God” (Deut. xxxii. 17; 1 Cor. x.
a The point of this verse is lost in the A. V.: it
should be * for the sin of witchcraft (is) rebellion ; and
idolatry (lit. vanity) and teraphim (are) stubbornness.”
The Israelites, contrary to command, had spared of
the spoil of the idolatrous Amalekites to offer to Je-
aovah, and thus associated his worship with that of
lols.
»
io
ae
%
IDOLATRY >
20, 21); and, as denoting their foreign or
“gods of the foreigner’? (Josh. xxiv. 14,
Their powerlessness is indicated by describing f
as ‘“¢gods that cannot save’’ (Is. xlv. 20), «
made not the heavens”? (Jer. x. 11), “nothi
(Is. xli. 24; 1 Cor. viii. 4), “ wind and emptin
(Is. xli. 29), ‘vanities of the heathen” (Jer.
22; Acts xiv. 15); and yet, while their deit
denied, their personal existence seems to haye
acknowledged (Kurtz, Gesch. d. A. B. ii. 86,
though not in the same manner in which the
tentions of local deities were reciprocally recogr
by the heathen (1 K. xx. 23, 28; 2 K. xvii.
Other terms of contempt are employed with r
ence to idols, mye oR, élilim (Ley. xix. 4),
rmovdaba, yilldilim (Deut. xxix. 17), to which
ferent meanings have been assigned, and n
which indicate ceremonial uncleanness. [IDo
1118 0.] !
Idolatry, therefore, being from one point of
a political offense, could be punished withou
fringement of civil rights. No penalties wer
tached to mere opinions. For aught we k
theological speculation may have been as rife a1
the Hebrews as in modern times, though suck
not the tendency of the Semitic mind. It was
however, such speculations, heterodox though
might be, but overt acts of idolatry, which
made the subjects of legislation (Michaelis, .
of Moses, arts. 245, 246). The first and s¢
commandments are directed against idolatr
every form. Individuals and communities
equally amenable to the rigorous code. The,
vidual offender was devoted to destruction (Ex.
20); his nearest relatives were not only bow!
denounce him and deliver him up to punish
(Deut. xiii. 2-10), but their hands were to |
the first blow when, on the evidence of two)
nesses at least, he was stoned (Deut. xvii. }
To attempt to seduce others to false worship |
crime of equal enormity (Deut. xiii. 6-10).
idolatrous nation shared a similar fate. No
are more strongly insisted on in the O. T. thai!
the extermination of the Canaanites was the!
ishment of their idolatry (Ex. xxxiv. 15, 16; }
vii., xii. 29-31, xx. 17), and that the calamit
the Israelites were due to the same cause (J
17). A city guilty of idolatry was looked yy
a cancer of the state; it was considered to
rebellion, and treated according to the laws 0}
Its inhabitants and all their cattle were |
death. No spoil was taken, but everything i)
tained was burnt with itself; nor was it allowe(
rebuilt. (Deut. xiii. 13-18; Josh. vi. 26). Sal
his kingdom, Achan his life, and Hiel his {)
for transgressing this law (1 Sam. xv.; Josl/
1 K. xvi. 84). The silver and gold with }
the idols were covered were accursed (Deut. ))
96). And not only were the Israelites for!
to serve the gods of Canaan (Ex. xxiii, 2/
even to mention their names, that is, to calli
them in prayer or any form of worship (Ex3
Re
b In the A. V. the terms “VJ, ar, “strane ;
D2 or “D2, nécdr or nacri, “ foreign,” ‘|
uniformly distinguished, and the point of @ pale
frequently lost by the interchange of one bili
other, or by rendering both by the same word. °
Ixxxi. 9 should be, “There shall not be in'*
strange god, nor shalt thou worship a foreig” *
i
IDOLATRY
Josh. xxiii. 7).
‘they were to obliterate all traces of the exist-
idolatry; statues, altars, pillars, idol-temples,
n and everything. connected with it,
‘to be swept away (Ex. xxiii. 24, 32, xxxiv.
Deut. vii. 5, 25, xii. 1-3, xx. 17), and the
sand worship of the idols blotted out. Such
the precautions taken by the framer of the
ic code to preserve the worship of Jehovah,
rue God, in its purity. Of the manner in
n his descendants have “ put a fence” about
law” with reference to idolatry, many in-
es will be found in Maimonides (de /dol.).
_ were prohibited from using vessels, scariet
ents, bracelets, or rings, marked with the sign
sun, moon, or dragon (vii. 10); trees planted
-ones erected for idol-worship were forbidden
(5, 10); and, to guard against the possibility
tamination, if the image of an idol were
| among other images intended for ornament,
ie all to be cast into the Dead Sea (vii.
ie
. Much indirect evidence on this subject might
plied by an investigation of proper names.
aayard has remarked, “ According to a custom
(ag from time immemorial in the East, the
of the Supreme Deity was introduced into
ames of men. This custom prevailed from
sinks of the Tigris to the Phcenician colonies
yd the Pillars of Hercules; and we recognize
i Sardanapalus of the Assyrians, and the Han-
if the Carthaginians, the identity of the relig-
ystem of the two nations, as widely distinct
time of their existence as in their geograph-
lisition ” (Nin. ii. 450). The hint which he
iven can be but briefly followed out here.
‘of the sun-worship of the ancient Canaanites
1 in the nomenclature of their country. Beth-
ish, “house of the sun,”’ En-shemesh, “ spring
sun,” and Ir-shemesh, ‘city of the sun,”
ex they be the original Canaanitish names,
ir Hebrew renderings, attest the reverence
(o the source of light and heat, the symbol
fertilizing power of nature. Samson, the
iW national hero, took his name from the
naminary, and was born in a mountain-village
he modern ’.4in Shems (En-shemesh: Thom-
1, md and Bovk, ii. 361). The name of Baal,
}\1-god, is one of the most common occurrence
{pound words, and is often associated with
consecrated to his worship, and of which
iis he was the tutelary deity. Bamoth-baal,
i tigh-places of Baal;” Baal-hermon, Beth-
on, Baal-gad, Baal-hamon, in which com-
‘the names of the sun-god of Phoenicia and
J} we associated, Baal-Tamar, and many others,
ances of this.¢ Nor was the practice con-
40 the names of places: proper names are
ni vith the same elenient. Esh-baal, Ish-baal,
» 2 éxamples. The Amorites, whom Joshua
1 drive out, dwelt on Mount Heres, in Aija-
) the mountain of the sun” [TmorNarH-
|. Here and there we find traces of the
ty made by the Hebrews, on their conquest
‘’ ountry, to extirpate idolatry. Thus Baalah
ith-haal, the town of Baal,’’ became Kir-
On taking possession of the
IDOLATRY 1131
jath-jearim, “the town of forests’’ (Josh. xv. 60).
The Moon, Astarte or Ashtaroth, gave her name to
a city of Bashan (Josh. xiii. 12, 31), and it is not
improbable that the name Jericho may have been
derived from being associated with the worship of
this goddess. [JERIcHO.] Nebo, whether it be
the name under which the Chaldeans worshipped
the Moon or the planet Mercury, enters into many
compounds: Nebu-zaradan, Samgar-nebo, and the
like. Bel is found in Belshazzar, Belteshazzar, and
others. Were Baladan of Semitic origin, it would
probably be derived from Baal-Adon, or Adonis,
the Pheenician deity to whose worship Jer. xxii. 18
seems to refer; but it has more properly been traced
to an Indo-Germanic root. Hadad, Hadadezer,
Benhadad, are derived from the tutelar deity of
the Syrians, and in Nergalsharezer we recognize
the god of the Cushites. Chemosh, the fire-god
of Moab, appears in Carchemish, and Peor in Beth-
peor. Malcom, a name which occurs but once, and
then of a Moabite by birth, may have been con-
nected with Molech and Milcom, the abomination
of the Ammonites. A glimpse of star-worship
may be seen in the name of the city Chesil, the
Semitic Orion, and the month Chisleu, without
recognizing in Rahab “the glittering fragments of
the sea-snake trailing across the northern sky.” It
would perhaps be going too far to trace in En-gedi,
‘spring of the kid,” any connection with the goat-
worship of Mendes, or any relics of the wars of the
giants in Rapha and Rephaim. Friirst, indeed, rec-
ognizes in Gedi, Venus or Astarte, the goddess of
fortune, and identical with Gad (Handw. s. vy.).
But there are fragments of ancient idolatry in other
names in which it is not so palpable. Ish-bosheth
is identical with Esh-baal, and Jerubbesheth with
Jerubbaal, and Mephibosheth and Meribbaal are
but two names for one person (ef. Jer. xi. 13). The
worship of the Syrian Rimmon appears in the
names Hadad-rimmon, and ‘Tabrimmon; and if, as
some suppose, it he derived from {VWA7, Rimmén,
‘a pomegranate-tree,”? we may connect it with the
towns of the same name in Judah and Benjamin,
with En-Rimmon and the prevailing tree-worship.
It is impossible to pursue this investigation to any
length: the hints which have been thrown out may
prove suggestive. Wis Aen
IDU’EL (IdoujA0s: Eccelon), 1 Esdr. viii.
43. [ARIEL, 1.]
IDUME’A [or IDUM’A] (O18 less
frequently OTN, red]: *ISovmala: ldumea,
Edom), Is. xxxiv. 5, 6; Ez. xxxv. 15, xxxxvi. 5; 1
Mace. iv. 15, 29, 61, v. 3, vi. 81; 2 Mace. xii. 32
Mark iii. 8. [Epom.]
IDUME’ANS [or IDUMA’ANS] (oi
"Tdouuator: Ldumeet), 2 Mace. x. 15,16. [Epom-
ITES. ]
VGAL (<>) [whom God redeems or avenges]).
Ll. (IAadaA3 Alex. Iyaa: Jgal.) Son of Joseph,
of the tribe of Issachar, chosen by Moses to repre-
sent that tribe among the spies who went up from
Kadesh to search the Promised Land (Num. xiii.
7).
ut temples in Syria, dedicated to the several
3, did transfer their names to the places where
y ad, is evident from the testimony of Lucian,
* fan himself. His derivation of Hiera from
“le of the Assyrian Hera shows that he was
>. No
trace of the name has yet been discovered in this
direction. G.
JJ’E-A B/ARIM (OMIT ‘99, with the
definite article, Iye ha-Abarim — the heaps, or
ruins, of the further regions: Jerome ad Fabiolam,
acervos lapidum transeuntium: ’Axadyat [Vat.
XadyAe., Alex. Axeayai], and Tai: Jeabarim,
and /ieabarim), one of the later halting places of
the children of Israel as they were approaching
Palestine (Num. xxi. 11; xxxiii. 44). It was next
beyond Oboth, and the station beyond it again was
the Wady Zared —the torrent of the willows —
probably one of the streams which run into the
S. E. angle of the Dead Sea. Between Ije-abarim
and Dibon-gad, which succeeds it in Num. xxxiii.,
the Zared and the Arnon have to be inserted from
the parallel accounts of xxi. and Deut. ii., Dibon-
gad and Almon-Diblathaim, which lay above the
Arnon, having in their turn escaped from the two
last-named narratives. Ije-abarim was on the
boundary — the 8S. E. boundary — of the territory
of Moab; not on the ;asture-downs of the Mishor,
the modern Belka, but in the midbar, the waste
uncultivated “wilderness’’ on its skirts (xxi. 11).
Moab they were expressly forbidden to molest
ILLYRICUM
(Deut. ii. 9-12); but we may perhaps be'al
to conclude from the terms of ver. 13, “no
up’? (2)9), that they had remained on his fr
in Ije-Abarim for some length of time. No
tification of its situation has been attempte
has the name been found lingering in the lo
which, however, has yet to be explored. If
is any connection between the Ije-Abarim ar
Har-Abarim, the mountain-range opposite Je
then Abarim is doubtless a general appellati
the whole of the highland east of the Dead
[ABARIM. ]
The rendering given by the LXX. is remar
Tai is no doubt a version of lye — the Ain
converted into G: but whence does the ’
come? Can it be the vestige of a nachal—
rent’’ or “ wady ’? — once attached to the n
The Targum Pseudojon. has Meshre Megizi
the plain of shearing — which is equally puzi
In Num. xxxiii. 45 it is given in the s
form of Ii. :
VION (JY, ruin: ’Aty and ’Aidy;
K., Alex. Naty; in 2 Chr., Vat. Iw:] .
[Aion]), a town in the north of Palestine, b.
ing to the tribe of Naphtali. It was take
plundered by the captains of Benhadad, alon;
Dan and other store-cities of Naphtali (1)
20; 2 Chr. xvi. 4). It was plundered a §
time by Tiglath-pileser (2 K. xv. 29). W
no further mention of it in history. At th)
of the mountains of Naphtali, a few miles ]|
of the site of Dan, is a fertile and beautifu!
plain called Mery ’Aytin (yy pat ‘g om
Arabic word S, gat, though different in mei
is radically identical with the Heb. }?Y):
near its northern end is a large mound calle’
Dibbin. The writer visited it some years ag:
found itere the traces of a strong and ancien’
This, in all probability, is the site of the lo!
Ijon (Robinson’s Bibl. Res., iii. 875). J. Li
IK’KESH (UPD [perverse, a
“Iona, “Exkts, "Exnys; Alex. Exkas, [E)
Vat. FA. in 1 Chr., Exrns:] Acces), the |
of Ira the Tekoite, one of the heroes of I!
guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 26; 1 Chr. xi. 28, xxvt}
VLAL [2 syl] (“2° [most high, ex?
"HAL; [Vat. FA. HAes | Jlai), an Ahohite, f
the heroes of David’s guard (1 Chr. xi. 29)
the list of 2 Sam. xxiii. the name is given):
mon. Kennicott (Dissertation, pp. 187-9)?
ines the variations at length, and decides 4
of Ilai as the original name. ;
ILLYR/ICUM (1Aavpixdy), an extensilt
trict lying along the eastern coast of the A
from the boundary of Italy on the north to }
on the south, and contiguous to Mesia and 2
donia on the east: it was divided by the rive!”
into two portions, Ilyris Barbara, the nof
and Illyris Greeca, the southern. Within}
limits was included Dalmatia, which app
have been used indifferently with Llyricun?
portion, and ultimately for the whole of tl?
trict. St. Paul records that he preached the
pel “round about unto Illyricum ” (Rom. x
he probably uses the term in its most ex)
sense, and the part visited (if indeed he #
> =
i
IMAGE
undary at all) would have been about Dyr-
m. VW orlaickts
1 Rom. xv. 19 Paul speaks of his having
‘ed the gospel “from Jerusalem and round
unto Illyricum.”” We have no account in
‘ots of the Apostles of any journey to that
‘ee. It is a question of interest whether we
sert this journey in the history so as to bring
ts and the Epistles into accordance with
‘ther on this point. Ilyricum lay on the
‘ie, west of Macedonia. Paul now was in
‘onia only three times during his ministry.
uld not have gone to Illyricum when he was
first; for the course of his journey at that
; minutely traced in the Acts from his land-
:Neapolis to his leaving Corinth on his return
to Palestine. In going south on that occa-
» moved along the eastern side of the penin-
nd was kept at a distance from Illyricum
wi. 12 ff.). Nor, again, could it have been
ue passed through Macedonia on his return
from Greece at the time of his last journey
salem (Acts xx. 1 ff.); for the excursion to
‘m must have preceded this return. He
‘en written the Epistle to the Romans, in
he speaks of having already been to Illyr-
and that epistle he wrote at Corinth just
pe departure thence for Macedonia (see
jcvi. i. 23, and comp. 1 Cor. i. 14). His
her visit to Macedonia was the intermediate
en he came to that region from Troas on
\7 to southern Greece (Acts xx. 1,2). No
if is made of Ilyricum at that time, but in
ing the circuit of the Apostle’s labors here,
i the comprehensive expression, *‘ those
(ra wépn éxetva). We may assume, there-
it one of the “ parts,’”’ or regions, was Illyr-
vhich was adjacent to Macedonia; and so
Hie more, because the chronology of this por-
Paul’s life allows us to assign the ample
) three or four months to just these labors
\hern Greece before he proceeded to Achaia
ith. Thus the epistle and the history, so
ete and obscure apart from each other, form
it whole when brought together, and that
/mbination of circumstances, of which the
ters could have had no thought when they
M their different accounts. Lardner pro-
4 this geographical and_ historical coinci-
ufficiently important to authenticate the
arrative of Paul’s travels as related in the
i
;, the Apostles. 38
GE. [Ivou.]
MAGERY, CHAMBERS OF, or
*S of images (Ezek. viij. 12). The Hebrew
NW NTWID WS, and of this a literal
son would be: “Each one in the chamber
Pi ment of his imagery.’’ Many of the com-
‘rs transfer the suffix pronoun to the first
yd render: “ Each one in his apartment of
{ (see Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and others).
pronoun may perhaps be added to the last
1) show that different persons had different
tof worship. The whole passage (vv. 7-12
IS) represents a scene of idolatrous worship
“198 disclosed to the prophet as through a
or of entrance (vv. 7,8). On the walls
‘partment were portrayed “every form of
thing and abominable beasts, and all the
she house of Israel” (ver. 10); and seventy
IMMANUEL 1138
men of the elders of the house of Israel (according
to the number of the Sanhedrim), with their presi
dent (Jaazaniah) stood before these pictures, each
with his censer in his hand, and oftered incense
(ver. 11). That this idol worship was introduced
from Egypt is plain from the kind of objects por-
trayed, as indicated in ver. 10; whilst in subsequent
verses idolatrous practices which had crept in from
Pheenicia (ver. 14) and Persia (ver. 16), are brought
to view. A similar chamber of imagery is referred
to in Ez. xxiii. 14: “« Where she saw men portrayed
upon the wall, the images of the Chaldzans por-
trayed with vermilion,”’ etc. Representations found
among the ruins of Nineveh, as well as in Egypt,
furnish good illustrations of the practices here
referred to. Des Cry
IMW’LA (NUD [ filled, full; or fulfilier]:
"TeuBAd; [Vat. IleuBaraas, leuBdAaa;| Alex. Ieu-
Aa: Jemla), father or progenitor of Micaiah, the
prophet of Jehovah, who was consulted by Ahab
and Jehoshaphat before their fatal expedition to
Ramoth-gilead (2 Chr. xviii. 7, 8). The form —
IW’LAH (Caes=be "IeuBAad; [Vat. leuas,
Ieuia;] Alex. Ieuaa: Jemla) is employed in the
parallel narrative (1 K. xxii. 8, 9).
IMMANUEL (USANDY [with us God], or
in two words in many MSS. and editions 1212Y
ON > ’EumavoundA: Lmmanuel), the symbolical
name given by the prophet Isaiah to the child who
was announced to Ahaz and the people of Judah,
as the sign which God would give of their deliver-
ance from their enemies (Is. vii. 14). It is applied
by the Apostle Matthew to the Messiah, born of
the Virgin (Matt. i. 23). By the LXX. in one
passage (Is. vii. 14), and in both passages by the
Vulg., Syr., and Targ., it is rendered as a proper
name; but in Is. viii. 8 the LXX. translate it lit-
erally wed’ 7udv 6 Oeds. The verses in question
have been the battle-field of critics for centuries,
and in their discussions there has been no lack of
the odiwm theologicum. As early as the times of
Justin Martyr the Christian interpretation was
attacked by the Jews, and the position which they
occupied has of late years been assumed by many
continental theologians. Before proceeding to a
discussion, or rather to a classification of the nu-
merous theories of which this subject has been the
fruitful source, the circumstances under which the
prophecy was delivered claim especial consideration.
In the early part of the reign of Ahaz the king-
dom of Judah was threatened with annihilation by
the combined armies of Syria and Israel. A hun-
dred and twenty thousand of the choice warriors
of Judah, all “sons of might,’’ had fallen in one
day’s battle. The Edomites and Philistines had
thrown off the yoke (2 Chr. xxviii.). Jerusalem
was menaced with a siege; the hearts of the king
and of the people “shook, as the trees of a forest
shake before the wind”? (Is. vii. 2). The king had
gone to “ the conduit of the upper pool,’’ probably
to take measures for preventing the supply of water
from being cut off or falling into the enemy’s hand,
when the prophet met him with the message of
consolation. Not only were the designs of the hos-
tile armies to fail, but within sixty-five years the
kingdom of Israel would be overthrown. In con-
firmation of his words, the prophet bids Ahaz ask
a sign of Jehovah, which the king, with pretended
1134 IMMANUEL
humility, refused to do. After administering a
severe rebuke to Ahaz for his obstinacy, Isaiah an-
nounces the sign which Jehovah himself would
give unasked: “behold! the virgin (TMpbyT,
hd’ almah)@ ig with child and beareth a son, and
she shall call his name Jmmanuel.”’
The interpreters of this passage are naturally
divided into three classes, each of which admits of
subdivisions, as the differences in detail are numer-
ous ‘The first class consists of those who refer the
fulfillment of the prophecy to an historical event,
which followed immediately upon its delivery. ‘The
majority of Christian writers, till within the last
fifty years, form a second class, and apply the
prophecy exclusively to the Messiah, while a third
class, almost equally numerous, agree in considering
both these explanations true, and hold that the
prophecy had an immediate and literal fulfillment,
but was completely accomplished in the miraculous
conception and birth of Christ. Among the first
are numbered the Jewish writers of all ages, with-
out ,exception. Jerome refutes, on chronological
grounds, a theory which was current in his day
amongst the Jews, that the prophecy had reference
to Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, who from a compar-
ison of 2 K. xvi. 2 with xviii. 2, must have been
nine years old at the time it was delivered. The
force of his argument is somewhat weakened by
the evident obscurity of the numbers in the pas-
sages in question, from which we must infer that
Ahaz was eleven years old at the time of Hezekiah’s
birth. By the Jews in the middle ages this ex-
planation was abandoned as untenable, and in con-
sequence some, as Jarchi and Aben Ezra, refer the
prophecy to ason of Isaiah himself, and others to
a son of Ahaz by another wife, as Kimchi~and
Abarbanel. In this case, the ‘almdh is explained
as the wife or betrothed wife of the prophet, or as
a later wife of Ahaz. Kelle (Gesen. Comm. tiber
den Jesaia) degrades her to the third rank of ladies
in the harem (comp. Cant. vi. 8). Hitzig (der
Proph. Jesaia) rejects Gesenius’ application of
’almah to a second wife of the prophet, and inter-
prets it of the prophetess mentioned in viii. 3.
Hendewerk (des Proph. Jesaia Weissag.) follows
Gesenius. In either case, the prophet is made to
fulfill his own prophecy. Isenbiehl, a pupil of
Michaelis, defended the historical sense with con-
siderable learning, and suffered unworthy persecu-
tion for expressing his opinions. The ’almdh in
his view was some Hebrew girl who was present at
the colloquy between Isaiah and Ahaz, and to
whom the prophet pointed as he spoke. ‘This opin-
ion was held by Bauer, Cube, and Rosenmiiller
(Ist ed.). Michaelis, Eichhorn, Paulus, and Am-
mon, give her a merely ideal existence; while
Umbreit allows her to be among the bystanders,
but explains the pregnancy and birth as imaginary
only. Interpreters of the second class, who refer
the prophecy solely to the Messiah, of course un-
derztand by the ’almdh the Virgin Mary. Among
these, Vitringa (Obs. Sacr. v. c. 1) vigorously op-
poses those, who, like Grotius, Pellicanus, and
Tirinus, conceded to the Jews that the reference to
Christ Jesus was not direct and immediate, but by
a *Alméh denotes a girl of marriageable age. but
not married, and therefore a virgin by implication.
It is never even used, as ra es me bethulah, which
2 ;
more directly expresses virginity, of a bride or be-
xrothed wife (Joel i 8). ’Almah and bethilah are both
IMMANUEL
way of typical allusion. For, he ma
young married woman of the time of A
Isaiah could not be a type of the Virgir
could her issue by her husband be a figure ¢
child to be born of the Virgin by the operati
the Holy Ghost. Against this hypothesis
solely Messianic reference, it is objected tha
birth of the Messiah could not be a sign of
erance to the people of Judah in the time of.
In reply to this, Theodoret advances the o;
that the birth of the Messiah involved the e
vation of the family of Jesse, and therefore }
plication of the Jewish state. Cocceius argi
the same side, that the sign of the Messiah's
would intimate that in the interval the kin
and state of the Jews could not be alienated
God, and besides it confirms ver. 8, indicatin;
before the birth of Christ Judea should n
subject to Syria, as it was when Archelau
removed and it was reduced to the form of :
man province. Of all these explanations Vit
disapproves, and.states his own conclusion, ’
is also that of Calvin and Piscator, to be th
lowing: In vv. 14-16, the prophet gives a
to the pious in Israel of their deliverance frox
impending danger, and in ver. 17, &c., anno
the evils which the Assyrians, not the Sy
should inflict upon Ahaz and such of his peo
resembled him. As surely as Messiah wou
born of the Virgin, so surely would God deliy
Jews from the threatened evil. ‘The princi
interpretation here made use of is founded b;
vin on the custom of the prophets, who coni
special promises by the assurance that God
send a redeemer. But this explanation in
another difficulty, besides that which arises
the distance of the event predicted. Befo1
child shall arrive at years of discretion the pi
announces the desolation of the land whose
threatened Ahaz. By this Vitringa under,
that no more time would elapse before the |
event was accomplished than would interve)
tween the birth and youth of Immanuel, A
ment too far-fetched to have much weight. |
stenberg (Christology, ii. 44-66, Eng. trans.|
ports to the full the Messianic interpretatio!
closely connects vii. 14 with ix. 6. He 3)
frankly that the older explanation of vv. ;
has exposed itself to the charge of being arb!
and confidently propounds his own met
moving the stumbling-block. Jn ver. J
prophet had seen the birth of the Messiah ai)
ent. Holding fast this idea and expanding
prophet makes him who has been born acco!
the people through all the stages of its exi
We have here an ideal anticipation of the?
carnation. . . . . What the prophet mearé
intends to say here is, that, in the space of ¢
twelvemonth, the overthrow of the hostile kin
would already have taken place. As the}
sentative of the contemporaries, he brings ff
the wonderful child who, as it were, form)
soul of the popular life. . . . . . In the subs!
prophecy, the same wonderful child, grown ™
a warlike hero, brings the deliverance from +?
and the world’s power represented by it.”
Maes
applied to Rebekah (Gen. xxiv. 16, 48), a8 app!
convertible terms ; and in addition to the eviden’
the cognate languages, Arabic and Syriac, we h
testimony of Jerome (on Is. vii. 14) that in!
ana denoted a virgin. !
a
7
IMMER
INCENSE 1135
ied professor thus admits the double sense in | foreign wives (Ezr. x. 20). But it is remarkable
ease of Asshur, but denies its application to! that the name is omitted from the list of those who
vanuel. It would be hard to say whether text
momentary be the more obscure.
1 view of the difficulties which attend these
gnations of the prophecy, the third class of
spreters above alluded to have recourse to a
ry which combines the two preceding, namely,
hypothesis of the double sense. They suppose
the immediate reference of the prophet was to
contemporary occurrence, but that his words
yed their true and full accomplishment in the
.of the Messiah. Jerome (Comm. in Esaiam,
(4) mentions an interpretation of some Juda-
that Immanuel was the son of Isaiah, born
ae prophetess, as a type of the Saviour, and
his name indicates the calling of the nations
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
ething of the same kind is proposed by. Dathe;
8 opinion “the miracle, while it immediately
‘eted the times of the prophet, was a type of
dirth of Christ of the Virgin Mary.” Dr. Pye
‘h conjectured that it had an immediate refer-
‘to Hezekiah, “the virgin” being the queen
‘haz; but, like some other prophetic testimo-
‘had another and a designed reference to some
‘ter circumstance, which when it occurred
4 be the veal fulfillment, answering every fea-
and filling up the entire extent of the original
eation (Scrip. Test. to the Messiah, i. 357, 3d
\ A serious objection to the application of the
‘neey to Hezekiah has already been mentioned.
ticott separates ver. 16 from the three preced-
‘applying the latter to Christ, the former to
‘on of Isaiah (Sermon on Is. vii. 13-16).
‘ch in brief are some of the principal opinions
1 have been held on this important question.
). the manner in which the quotation occurs
att. i. 23, there can be no doubt that the
gelist did not use it by way of accommodation,
is having in view its actual accomplishment.
tever may have been his opinion as to any
mporary or immediate reference it might con-
ithis was completely obscured by the full
iction that burst upon him when he realized
sompletion in the Messiah. What may have
‘the light in which the promise was regarded
e prophet’s contemporaries we are not in a
¥on to judge; the hypothesis of the double
satisfies most of the requirements of the prob-
‘nd as it does less violence to the text than
«shers which have been proposed, and is at the
1 time supported by the analogy of the Apos-
quotations from the O. T. (Matt. ii. 15, 18,
v. 15), we accept it as approximating most
7 to the true solution.
.
UMER (WSS [perh. talkative, Dietr. Ges. ;
N iment, high, Fiirst]:’Euwhp; [in 1 Chr. ix. 12,
Eunp; Neh. xi. 13, Vat. Alex. FA. omit:]
‘@), apparently the founder of an important
‘7 of priests, although the name does not occur
'/y genealogy which allows us to discover his
it from Aaron (1 Chr. ix. 12; Neh. xi. 13).
‘family had charge of, and gave its name to,
xteenth course of the service (1 Chr. xxiv. 14).
| them came Pashur, chief governor of the
€| le in Jeremiah’s time, and his persecutor (Jer.
They returned from Babylon with Zerub-
and Jeshua (Ezr. ii. 37; Neh. vii. 40). Zadok
‘wner repaired his own house (Neh. iii. 29),
“v¢ other priests of the family put away their
~
a
P
sealed the covenant with Nehemiah, and also of
those who came up with Zerubbabel and Jeshua,
and who are stated to have had descendants sur-
viving in the next generation — the days of Joiakim
(see Neh. xii. 1, 10, 12-21). [Emmerr.] Different
from the foregoing must be —
2. (Euunp, “leunp; [in Ezr., Vat. Ewnp; in
Neh., Alex. Ieuunp:] “mer, [Lmmer]), apparently
the name of a place in Babylonia from which cer-
tain persons returned to Jerusalem with the first
caravan, who could not satisfactorily prove their
genealogy (Ezr. ii. 59; Neh. vii. 61). In 1 Esdras
the name is given as ’AaAdp.
IWNA (D2. [holding back]: “Ipavd :
Jemna), a descendant of Asher, son of Helem, and
one of the “chief princes ’’ of the tribe (1 Chr. vii.
35; comp. +0).
IM’NAH (i737) [luck, success]: *Ieuvd;
[Vat. Iviva:] Jemna). 1. The first-born of Asher
(1 Chr. vii. 80). In the Pentateuch the name
(identical with the present) is given in the A. V.
as JIMNAH.
2. [Vat. Aiwayv.] Kore ben-Imnah, the Levite,
assisted in the reforms of Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxxi.
14).
* IMPLEAD (A. V. Acts xix. 88) is a tech-
nical term (like Luke’s éyxadcitwoay), signifying
‘to accuse,’’ or “ prosecute ’’ by a due course of law.
The proper word occurs in the proper place. It is
the city-councilor who speaks in that passage (see
in loc.), pointing out to the Ephesians the lawful
remedy for their grievances as opposed to one un-
lawful. EE
* IMPORTABLE occurs in the Prayer of
Manasses: = importabilis in the Vulg. 7. e. insup-
portable, unendurable, said of the divine threaten-
ing. The word is now obsolete in that sense.
Fi.
* IMPOTENT (from
sacrifice, when the watchman set for the pury}
announced the break of day (Mishna, Yoma, .
1, 5). When the lamps were lighted “ between »
evenings,’ after the evening sacrifice and bel}
the drink-offerings were offered, incense was agi
burnt on the golden altar, which “belonged to »
oracle” (1 K. vi. 22), and stood before the |
which separated the holy place from the Holy’
Holies, the throne of God (Rev. viii. 4; Philos
Anim. idon. § 8). |
When the priest entered the holy place with
incense, all the people were removed from ‘
temple, and from between the porch and the a!
(Maimon. Timid. Umus. iii. 3; ef. Luke i. 1.
The incense was then brought from the house’
Abtines in a large vessel of gold called *)2 (cay
in which was a phial (“J°32, bdazic, properly 1
salver"’) containing the incense (Mishna, Tan,
v. 4). The assistant priests who attended to ?
lamps, the clearing of the golden altar from ?
cinders, and the fetching fire from the altar
burnt-offering, performed their offices singly, bov!
towards the ark of the covenant, and left the ly
place before the priest, whose lot it was to 0!
incense, entered. Profound silence was obser!
among the congregation who were praying with!
(cf. Rev. viii. 1), and at a signal from the pre!
the priest cast the incense on the fire (Mish)
Tamid, vi. 3), and bowing reverently towards ?
Holy of Holies retired slowly backwards, not |;
longing his prayer that he might not alarm ?
congregation, or cause them to fear that he
been struck dead for offering unworthily (Lev. *
13; Luke i. 21: Mishna, Yoma, y. 1). When}
came out he pronounced the blessing in Num.
24-26, the ““magrephah ” sounded, and the Lev?
burst forth into song, accompanied by the full s)
of the temple music, the sound of which, say ’
Rabbins, could be heard as far as Jericho (Mish
Tamid, iii. 8). It is possible that this may’
ee
INCENSE
ded to in Rev. viii. 5. The priest then emptied
censer in a clean place, and hung it on one of
horns of the altar of burnt-offering.
In the day of atonement the service was dif-
nt. The high-priest, after sacrificing the bullock
a sin-offering for himself and his family, took
hes in his left hand and a golden shovel filled
im live coals from the west side of the brazen
r (Jarehi on Lev. xvi. 12) in his right, and
.t into the Holy of Holies. He then placed the
vel upon the ark between the two bars. In the
nd temple, where there was no ark, a stone was
stituted. Then sprinkling the incense upon the
8, he stayed till the house was filled with smoke,
_ walking slowly backwards came without the
_where he prayed for a short time (Maimonides,
n hakkippur, quoted by Ainsworth on Lev.
3 Outram de Sacrificiis, i. 8, § 11).
he offering of incense has formed a part of the
‘ious ceremonies of most ancient nations. The
ptians burnt resin in honor of the sun at its
ig, myrrh when in its meridian, and a mixture
‘d Kuphi at its setting (Wilkinson, Anc. /g.
(5). Plutarch (de /s. et Os. c. 52, 80) describes
‘hi as a mixture of sixteen ingredients. “In
| temple of Siva incense is offered to the Lingam
i imes in twenty-four hours’* (Roberts, Orient.
(. p. 468). It was an element in the idolatrous
y hip of the Israelites (Jer. xi. 12, 17, xlviii. 35;
i. xxxiv. 25).
‘ith regard to the symbolical meaning of in-
dy, opinions have been many and widely differ-
' While Maimonides regarded it merely as a
€ me designed to counteract the effluvia arising
“the beasts which were slaughtered for the
a sacrifice, other interpreters have allowed their
( inations to run riot, and vied with the wildest
| lations of the Midrashim. Philo ( Quis rer.
ver. sit, § 41, p. 501) conceives the stacte and
ha to be symbolical of water and earth; gal-
4m and frankincense of air and fire. Josephus,
living the traditions of his time, believed that
wagredients of the incense were chosen from the
iis are of God and for God (B. J.v. 5,§ 5). As
¢-mple or tabernacle was the palace of Jehovah,
heocratic king of Israel, and the ark of the
ant his throne, so the incense, in the opinion
e, corresponded to the perfumes in which the
“ous monarchs of the East delighted. It may
€ all this, but it must mean much more.
M18, on Ex. xxx. 1, says the mystical significa-
8 “sursum habenda corda.” Cornelius a
}?, on Ex. xxx. 34, considers it as an apt
nim of propitiation, and finds a symbolical
ng in the several ingredients. Fairbairn
( logy of Scripture, ii. 320), with many others,
olupon prayer as the reality of which incense
' symbol, founding his conclusion upon Ps.
il; Rey. v. 8, viii. 3, 4. Bahr (Symb. d. Mos.
ul vol. i., vi. § 4) opposes this view of the sub-
cin the ground that the chief thing in offering
2, is not the producing of the smoke, which
*s| like prayer towards heaven, but the spread-
z) the fragrance. His own exposition may be
mid up as follows. Prayer, among all oriental
tl3, signifies calling upon the name of God.
le dest prayers consisted in the mere enumera-
the several titles of God. The Scripture
"incense in close relationship to prayer, so
Mt fering incense is synonymous with worship. |
INDIA 1137
Hence incense itself is a symbol of the name of
God. The ingredients of the incense correspond
severally to the perfections of God, though it is
impossible to decide to which of the four names of
God each belongs. Perhaps stacte corresponds to
m7 (Jehovah), onycha to DYTON (Eléhin),
galbanum to YT (chai), and frankincense to wtp
(kddésh). Such is Bihr’s exposition of the sym-
bolism of incense, rather ingenious than logical.
Looking upon incense in connection with the other
ceremonial observances of the Mosaic ritual, it
would rather seem to be symbolical, not of prayer
itself, but of that which makes prayer acceptable,
the intercession of Christ. In Rey. viii. 3, 4, the
incense is spoken of as something distinct from,
though offered with, the prayers of all the saints
(cf. Luke i. 10); and in Rev. v. 8 it is the golden
vials, and not the odors or incense, which are said
to be the prayers of saints. Ps. cxli. 2, at. first
sight, appears to militate against this conclusion;
but if it be argued from this passage that incense
is an emblem of prayer, it must also be allowed
that the evening sacrifice has the same symbolical
meaning. Westie Wie
IN’DIA (A717, ie. Hoddu: 4 IvBiueh: India)
The name of India does not occur in the Bible be.
fore the book of Esther, where it is noticed as the
limit of the territories of Ahasuerus in the east, as
Ethiopia was in the west (i. 1; viii. 9); the names
are similarly connected by Herodotus (vii. 9), The
Hebrew form “ Hoddu’’ is an abbreviation of
Honadu, which is identical with the indigenous
names of the river Indus, “‘ Hindu,” or « Sindhu,”
and again with the ancient name of the country as
it appears in the Vendidad, “ Hapta Hendu.”’ The
native form “ Sindus ”’ is noticed by Pliny (vi. 23)
The India of the book of Esther is not the penin-
sula of Hindostan, but the country surrounding the
Indus — the Punjab, and perhaps Scinde — the
India which Herodotus describes (iii. 98) as form-
ing part of the Persian empire under Darius, and
the India which at a later period was conquered by
Alexander the Great. The name occurs in the
inscriptions of Persepolis and Nakhsh-i-Rustam,
but not in those of Behistfin (Rawlinson, Herod. ii.
485). In 1 Mace. viii. 8, India is reckoned among
the countries which Eumenes, king of Pergamus,
received out of the former possessions of Antiochus
the Great. It is clear that India proper cannot be
understood, inasmuch as this never belonged either
to Antiochus or Eumenes. At the same time none
of the explanations offered by commentators are
satisfactory: the Eneti of Paphlagonia have been
suggested, but these people had disappeared long
before (Strab. xii. 534): the India of Xenophon
(Cyrop. i. 5, § 8, iii. 2, § 25), which may have been
above the Carian stream named Indus (Plin. y. 29,
probably the Calbis), is more likely; but the emen-
dation “ Mysia and Ionia” for Media and India,
offers the best solution of the difficulty. [Ionra.]
A more authentic notice of the country occurs in
1 Mace. vi. 37, where Indians are noticed as the
drivers of the war-elephants introduced into the
army of the Syrian king. (See also 1 Esdr. iii. 2;
Esth. xiii. 1; xvi. 1.)
But though the name of India occurs so seldom,
the people and productions of that country must
have been tolerably well known to the Jews. There
is undoubted evidence that an active trade was
carried on between India and Western Asia: the
1138 INFIDEL
Tyrians established their depdts on the shores of
the Persian Gulf, and procured ‘horns of ivory and
ebony,’ “broidered work and rich apparel”? (Ez.
xxvil. 15, 24), by a route which crossed the Arabian
desert by land, and then followed the coasts of the
Indian ocean by sea. The trade opened by Solomon
with Ophir through the Red Sea chiefly consisted
of Indian articles, and some of the names even of
the articles, alywmmim, “sandal wood,’’? kophim,
“apes,” thucciim, * peacocks,”’ are of Indian origin
(Humboldt, Kosmos, ii. 133); to which we may
add the Hebrew name of the ‘topaz,’ pitdah,
derived from the Sanscrit pita. There is a strong
probability that productions of yet greater utility
were furnished by India through Syria to the shores
of Europe, and that the Greeks derived both the
term kagutrepos (comp. the Sanscrit kastira), and
the article it represents, “tin,’’ from the coasts of
India. The connection thus established with India
led to the opinion that the Indians were included
under the ethnological title of Cush (Gen. x. 6),
and hence the Syrian, Chaldean, and Arabic ver-
sions frequently render that term by India or In-
dians, as in 2 Chr. xxi. 16; Is. xi. 11, xviii. 1;
Jer. xiii. 23; Zeph. iii. 10. For the connection
which some have sought to establish between India
and Paradise, see EpeN. [See on this word
Roediger’s Addit. ad Ges. Thes. p. 83. — H.]
Wi (Bs
* INFIDEL, known to our Bible phraseology
only in 2 Cor. vi.15,and 1 Tim. v. 8. Instead of
this positive term the privative “ unbeliever ”
(arioros) is more correct, a distinction elsewhere
observed in the rendering. The A. V. misses also
the alliteration in the former of the above passages.
INHERITANCE. [Herr]
INK, INKHORN. [Wrrrine.]
INN (a1, malin: karddupa, mavdoKetoy).
‘The Hebrew word thus rendered literally signifies
“a lodging-place for the night.”"¢ Inns, in our
sense of the term, were, as they still are, unknown
in the East, where hospitality is religiously practiced.
The khans, or caravanserais, are the representatives
of European inns, and these were established but
gradually. It is doubtful whether there is any
allusion to them in the Old Testament. The
halting-place of a caravan was selected originally
on account of its proximity to water or pasture, by
which the travellers pitched their tents and passed
the night. Such was undoubtedly the “inn” at
which occurred the incident in the life of Moses,
narrated in Ex. iv. 24. It was probably one of the
halting-places of the Ishmaelitish merchants who
traded to Egypt with their camel-loads of spices.
Moses was on his journey from the land of Midian,
and the merchants in Gen. xxxvii. are called indis-
criminately Ishmaelites and Midianites. At one
of these stations, too, the first which they reached
after leaving the city, and no doubt within a short
distance from it, Joseph’s brethren discovered that
their money had been replaced in their wallets
(Gen. xlii. 27).
Increased commercial intercourse, and in later
a In the language of the A. V. to lodge ” has the
force of remaining for the night. The word bie, is
rendered in 1 K. xix. 9 “lodge;” in Gen. xix. 2
* tarry all night ; ”’ comp. also Jer. xiv. 8, &c.
6 The erection of hospitals in the middle ages was |
.
INN _
times religious enthusiasm for pilgrimages ® ,
rise to the establishment of more permanent aec
modation for travellers. On the more frequer
routes, remote from towns (Jer. ix. 2), caravange
were in course of time erected, often at the expe
of the wealthy. The following description of
of those on the road from Baghdad to Babylon.
suffice for all: “It is a large and substar
square building, in the distance resembling a
tress, being surrounded with a lofty wall,
flanked by round towers to defend the inmate
case of attack. Passing through a strong gatey
the guest enters a large court, the sides of wl
are divided into numerous arched compartme
open in front, for the accommodation of sepal
parties and for the reception of goods. Th
centre is a spacious raised platform, used for sl
ing upon at night, or for the devotions of the fa
ful during the day. Between the outer wall’
the compartments are wide vaulted arcades,
tending round the entire building, where the be
of burden are placed. Upon the roof of the are:
is an excellent terrace, and over the gateway
elevated tower containing two rooms—one of wl
is open at the sides, permitting the occupant
enjoy every breath of air that passes across
heated plain. The terrace is tolerably clean;
the court and stabling below are ankle-deep
chopped straw and filth ” (Loftus, Chaldea, p. |
The great khans established by the Persian ki
and great men, at intervals of about six mile:
the roads from Baghdad to the sacred places,
provided with stables for the horses of the pilgri
“Within these stables, on both sides, are of
cells for travellers (Layard, Nin. and Bab. p.+
note). ‘The “stall” or “manger,” mentioned
Luke ii. 7, was probably in a stable of this k
Such khans are sometimes situated near runr
streams, or have a supply of water of some k’
but the traveller must carry all his provisions y
him (Ouseley, Trav. in Persia, i. 261, note). |
Damascus the khans are, many of them, substan.
buildings ; the small rooms which surround |
court, as well as those above them which are ent¢:
from a gallery, are used by the merchants of |
city for depositing their goods (Porter’s Damas:
i. 33). The wekdlehs of modern Egypt are
similar description (Lane, Mod. Fg. ii. 10). |
“The house of paths’? (Prov. viii. 2, éy 4
d:ddwy, Ver's. Ven.), where Wisdom took her sta,
is understood by some to refer appropriately t}
khan built where many ways met and ane
by many travellers. A similar meaning has bi
attached to rma) INIA}, gériith Cimham, “3
hostel of Chimham” (Jer. xli. 17), beside Bet:
hem, built by the liberality of the son of Barzil
for the benefit of those who were going down)
Egypt (Stanley, S. ¢ P., p. 163; App. § 90).
Targum says, “which David gave to Chimhi
son of Barzillai the Gileadite’? (comp. 2 Sam. 1
37, 38). With regard to this passage, the anci!
versions are strangely at variance. The LXX. |!
evidently another reading with 2 and 2 transpot
which they left untranslated ryaBnpax apa, Ae
due to the same cause. Paula, the friend of Jero}
built several on the road to Bethlehem ; and the Sect
and Irish residents in France erected hospitals for /
use of pilgrims of their own nation, on their Wa}!
Rome (Beckmann, Hist. of Inv ii. 457). Hence!)
pital, hostel, and finally hotel.
INN
Bape xaudap- The Vulgate, if intended to be} or « innkeeper
" 2
ral, must have read POD OY, peregrin-
esin Chanaam. The Arabic, following the Alex-
rian MS., read it ev yi Bypwbxaudau, “in
land of Berothchamaam.” The Syriac has
1 EY bédré, “in the threshing-floors,” as if
133, begornéth. Josephus had a reading
rent from all, SVIT23, begidréth, “in the
sof” Chimham; for he says the fugitives went
a certain place called Mandra ” (Mavdpa
duevov, Ant. x. 9, § 5), and in this he was
wed by Aquila and the Hexaplar Syriac.
he mavdoxezoy (Luke x. 34) probably differed
the kardAvpa (Luke ii. 7) in having a “ host”
INSTANT 113
a (ravdoxreds, Luke X; 35), whe
supplied some few of the necessary provisions, and
attended to the wants of travellers left to his charge.
The word has been adopted in the later Hebrew,
and appears in the Mishna (Yebamoth, xvi. 7)
under the form 135, pindak, and the host is
YTD, pindikt. The Jews were forbidden to
put up their beasts at establishments of this kind
kept by idolaters (Aboda Zara, ii. 1). Tt appears
that houses of entertainment were sometimes, as
in Egypt (Her. ii. 35), kept by women, whose
character was such that their evidence was regarded
with suspicion. In the Mishna ( Yebamoth, xvi. 7)
a tale is told of a company of Levites who were
travelling to Zoar, the City of Palms, when one of
fell ill on the road and was left by his com-
at an inn, under the charge of the hostess |
TID, pindekith = mavdoKeut pla). On their
| to inquire for their friend, the hostess told
| he was dead and buried, but they refused to
* her till she produced his staff, wallet, and
1)
(the law. In Josh. ii. if r13, zonah, the
‘pplied to Rahab, is rendered in the Targum
than SIND, piindekithd, “a woman
eps an inn.” So in Judg. xi. 1, of the
-
J
i of Jephthah; of Delilah (Judg. xvi. 1) and |
) women who appealed to Solomon (LK. tii:
he words, in the opinion of Kimchi on Josh. |
i to have been synonymous.
me parts of modern Syria a nearer approach
Va made to the European system. The people
salt, according to Burckhardt, support four
t (Menzel or Medhafe) at the public expense.
the traveller is
Tequire, so long
Vth
6
as he chooses
is stay is not unreasonably
mses are paid by a tax on the heads of
/and a kind of landlord superintends the
iment (Trav. in Syria, p. 36).
| - WwW. A. W.
» statement ascribed above to Burckhardt
‘trictly correct. In modern Syria, in all
(10 provided with a khan, there is a house,
he dwelling of the sheikh, which is called
{hier which is the place ‘of entertainment
to remain,
protracted.
l
'the intrusive visits of children and idlers
provide a place of safety for the animals
It is not custom
supplies gratis,
usual rates,
a dispute bet
receives a compensation for his
to the generosity of the traveller.
ployed by our translators in the N. T.
force of urgency or earnestness, to render five dis-
_ tinct Greek
| of,” but as that sense is no longer attached to
“ instant ’? — thou
and to other compounds of the same roo
visable to notice its oc
interesting example, if a
of the close connection
furnished with everything | Authorized V
having, as will be seen, suggested
out of its five occurrences.
(Luke vii. 4).
rendered “ earnestly,”? which is very suitable here.
“they were instant with lou
stabant), Luke xxiii. 23.
“they were pressing” (as
, and te
at night.
ary for the village to furnish these
but the traveller pays for them at
the caterer being the referee in case of
ween the buyer and seller. The caterer
services proportioned
Gr. ie Py
INSTANT, INSTANTLY. A word emi-
with the
words. We still say “at the instance
gh it is still to the verb « insist,”
t, such as
—it has been thought ad-
currences. They afford an
n additional one be needed,
which there is between the
ersion and the Vulgate; the Vulgate
the word in three
persist,”’ “ constant ”’
1. orovdalws — “ they besought Him instantly ”
This word is elsewhere commonly
2. éréxewro, from éemixetuat, to lie upon: —
d voices” (Vulg. in.
This might be rendered
in ver. 1).
3. év éxrevela
angers who are not, visiting at the houses
e's. One of the Villagers is officially desig-
| the hhowat or caterer, and his business is
z, “instantly serving God’? (Acts
xxvi. 7). The metaphor at the root of this word
is that of stretching — on the stretch. [Elsewhere
in the A. V. it is represented by “ fervently.”
Strangers to the menzoul, to supply them
f 1slons and fodder if required, to keep off |
4. Tpookaptepovytes, “continuing instant’
(Rom. xii. 12), Vulg. instantes. Here the adjectiv
1140 INWARD IRAM
Tra). 1. (ipds, [Vat.] Alex. E:pas.) “1
Jairite,’ named in the catalogue of David's gr
officers (2 Sam. xx. 26) as “priest to Davi
(ji 3: A. V. “achief ruler’”’). The Peshitoy
sion for *‘Jairite” has “from Jathir,”’ 2. e. pr
ably JATTIR, where David had found friends duri
his troubles with Saul. [Jarrire.] If this
be maintained, and it certainly has an air of pr
ability, then this Ira is identical with —
2. ("Ipas, Ipd; [Vat. Expas, Ipa;] Alex. Eup
[Ipas]) ‘Ira the Ithrite” Oman ; A. V. om
the article), that is, the J attirite, one of the her
of David’s guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 38; 1 Chr. xi. 4
[IrHriTE; JATTIR; JETHER. |
3. (“Ipas, “Opa; [Vat. E:pas, Opa 3] Al
Qpa; [in 1 Chr. XXvii., ‘Odouvlas, Alex. Ey
Comp. *Ipa:] Hira.) Another member of Davi
guard, a Tekoite, son of Ikkesh (2 Sam. xxiii. '
1 Chr. xi. 28). Ira was leader of the sixth mont
course of 24,000, as appointed by David (1 C
XXvii. 9).
VRAD (THY [fleet, rapid, Dietr.]+ Tai
in both MSS.;- Joseph. "Iapédns: Syr. Idar: Irc
son of Enoch; grandson of Cain, and father
Mehujael (Gen. iv. 18).
VRAM (ODD [watchful, Dietr.]: Zapa
[Alex. Zadwet, Hpap3 Vat. in Chr., Zagwei
Hiram; “belonging to a city,” Ges.), a lea
'
(FASS: LXX. fryeudv: “phylarch,” A.
«‘duke’’) of the Edomites (Gen. xxxvi. 43; 1 (
i. 54), é. e. the chief of a family or tribe. He
curs in the list of “the names of the dukes [i
came] of Esau, according to their families, Fl
their places, by their names” (Gen. xxxvi. 40-
but none of these names is found in the genea
of Esau’s immediate descendants; the latter bi
separated from them by the enumeration of
sons of Seir and the kings of Edom, both in (
and Chr. They were certainly descendants
Esau, but in what generation is not known;/
idently not in a remote one. ‘The sacred rec!
are generally confined to the history of the ch.
race, and the reason of the exclusion of the Edo:
genealogy beyond the second generation is |
explicable. In remarking on this gap in thet
nealogy, we must add that there appears to bi
safe ground for supposing a chronological sequ?
of sons and grandsons of Esau, sons of Seir, i
of Edom, and lastly descendants of Bsau |
ruling over the Edomites. These were prol!
is hardly necessary, the word being elsewhere ren-
dered by “ continuing ’’ — or to preserve the rhythm
of so. familiar a sentence — “ continuing stedfast ”
fas Acts ii. 42).
5. ’Emlarnot, from épiordvat, to stand by or
upon — ‘be instant in season, out of season ’’ (2
Tim. iv. 2), Vulg. imsta. Four verses further on
it is rendered, “is at hand.’’ The sense is “ stand
ready,”’ “be alert’ for whatever may happen. Of
the five words this is the only one which contains
the same metaphor as “instant.”
In Luke ii. 38, “ that instant’ is literally « that
same hour,” —avrH TH dpa. G.
* INWARD is used in the expression “my
inward friends,” for ‘familiar,’ ‘“ confidential”
(A. V.) Job xix. 19 (“TIO SNS, lit. men of my
intimacy). The patriarch complains that those
with whom he had been most familiar, to whom
he had made known his most secret thoughts, had
turned against him and abhorred him. iH.
* INTEREST. ([Loan; Usury.]
*INTERPRETER. ([Propryet; Mactc.]
IO’NIA. ([Semitic 7°, Javan, which see:]
‘Iwyia). The substitution of this word for 7 ’Iv-
Sixt in 1 Mace. viii. 8 (A. V. “ India’’) is a con-
jecture of Grotius, without any authority of MSS.
It must be acknowledged, however, that the change
removes a great difficulty, especially if, as the same
commentator suggests, Mula [Mysta] be substi-
tuted for Mydela or Mydia in the same context.¢
The passage refers to the cession of territory which
the Romans forced Antiochus the Great to make;
and it is evident that India and Media are nothing
to the purpose, whereas Ionia and Mysia were
among the districts cis T'awrwm, which were given
up to Eumenes.
As to the term Ionia, the name was given in
early times to that part of the western coast. of
Asia Minor which lay between /Zolis on the north
and Doris on the south. These were properly eth-
nological terms, and had reference to the tribes of
Greek settlers along this shore. Ionia, with its
islands, was celebrated for its twelve, afterwards
thirteen cities; five of which, Ephesus, Smyrna,
Miletus, Chios, and Samos, are conspicuous in the
N. T. In Roman times Ionia ceased to have any
political significance, being absorbed in the province
of Asia. The term, however, was still occasionally
used, as in Joseph. Ant. xvi. 2, § 3, from which
passage we learn that the Jews were numerous in
this district. This whole chapter in Josephus is
very interesting, as a geographical illustration of
that part of the coast. [JAVAN.] J. 8. H.
IPHEDE/IAH [4 syl.] (YTD) [whom Je-
hovah frees]: "lepadlas; [Vat- lepepesa;] Alex.
lepadia: Jephdaia), a descendant of Benjamin,
one of the Bene-Shashak (1 Chr. viii. 25); specially
named as a chief of the tribe, and as residing in
Jerusalem (comp. ver. 28).
IR (WY [city, town]: “Op, as if TY; Alex.
Npa; [Vat. om.; Comp. “Ip:] Hi), 1 Chr. vii.
12. [Ir]
VRA (SDP [vigilant, Dietr.; or watcher]:
in part, or wholly, contemporaneous; and ap
we think, should be regarded as signifying 4 ©
of a tribe, etc. (as rendered above), rather ?
king. The Jewish assertion that these terms:
nified the same’ rank, except that the -
uncrowned and the Jatter crowned, may be
neglected.
The names of, which Iram is one are “acco!
to their families, after their places (or ‘t
om), by their names’? (ver. 40); and ‘
(ver. 43), “These [be] the dukes of Edom
cording to their habitations in the land of ®
possession.”” These words imply that tribes?
possess10n ee eee
i
'
Pe
’
others had suggested the change of names hefo
tius. It has been thought possible also that the
may have crept into the Greek in the process 0
lation from the Arameean.
a * For a copious note on this textual question, see
Fritzsche’s Handb. zu den Apokryphen, iii. 124. Un-
ess the text be corrupt, it is impossible to acquit the
writer of Maccabees of gross inaccuracy. Drusius and
:
*«
IR-HA-HERES
aces were called after their leaders and founders,
d tend to confirm the preceding remarks on the
scendants of Esau being chiefs of tribes, and
obably more or less contemporaneous with each
ner, and with the kings and Horites named to-
ther with them in the same records. It has been
gvested that the names we are considering are
ose of the tribes and places founded by Esau’s
mediate descendants, mentioned earlier in the
ord; but no proof has been adduced in support
this theory.
The time of the final destruction of the Horites
uncertain. By analogy with the conquest of
naan (cf. Deut. ii. 12, 22) we may perhaps infer
it it was not immediate on Esau’s settlement.
identification of Iram has been found.
EP SP:
IR-HA-HE’RES, in A. V. Tue Ciry or
istruction (ODTII WY, var. ODT WY:
brats aoedex; FA. a. acednAtov; Comp. zr.
epés|: Civitas Solis), the name or an appellation
a city in Egypt, mentioned only in Is. xix. 18.
ereading O71 is that of most MSS. the Syr.
. and Theod., the other reading, 7{T7, is sup-
ited by the LXX., but only in form, by Symm.
0 has wéAis HAlov, and the Vulg. Gesenius
hes. pp. 391 a, 522) prefers the latter reading.
?re are various explanations: we shall first take
se that treat it as a proper name, then those
't suppose it to be an appellation used by the
phet to denote the future of the city.
DTT WY, city of the sun, a translation
the Egyptian sacred name of Heliopolis, gener-
called in the Bible On, the Hebrew form of
civil name AN [ON], and once Beth-shemesh,
ie house of the sun”’ (Jer. xliii. 13), a more
zal translation than this supposed one of the
‘ed name [BETH-SHEMESH].
LOI WY, or ODT WY, the city
es, a transcription in the second word of the
ptian sacred name of Heliopolis, HA-rA, “the
Te (lit. ‘house’) of the sun.’ This explana-
would necessitate the omission of the article.
- LXX. favor it.
ih epain WY, a city destroyed, lit. “a city
estruction;’’ in A. V. “the city of destruc-
1” meaning that one of the five cities men-
ed should be destroyed, according to Isaiah’s
» OWI WY, a city preserved, meaning
' one of the five cities mentioned should be pre-
«ed. Gesenius, who proposes this construction,
He second word be not part of the name of the
ae a
2, compares the Arabic U~ Saat “ he guarded,
D
», preserved,” etc. It may be remarked that
word Heres or Hres in ancient Egyptian,
ably signifies “a guardian.” This rendering
tesenius is, however, merely conjectural, and
4s to have been favored by him on account of
Kd contradicting the rendering last no-
he first of these explanations is highly improb-
for we find elsewhere both the sacred and the
_hames of Heliopolis, so that a third name,
‘ly a variety cf the Hebrew rendering of the
IR-HA-HERES 1141
sacred name, is very unlikely. The name Beth-
shemesh is, moreover, a more literal translation in
its first word of the Egyptian name than this sup~
posed one. It may be remarked, however, as to
the second word, that one of the towns in Palestine
called Beth-shemesh, a town of the Levites on the
borders of Judah and Dan, was not far from a
Mount Heres, ODT" (Judg. i. 35), so that the
two names as applied to the sun as an object of
worship might probably be interchangeable. The
second explanation, which we believe has not been
hitherto put forth, is liable to the same objection
as the preceding one, besides that it necessitates the
exclusion of the article. The fourth explanation
would not have been noticed had it not been sup-
ported by the name of Gesenius. The common
reading and old rendering remains, which certainly
present no critical difficulties. A very careful ex-
amination of the xixth chap. of Isaiah, and of the
xviiith and xxth, which are connected with it, has
inclined us to prefer it. Egypt and Ethiopia were
then either under a joint rule or under an Ethiopian
sovereign. We can, therefore, understand the con-
nection of the three subjects comprised in the three
chapters. Chap. xviii. is a prophecy against the
Ethiopians, xix. is the Burden of Egypt, and xx.,
delivered in the year of the capture of Ashdod by
Tartan, the general of Sargon, predicts the leading
captive of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, probably
the garrison of that great stronghold, as a warning
to the Israelites who trusted in them for aid. Chap.
xvili. ends with an indication of the time to which
it refers, speaking of the Ethiopians—as we un-
derstand the passage—as sending “a present ”’
“to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts,
the mount Zion’’ (ver. 7). If this is to be taken
in a proper and not a tropical sense, it would refer
to the*conversion of Ethiopians by the preaching
of the Law while the Temple yet stood. That such
had been the case before the gospel was preached
is evident from the instance of the eunuch of
Queen Candace, whom Philip met on his return
homeward from worshipping at Jerusalem, and con-
verted to Christianity (Acts viii. 26-39). The
Burden of Egypt seems to point to the times of
the Persian and Greek dominions over that country.
The civil war agrees with the troubles of the Do-
decarchy, then we read of a time of bitter oppres-
sion by ‘a cruel lord and [or ‘even’] a fierce
king,” probably pointing to the Persian conquests
and rule, and specially to Cambyses, or Cambyses
and Ochus, and then of the drying of the sea (the
Red Sea, comp. xi. 15) and the river and canals,
of the destruction of the water-plants, and of the
misery of the fishers and workers in linen. The
princes and counsellors are to lose their wisdom and
the people to be filled with fear, all which calamities
seem to have begun in the desolation of the Persian
rule. It is not easy to understand what follows as
to the dread of the land of Judah which the Egyp-
tians should feel, immediately preceding the men-
tion of the subject of the article: “In that day
shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the lan-
guage of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts;
one shall be called Ir-ha-heres. In that day shall
there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the
land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof
to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a
witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of
Egypt; for they shall ery unto the Lord because
of the oppressors, and he shall send them a savior,
1142 IRI
and a great one, and he shall deliver them ’’ (xix.
18-20). The partial or entire conversion of Egypt
is prophesied in the next two verses (21, 22). The
time of the Greek dominion, following the Persian
rule, may be here pointed to. There was then a
great influx of Jewish settlers, and as we know of
a Jewish town, Onion, and a great Jewish popula-
tion at Alexandria, we may suppose that there were
other large settlements. These would “speak the
language of Canaan,”’ at first literally, afterwards
in their retaining the religion and customs of their
fathers. The altar would well correspond to the
temple built by Onias; the pillar, to the synagogue
of Alexandria, the latter on the northern: and west-
ern borders of Egypt. In this case Alexander
would be the deliverer. We do not know, how-
ever, that at this period there was any recognition of
the true God on the part of the Egyptians. If the
prophecy is to be understood in a proper sense, we
can however see no other time to which it applies,
and must suppose that Ir-ha-heres was one of the
cities partly or wholly inhabited by the Jews in
Egypt: of these Onion was the most important,
and to it the rendering, ‘‘ One shall be called a city
of destruction,’’ would apply, since it was destroyed
hy Titus, while Alexandria, and perhaps the other
cities, yet stand. If the prophecy is to be taken
tropically, the best reading and rendering can only
be determined by verbal criticism. Fes 35 see
VRI (Odpia; Alex. Ouvpi; [Vat. Oupeia; Ald.
(with preceding word) Mapuwéoupt:] Jorus), 1
Esdr. viii. 62. This name answers to Uriah in
Ezra (viii. 33). But whence did our translators
get their form ?
IRI or IR OY or 7Y [adorer of Jehovah,
Dietr.; Jehovah is watcher, First]: Ovpi [Vat.
et] and ”Qp; [Alex. ver. 12, Opa, Vat. omits :]
bee ‘av and Vir )y a Benjamite, son of Bela, accord-
ing to 1 Chr. vii. 7,12. The name does not oc-
cur in any of the other genealogies of the tribe.
[HurHAmM. ] A.-@. A.
IRVJAH (PANN [whom Jehovah sees, or
Jehovah sees]: SuHootm: [Alex. FA. Sapouas:]
Jerias), son of Shelemiah, ‘a captain of the ward ”’
(Te Sy2), who met Jeremiah in the gate of
Jerusalem called the « gate of Benjamin,” accused
him of being about to daseat to the Chaldeeans, and
led hin back to the princes (Jer. xxxvii. 13, 14).
IR-NA/HASH (WOI7WY = serpent-city :
méAts Naas; [Comp. ‘H pimacena] Urbs Naas), a
name which, like many other names of places, oc-
curs in the genealogical lists of Judah (1 Chr. iv.
12). . Tehinnah Abi Ir-nahash — “ father of Ir-
nahash ”? — was one of the sons of Eshton, all of
them being descendants of Chelub (ver. 11). But
it. seems impossible to connect this special genealogy
with the general genealogies of Judah, and it has
the air of being a fragment of the records of some
other family, related, of course, or it would not be
here, but not the same. May not ‘“Shuah, the
brother of Chelub”’ (ver. 11), be Shuah the Ca-
naanite, by whose daughter Judah had his three
eldest sons (Gen. xxxviii. 2, &c.), and these verses
_ be a fragment of Canaanite record preserved
amongst those of the great Israelite family, who
then became so closely related to the Canaanites ?
True, the two Shuahs are written differently in
Hebrew — DIW and “WW, but, considering
or
IRON
the early date of the one passage and the corr
and incomplete state of the other, this is perl
not irreconcilable.
No trace of the name of Ir-nahash attached
any site has been discovered. Jerome’s intery
tation (Qu. Hebr. ad loc.) — whether his own
a tradition he does not say —is, that Ir-nahasl
Bethlehem, Nahash being another name for Je:
[NAHASH. ]
VRON (FIND [feanful, perth. God-fearin
Kepwé; Alex. lapiwy; [Comp. "lepév; Ald. ’Epw
Jeron), one of the cities of Naphtali, named
tween En-hazor and Migdal-el (Josh. xix. 3
hitherto unknown, though possibly Yariim. G
IRON (2373, birzed: Ch. SIND, pare
oldnpos), niente with brass as "the earliest
known metals (Gen. iv. 22). As it is rarely for
in its native state, but generally in combinat
with oxygen, the knowledge of the art of forg
iron, which is attributed to Tubal Cain, argues
acquaintance with the difficulties which,attend
smelting of this metal. Iron melts at a tempe
ture of about 3000° Fahrenheit, and to prod
this heat large furnaces supplied by a strong bl
of air are necessary. But, however difficult it n
be to imagine a knowledge of such appliances
so early a period, it is perfectly certain that the
of iron is of extreme antiquity, and that theref
some means of overcoming the obstacles in qu
tion must have been discovered. What the proc
may have been is left entirely to conjecture;
method is employed by the natives of India,
tremely simple and of great antiquity, which thor
rude is very effective, and suggests the possibil
of similar knowledge in an early stage of civili
tion (Ure, Dict. Arts and Sciences, art. Ste
The smelting furnaces of Aithalia, described
Diodorus (v. 18), correspond roughly with. the m
ern bloomeries, remains of which still exist in t
country (Napier, Metallurgy of the Bible, p. 14
Malleable iron was in common use, but it is dou
ful whether the ancients were acquainted with ce
iron. The allusions in the Bible supply the :
lowing facts.
The natural wealth of the soil of Canaan is in
cated by describing it as ‘¢a land whose stones.
iron”? (Deut. viii. 9). By this Winer (Realw.
Eisen) understands the basalt which predomina
in the Hauran, is the material of which Og’s b
stead (Deut. iii. 11) was made, and contains a lai
percentage of iron. It is more probable that
expression is a poetical figure. Pliny (xxxvi. 1
who is quoted as an authority, says indeed tl
basalt is ‘“ferrei coloris atque duritie,”’ but d
not hint that iron was ever extracted from it. 1
book of Job contains passages which indicate tl
iron was a metal well known. Of the manner
procuring it, we learn that “iron is taken fm
dust”? (xxviii. 2). It does not follow from J
xix. 24, that it was used for a writing impleme
though -such may have been the case, any Mm:
than that adamant was employed for the same Pp.
pose (Jer. xvii. 1), or that shoes were shod w,
iron and brass (Deut. xxxiii. 25). Indeed, iron
frequently occurs in poetic figures, that it is di
cult to discriminate between its literal and me
phorical sense. In such passages as the followi)
in which a “ yoke of iron’? (Deut. xxviii. 48) |
notes hard service; a “rod of iron” (Ps. ii. 9)
stern government; a “ pillar of iron” (Jer. i. 1
|
if
|
IRON
strong support; and “threshing instruments of
m” (Am. i. 3), the means of cruel oppression;
e hardness and heaviness (Ecclus. xxii. 15) of
m are so clearly the prominent ideas, that though
may have been used for the instruments in ques-
m, such usage is not of necessity indicated.
re “ furnace of iron” (Deut. iv. 20; 1 K. viii.
) is a figure which vividly expresses hard bond-
e, as represented by the severe labor which at-
aded the operation of smelting. Iron was used
- chisels (Deut. xxvii. 5), or something of the
nd; for axes (Deut. xix. 5; 2 K. vi. 5, 6; Is. x.
; Hom. //. iv. 485); for harrows and saws (2
m. xii. 31; 1 Chr. xx. 3); for nails (1 Chr.
ii. 3), and the fastenings of the Temple; for
apons of war (1 Sam. xvii. 7; Job xx. 24), and
-war-chariots (Josh. xvii. 16, 18; Judg. i. 19,
8,13). The latter were plated or studded with
Its usage in defensive armor is implied in 2
m. xxiii. 7 (cf. Rev. ix. 9), and as a safeguard
peace it appears in fetters (Ps. ev. 18), prison-
tes (Acts xii. 10), and bars of gates or doors
s. evil. 16; Is. xly. 2), as well as for surgical
rposes (1 Tim. iv. 2). Sheet-iron was used for
king utensils (Ez. iv. 3; ef. Lev. vii. 9),¢ and
rs of hammered iron are mentioned in Job xl.
, though here the LXX. perversely render g{5n-
+ xuTds, “cast-iron.” That it was plentiful in
: time of David appears from 1 Chr. xxii. 3. It
3 used by Solomon, according to Josephus, to
mp the large rocks with which he built up. the
mple mount (Ant. xv. 11, § 3); and by Heze-
h’s workmen to hew out the conduits of Gihon
clus. xlviii. 17). Images were fastened in their
hes in later times by iron brackets or clamps
‘isd. xiii. 15). Agricultural implements were
ly made of the same material. In the treaty
Je by Porsena was inserted a condition like that
vosed on the Hebrews by the Philistines, that
iron should be used except for agricultural pur-
os (Plin. xxxiy. 39).
vhe market of Tyre was supplied with bright or
shed iron by the merchants of Dan and Javan
xxvii. 19). Some, as the LXX. and Vule.,
Jer this “wrought iron:”’ so De Wette « ge-
iniedetes Eisen.” > The Targum has “ bars of
|,” which would correspond with the stricture
Jliny (xxxiv. 41). But Kimchi (Lez. s. v.)
»unds niwy, "dshéth, as “+ pure and polished ”
“Span. acéro, steel), in which he is supported by
‘Sol. Parchon, and by Ben Zeb, who gives
‘inzend” as the equivalent (comp. the Ho-
ie atdwy ol8npos, ll. vii. 473). If the Javan
lled to were Greece, and not, as Bochart (Pha-
i. 21) seems to think, some place in Arabia,
might be reference to the iron mines of Mace-
(1, spoken of in the decree of Amilius Paulus
xly. 29); but Bochart urges, as a very strong
tment in support of his theory, that, at the time
f zekiel’s prophecy, the Tyrians did not depend
: Greece for a supply of cassia and cinnamon,
/ 1 are associated with iron in the merchandise
an and Javan, but that rather the contrary
® he case. Pliny (xxxiv. 41) awards the palm
» 2 Iron of Serica, that of Parthia being next
1 cellence. The Chalybes of the Pontus were
ges
IRON 1148
celebrated as workers in iron in very ancient times
(Aisch. Prom. 733). They were identified by
Strabo with the Chaldei of his day (xii. 549), and
the mines which they worked were in the moun-
tains skirting the sea-coast. The produce of their
labor is supposed to be alluded to in Jer. xv. 12, as
being of superior quality. Iron mines are still
in existence on the same coast, and the ore is found
‘in small nodular masses in a dark yellow clay
which overlies a limestone rock” (Smith’s Geog.
Dict. art. Chalybes).
It was for a long time supposed that the Kgyp-
tians were ignorant of the use of iron, and that
the allusions in the Pentateuch were anachronisms,
as no traces of it have been found in their monu
ments; but in the sepu'chres at Thebes butchers
are represented as sharpening their knives on a
round bar of metal attached to their aprons, which
from its blue color is presumed to be steel. The
steel weapons on the tomb of Rameses III. are also
painted blue; those of bronze being red (Wilkin-
son, Anc. £9. iii. 247). One iron mine only has
been discovered in Egypt, which was worked by
the ancients. It is at Hammami, between the Nile
and the Red Sea; the iron found by Mr. Burton
was in the form of specular and red ore (Jd. iii.
246). That no articles of iron should have been
found is easily accounted for by the fact that it is
easily destroyed by exposure to the air and moist-
ure. According to Pliny (xxxiv. 43) it was pre-
served by a coating of white lead, gypsum, and
liquid pitch. Bitumen was probably employed for
the same purpose (xxxv. 52). The Egyptians ob-
tained their iron almost exclusively from Assyria
Proper in the form of bricks or pigs (Layard, Nin.
li. 415). Specimens of Assyrian iron-work oyer-
laid with bronze were discovered by Mr. Layard,
and are now in the British Museum (Nin. and
Bab. p. 191). Iron weapons of various kinds were
found at Nimroud, but fell to pieces on exposure
to the air. Some portions of shields and arrow-
heads (/d. 194, 596) were rescued, and are now in
England. A pick of the same metal (/d. 194) was
also found, as well as part of a saw (195), and the
head of an axe (357), and remains of scale-armor
and helmets inlaid with copper (Nin. i. 340). It
was used by the Etruscans for offensive weapons,
as bronze for defensive armor. The Assyrians had
daggers and arrow-heads of copper mixed with iron,
and hardened with an alloy of tin (Layard, Nin.
ii. 418). So in the days of Homer war-clubs were
shod with iron (Jl. vii. 141); arrows were tipped
with it (//. iv. 123); it was used for the axles of
chariots (Jl. vy. 723), for fetters (Od. i. 204), for
axes and bills (//. iv. 485; Od. xxi. 3, 81).
Adrastus (//. vi. 48) and Ulysses (Od. xxi. 10)
reckoned it among their treasures, the iron weap-
ons being kept in a chest in the treasury with the
gold and brass ( Od. xxi. 61). In Od. i. 184, Mentes
tells Telemachus that he is travelling from Taphos
to Tamese to procure brass in exchange for iron,
which Eustathius says was not obtained from the
mines of the island, but was the produce of pirat-
ical excursions (Millin, Mineral. Hom. p. 115, 2d
ed.). Pliny (xxxiv. 4)) mentions iron as used
symbolically for a statue of Hercules at Thebes
(cf. Dan. ii. 83, v. 4), and goblets of iron as among
yhe Passage of Ezekiel is illustrated by the screens
€!d which the archers stand in the representations
i ; eee on the Nimroud sculptures.
| This is the generally accepted meaning of,
|
|
a
'
Mwy (Tuch, Hiivernick, Hitzig, Fiirst, Gesenius,
6*e Aull.). See addition at the end of the article.
H
1144 IRON
the offerings in the temple of Mars the Avenger, at
Rome. Alyattes the Lydian dedicated to the ora-
cle at Delphi a small goblet of iron, the workman-
ship of Glaucus of Chios, to whom the discovery of
the art of soldering this metal is attributed (Her.
i. 25). The goblet is described by Pausanias (x.
16). From the fact that such offerings were made
to the temples, and that Achilles gave as a prize
of contest a rudely-shaped mass of the same metal
(Jl. xxiii. 826), it has been argued that in early
times iron was so little known as to be greatly
esteemed for its rarity. That this was not the
case in the time of Lycurgus is evident, and Ho-
mer attaches to it no epithet which would denote
its preciousness (Millin, p. 106). There is reason
to suppose that the discovery of brass preceded
that of iron (Lucr. v. 1292), though little weight
can be attached to the line of Hesiod often quoted
as decisive on this point (Op. et Dies, 150). The
Dactyli Idei of Crete were supposed by the an-
cients to have the merit of being the first to dis-
cover the properties of iron (Plin. vii. 57; Diod.
Sic. v. 64), as the Cyclops were said to have
invented the iron-smith’s forge (Plin. vii. 57).
According to the Arundelian marbles, iron was
known B. C. 1370, while Larcher ( Chronol. d’ Herod.
p- 570) assigns a still earlier date, B. c. 1537.
Enough has heen said to prove that the allusions
to iron in the Pentateuch and other parts of the
O. T. are not anachronisms.
There is considerable doubt whether the ancients
were acquainted with cast-iron. ‘The rendering
given by the LXX. of Job xl. 18, as quoted above,
seems to imply that some method nearly like that
of casting was known, and is supported by a pas-
sage in Diodorus (v. 13). The inhabitants of
ZEthalia traded with pig-iron in masses like large
sponges to Dicsearchia and other marts, where it
was bought by the smiths and fashioned into vari-
ous moulded forms (rAaouara wayTodard).
In Ecclus. xxxviii. 28, we have a picture of the
interior of an iron-smith’s (Is. xliv. 12) workshop:
the smith, parched with the smoke and heat of the
furnace, sitting beside his anvil and contemplating
the unwrought iron, his ears deafened with the
din of the heavy hammer, his eyes fixed on his
model, and never sleeping till he has accomplished
his task. [STEEL ] Wie Ac We.
* Tron of a superior quality is mined and worked
at the present day near the village of Duma in
Mount Lebanon. It is especially valuable for shoe-
ing beasts of burden, and is greatly sought for
through Northern Syria. It is probable that the
merchants of Dan, who had possessions in the ex-
treme north of Palestine in the neighborhood of
Cesarea Philippi, derived from this source the
‘“‘bright iron,’’ which is probably to be translated
“‘ wrought iron,” Ezr. xxvii. 19.
This view commends itself the more if we suppose
Java to be in Arabia, as the mention of the two
places together makes it probable that they had at
least a common entrepdt for their wares. This
would be possible at the junction of the roads of
Celesyria from the north, with those from Gilead
on the east in the possessions of Dan, and would
explain the circumstance that to Tyre Dan was a
source of supply of iron from Mount Lebanon, and
of cassia and calamus from Arabia.
Still further, the geographical position of this
entrepOt corresponds with the language of the con-
text. In ver. 18 the prophet speaks of Damascus;
in ver. 19, of Dan with its trade with Javan; in
ISAAC
ver. 20, of the caravans from Dedan, which
come in toward Tye to the southward of I
finally, ver. 21, of those from Arabia, which yw
come from a still more southerly direction.
G. E.]
IR‘PEEL (OND [whom God heals, or
repawrs, builds): Kapdy; [Ald.] Alex. ’Iepga
Jarephel), one of the cities of Benjamin (J
xviii. 27), occurring in the list between Rekem
Taralah. No trace has yet been discovered o}
situation. It will be observed that the Ir in
name is radically different from that in the na
Ir-nahash, Ir-shemesh, ete. Taken as a Hel
name it is Irpe-El = “restored by God.” |
IR-SHE’MESH (ww? “Y= ong of
sun: awdéreLs Zoppads § Alex. oroArs Sapes: i
semes, id est, Civitas Solis), a city of the Dar
(Josh. xix. 41), probably identical with Br
SHEMESH, and, if not identical, at least conne
with Mount HERES (Judg. i. 35), the “m(
of the sun.’’ Beth-shemesh is probably the |
form of the name. In other cases Beth appeai
have been substituted for other older terms ‘
BAAL-MEON, etc.], such as Ir or Ar, which is)
questionably. a very ancient word. C
VRU (ANY [watch, Viirst]: “Hp, Alex. 7
[Comp. ’Ipod:] Hi), the eldest son of the g)
Caleb son of Tega (1 Chr. iv. 15). It i
some supposed that this name should be Ir:
vowel at the end being merely the conjunc)
‘“‘and,”’ properly belonging to the following nai,
* Tt is true, ) more frequently connects 1
nouns in such an enumeration; but that reasoit
changing Iru to Ir is not decisive. The copula)
also be omitted between them (see 1 Chr. iv(
24, &e.). I
VSAAC (DIY, or pw, laughter [moc
laughter, First]: Ioadk: [Isaac] ), the son wi
Sarah, in accordance with the Divine promise, r
to Abraham in the hundredth year of his aga
Gerar. In his infancy he became the objec:
Ishmael’s jealousy; and in his youth (when twe)
five years old, according to Joseph. Ant. i. 18, 2
the victim, in intention, of Abraham’s great #1
ficial act of faith. When forty years old he mae
Rebekah his cousin, by whom, when he was §))
he had two sons, Esau and Jacob. In his sevey
fifth year he and his brother Ishmael buried ‘i
father Abraham in the cave of Machpelah. a
his abode by the well Lahai-roi, in the st
Country —a barren tract, comprising a few §
tures and wells, between the hills of Judeea anh
Arabian desert, touching at its western end 1
istia, and on the north Hebron — Isaae was ta
t
t
u
by a famine to Gerar. Here Jehovah appeare
him and bade him dwell there and not go over
Egypt, and renewed to him the promises mai
Abraham. Here he subjected himself, like Abra/t
in the same place and under like creumst
(Gen. xx. 2), to a rebuke from Abimelech!t
Philistine king for an equivocation. Here hi¢
quired great wealth by his flocks; but was rete
edly dispossessed by the Philistines of the
which he sunk at convenient stations. At /*
sheba Jehovah appeared to him by night)
blessed him, and he built an altar there: there,)®
like Abraham, he received a visit from the P. .
tine king Abimelech, with whom he made a
enant of peace. After the deceit by which Job
\
«
ISAAC
quired his father’s blessing, Isaac sent his son to
ek a wife in Padanaram; and all that we know
‘him during the last forty-three years of his life
that he saw that son, with a large and prosper-
is family, return to him at Hebron (xxxv. 27)
fore he died there at the age of 180 years.
e was buried by his two sons in the cave of
achpelah. ¢
In the N. T. reference is made to the offering
Isaac (Heb. xi. 17; and James ii. 21) and to his
As the child of
e promise, and as the progenitor of the children
the promise, he is contrasted with Ishmael (Rom.
7, 10; Gal. iv. 28; Heb. xi. 18). In our Lord’s
narkable argument with the Sadducees, his his-
‘y is carried beyond the point at which it is left
the O. T., into and beyond the grave. Isaac,
whom it was said (Gen. xxxv. 29) that he was
thered to his people, is represented as still living
God (Luke xx. 38, &c.); and by the same Divine
‘hority he is proclaimed as an acknowledged heir
essing his sons (Heb. xi. 20).
future glory (Matt. viii. 11, &c.).
(I. Such’are the facts which the Bible supplies
the longest-lived of the three Patriarchs, the
st migratory, the least prolific, and the least
A
‘events in this quiet life have occasioned dis-
ored with extraordinary divine revelations.
3ion.
a) The signification of Isaac’s name is thrice
ded to (Gen. xvii. 17, xviii. 12, xxi. 6). Josephus
it. i. 12, § 2) refers to the second of those pas-
's for the origin of the name; Jerome ( Quest.
". im Gen.) vehemently confines it to the first;
‘ld (Gesch. i. 425), without assigning reasons,
's it as his opinion that all three passages have
i ait by different writers to the original
rd.
».) It has been asked what are the persecutions
ained by Isaac from Ishmael to which St. Paul
8 (Gal. iv. 29)? If, ag is generally supposed,
(efers to Gen. xxi. 9, then the word rims)
\ovra, may be translated mocking, as in the
'., or insulting, as in xxxix. 14, and in that
the trial of Isaac was by means of “ cruel
\ points introduced or suggested in the fore-
article.
8 well to notice in regard to the origin of
S name, that while it was given by divine
rand (Gen. xvii. 19), the reason for giving it
‘explicitly stated. The historian employs the
on which the name is founded just before
‘{1), in speaking of Abraham’s joy on being
d that the child of promise was about to be
‘fter so long a delay; and again, shortly after
‘xvill. 12}, in speaking of Sarah’s incredulity
he possibility of her becoming a mother at
vaneed an age. We may infer, therefore,
Vie name was designed to embody and com-
vate these incidents in the family-history. It
:
ISAAC 1117
represents, indeed, very different states cf mind
but no violence is done thereby to the Hebrew
word, which readily admits of the twofold combi-
nation. No doubt Sarah refers once more to the
signification of the name, on the occasion of for-
mally giving it to the child at the time of circum-
cision (Gen. xxi. 3 ff.); but in that instance her
object was simply to recognize in the better sense
of the name a symbol and pledge of joy both to
herself and to the multitude of others who should
be blessed in the promised seed. Such reasons for
the name are certainly not inconsistent with each
other, and, still less, are they so inconsistent as to
discredit the narrative as one made up from con-
tradictory sources. For some good remarks on the
significance of ‘“ birth-names,”’ the reader inay con-
sult Wilkinson’s Personal Names of’ the Lible, pp.
256-312 (Lond. 1865).
It will be noticed above that some of the opin-
ions respecting the typical character of Abraham’s
offering up of Isaac extend the analogy to numer-
ous and very minute correspondences. It is of
some importance here to distinguish between such
opinions of interpreters and the explicit teaching
of Scripture on this subject; so as not to make the
sacred writers answerable for views or principles of
exegesis in the allegorizing of the O. T. history,
which in the hands of some expositors have led to
very fanciful conclusions. It seems unreasonable
to deny altogether a symbolic significance to this
sacrificial act and its concomitants, both on account
of its suitableness in itself considered to shadow
forth Christian ideas and relations, and also on
account of some hints given by Paul which point
in that direction. The most extended reference to
Isaac in the N. T. is that in Gal. iv. 21-31. Yet
the intimations there in regard to his typical char-
acter, leave it questionable whether the Apostle
meant to recognize the general facts of his history
as in a strict sense prophetic of the N. T. dispen-
sation, or simply to use the facts for the purpose
of illustration. The points of comparison which
the Apostle draws out in that passage are the fol-
lowing: As Ishmael was born in accordance with
the laws of nature, so the Jews are a mere natural
seed; but Christians who obtain justification in
conformity with the promise made to Abraham,
are the true promised seed, even as Isaac was.
Further, as in the history of Abraham’s family,
Ishmael persecuted Isaac, the child of promise, so
it should not be accounted strange that under the
Gospel, the natural seed, that is, the Jews, should
persecute the spiritual seed, that is, Christians.
And finally, as Isaac was acknowledged as the true
heir, but Ishmael was set aside, so must it be as
to the difference which exists between Jews and
believers. The former, or, in other words, those
who depend on their own merit for obtaining the
favor of God, will be rejected, while those who seek
it by faith shall obtain the heavenly inheritance.
It may be remarked that this parallelism (whether
illustrative only or typical) enables the Apostle
skilfully to recapitulate the prominent doctrines of
the whole epistle, and thus to leave them so asso-
ciated in the minds of the Galatians with a famil-
iar and striking portion of sacred history, that the
teachings of the epistle could never be easily forgot.
ten.
No mention is made in Genesis of Ishmael’s per-
secuting Isaac; but Ishmael’s mocking at the feast
of weaning (Gen. xxi. 8, 9) reveals the spirit ouf
of which an active hostility would be expected te
1148 ISAAC
grow in due time. In all probability Paul refers
to such effects of that spirit, well known to the
Jews of his time, from traditionary sources. For
other examples of traditions thus recognized as
true, see under ABIATHAR (Amer. ed.). Beer
(Leben Abraham's, pp. 49, 170) shows that the
Jews found in Ishmael’s “ mocking” a significant
intimation of the alienation and strife which marked
the subsequent relations of the two brothers to each
other.
Of the precise age of Isaac at the time of the
great trial of Abraham’s faith, we obtain no knowl-
edge from the Bible. That he was no longer a
child, but was at least approaching his manhood,
is evident from the fact that the wood was laid on
him, as the father and the son went up the moun-
tain. He is called at that time a lad in the A. V.
(Gen. xxii. 5), but the same Hebrew term (7y3)
is applied also to the servants who accompanied
Abraham on this journey. When Josephus speaks
of him as then twenty-five years old (Ant. i. 13,
§ 2), it is a conjecture only, without any proof
from Scripture or elsewhere to warrant so precise a
statement. The full consent of Isaac to, the wishes
and design of Abraham must be taken for granted,
as otherwise a resistance could have been made by
the stronger to the weaker, rendering it difficult to
bind the victim to the altar. It is evident from
Heb. xi. 19, that the pious Hebrews regarded this
trial of Abraham’s character as illustrating not so
much a blind submission to the will of God, what-
ever this might seem to require, as an unwavering
faith in the power and willingness of God to bring
back the son to life if the father’s hand must slay
him. The question of the place of sacrifice is dis-
cussed under Mortan (Amer. ed.). The view
maintained there, that it was some mount near
Jerusalem, in all probability the temple-mount itself
(2 Chr. iii. 1), is also that of Baumgarten (Penta-
teuch, i. 227); Knobel (Die Genesis erkldrt, p. 174);
Ewald (Gesch. i. 476, comp. iii. 813 f., 3e Aufl.);
Hengstenberg (Authentie des Pent. ii. 195 ff);
Winer (Realw. ii. 108); Delitzsch (Genesis, p. 406
ff., and Edinb. transl. p. 249); Kurtz (Geschichte
des A. Bundes, i. 213 f.), and others.
It has been made an objection to the accuracy
of the Biblical history of the patriarchs that so
many similar events and so many identical names
of persons and places occur in the account of the
different men. But it is not to be forgotten that
the dissimilarity in what is related of them is incom-
parably greater than the agreement. Their personal
characteristics are unlike, bearing unmistakable
marks of originality and individuality. Isaac
never goes beyond the boundary of Palestine,
though Abraham and Jacob roamed from one
extreme part of the East to another. The do-
mestic events also of their respective families were
as diverse as the vicissitudes of human condition
could well permit, Abimelech’s lawless seizure of
the wives of the two strangers (Gen. xx. 2 ff, and
xxvi. 6 ff.) proves only that the same passions be-
long to men in successive generations, and prompt
to the same acts in the presence of the same temp-
tations. That, leading as they all did a nomadic
life, they should occasionally visit the same places,
was natural and inevitable. Abraham and Isaac
appear at different times at Gerar and Beer-sheba,
but the fertility of these places, or the opportunity
for obtaining water, accounts for that coincidence.
the recurrence of the same personal names, ¢. g.,
|
us Tat a
oy
ISAAC
| |
Abimelech and Phichol, in the intercourse of 4
ham and Isaac with the Philistines, has its a
analogy in the present customs of the East.
generally allowed that ABIMELECH (which |
like Pharaoh in Egypt, and Cesar among the
mans, was a royal title, and not the name
single individual. But Phichol also, says :
son (Land and Book, ii. 352), “may have be
name of office, as mudir or mushir now is ini
country. If one of these officers is spoken 0}
name is rarely mentioned. I, indeed, never
any but the official title of these Turkish offic;.
It is alleged as a difficulty that Beer-sheba is 11
sented as receiving its name from Abrahamn
then again from Isaac, in ratification, in al
stances, of a similar covenant between them|n
the native chiefs or sheiks of the region. By
have here an example merely of the reatten
of a name (as in other instances, e. g. BET
under new circumstances such as made the n
doubly significant, or revived it after having le
partially into disuse. Beer-sheba, being well kw
when Genesis was written, the name occurs
leptically in xxi. 14. But it was first so ;
when Abraham established there a treaty of a
with Abimelech respecting the well in disput
tween them (Gen. xxi. 31). A similar diffilt
arose between Isaac and the Abimelech whow
ceeded the other; and that being settled by lil
treaty sealed with sacrifices and oaths, Isa: n
imposed the appropriate name in token of thei
happy issue of the strife. It was this restovic
of the name, it would seem, that made it pn
nent through all time (Gen. xxvi. 33).
For an outline of the events in Isaae’s lifar
a discussion of some of the historical and eze
ical questions which the narrative present tl
reader may see Kurtz’s Geschichte des A. Buk
i. 218-239. This writer regards “ the groun/y]
of Isaae’s character as a certain elasticity |
durance which does not resist evil, does no20
tend against it, but overcomes it by patiencar
concession (see Gen. xxvi. 17-22); and, inth
respect, Isaac is truly great and worthy of ac i
tion. That this greatness of men is usual|w
recognized and abused, detracts nothing frc i
worth; and that in Isaac also it was mixe/al
marred. by a degree of weakness and want (se
command” shows that human virtue has iin
voidable limitations. Hess has sketched thenti
arch’s life with mingled praise and ee h
Geschichte der Patriarchen, ii. 3-64. Vaing
has a brief article on Isaac in Herzog’s Re’
cyk. vii. 81-83; and also Wunderlich, in ‘le
Bibl. Worterb. i. 730 ff. The portraiture of 12¢
life, as this latter writer remarks, does not de
impress us as that of an extraordinary persolit
but, on the other hand, we are to rememb’th
the design of Scripture here is, not to prese!™*
to us, even the elect ones, as they should be, 1:
they are. A spirit of humility and honest,»
stamp itself on biography so written. It is t |
be forgotten that what we know of the fais ‘
good men in the Bible, rests, in great part, «00!
fessions which they themselves have made, @)
on the accusation of others. Bishop Hall’s fle
tions on “Isaac’s offering’? (Contemplatit', }
bk. ii.) are characteristic and interesting.
* ISAAC, twice used (Am. vii. 9, ae
the form is pry) as a poetic i
rael, i. ¢. the ten tribes. Hence “the hig lac
ISAIAH
aac” (ver. 9) are the sanctuaries of idol wor-
to which the Israelites resorted in their apostasy
Jehovah. The LXX. go further, and find a
sm in the use and the import of the name
10) rod yéAwros, “altars of laughter,” but the
ater to become a mockery in the day of God's
ition). This hidden meaning is far-fetched.
y (Amos, p. 211) regards it with favor. H.
JAVAH [3 syl.] (ATDYW, i. e. Yeshayahu
owah's help or salvation], always in Heb. Text;
n Rabbinical superscriptions of the Heb. Bible
MW*: ‘Heatas: Isaias). The Hebrew name,
shortened form of which occurs of other per-
[see JESAIAH, JESHAIAH], signifies Salvation
ahu (a shortened form of Jehovah). Reference
tinly made by the prophet himself (Is. viii. 18), to
ignificance of his own name as well as of those
3 two sons. His father Amoz (Vas, *Auds)
; not be confounded, as was done by Clemens
andrinus and some other of the Fathers
agh their ignorance of Hebrew, with the
het Amos (DVDY, in LXX. also ’Auds), who
ished in the reign of Jeroboam II. Nothing
jever is known of Amoz. He is said by some
te Rabbins to have been also a prophet, and
ner of king Amaziah —the latter apparently
ere guess founded on the affinity of the two
2s. * Kimchi (A. p. 1230) says in his commen-
jon Is. i. 1, “*« We know not his race, nor of
. tribe he, was.”
| The first verse of the book runs thus: “ The
o of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw
ae Judah and Jerusalem in the days of
ah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of
h.” A few remarks on this verse will open
the: to the solution of several inquiries relative
e prophet and his writings.
| This verse is not the preface to the first chapter
‘nor to any small portion of the book, as is
from the enumeration of the four kings. It
ily prefaces at least the first part of the book
' L-xxxix.), which leaves off in Hezekiah’s
.; and as there appears no reason for limiting
‘ference even to the first part, the obvious con-
: tion would take it as applying to the whole
(comp. Hos. i. 1; Mic. i. 1). The word vision
is a collective noun, as in 2 Chr. xxxii. 32; the
BR is never found in the plural. As this is the
‘ral and obvious bearing of the verse,
| We are authorized to infer, that no part of
“ison, the fruits of which are recorded in this
, belongs to the reign of Manasseh. Hypoth-
"therefore, which lengthen Isaiah’s prophetic
stration into the reign of Manasseh, appear to
historical foundation. A rabbinical tradition,
i true, apparently confirmed by the diemploOn-
Mof Heb. xi. 37, which can be referred to no
t» known fact, reports the prophet to have been
i asunder in the trunk of a tree by order of
en but the hostility of the party opposed
€ service of Jehovah, which gained the ascend-
Hat the accession of that prince, had been suf-
\ tly excited by the prophet during the reign of
uredecessor to prompt them to the murder,
Mpa our lengthening the period of his prophe-
| aa
the traditional spot of the martyrdom is a very
“nulberry-tree which stands nea) the Pool of
|
' aT
—_—- -.
ISAIAH 114°
sying beyond the limits which this verse assigns
For indeed —
3. Isaiah must have been an old man at the close
of Hezekiah’s reign. ‘The ordinary chronology gives
758 B. c. for the date of Jotham’s accession, and
698 for that of Hezekiah’s death. This gives us a
period of 60 years. And since his ministry com-
menced before Uzziah’s death (how long we know
not), supposing him to have been no more than 20
years old when he began to prophesy, he would
have been 80 or 90 at Manasseh’s accession.
4. The circle of hearers upon whom his ministry
was immediately designed to operate is determined
to be “Judah and Jerusalem.’”? True, we have in
the book prophecies relating to the kingdom of
Israel — as also to Moab, Babylon, and other hea-
then states; but neither in the one case nor the
other was the prophesying designed for the benefit
of these foreign states, or meant to be communi-
cated to them, but only for Judah, now becoming
the sole home of Hebrew blessings and hopes
Every other interest in the prophet’s inspired view
moves round Judah, and is connected with her.
5. It is the most natural and obvious supposi-
tion that the “ visions ’’ are in the main placed in
the collection according to their chronological
order; and this supposition it would be arbitrary
to set aside without more solid reasons than the
mere impulses of subjective fancy. We grant that
this presumption might be overruled, if good cause
were shown; but till it is shown, we have no war-
rant for rejecting the principle that the present
arrangement is in the main founded upon chrono-
logical propriety, only departed from in cases where
(as is very natural to suppose) similarity of char-
acter occasioned the grouping together of visions
which were not uttered at the same time.
6. If then we compare the contents of the book
with the description here given of it, we recognize
prophesyings which are certainly to be assigned to
the reigns of Uzziah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; but we
cannot so certainly find any belonging to the reign
of Jotham. The form of the expression in vi. 1,
“the year that king Uzziah died,” fixes the time
of that vision to the close of Uzziah’s reign, and
not to the commencement of Jotham’s. What
precedes ch. vi. may be referred to some preceding
part of Uzziah’s reign: except perhaps the first
chapter; this may be regarded as a general sum-
mary of advice founded upon the whole of what
follows, — a kind of general preface; corresponding
at the Commencement of the book to the parzenesis
of the nine chapters at its close. Ch. vii. brings
us at once from “the year that king Uzziah died”
to “the days of Ahaz.’’ We have then nothing
left for Jotham’s reign, unless we suppose that
some of the group of “burdens” in xili.—xxiii.
belong to it, or some of the perhaps miscellaneous
utterances in xxviiii-xxxv. It may be that proph-
esyings then spoken were not recorded, , because,
applying to a state of things similar to what ob-
tained in the latter part of Uzziah, they were them-
selves of a similar strain with chs. ii.—v.
7. We naturally ask, Who was the compiler of
the book? The obvious answer is, that it was
Isaiah himself aided by a scribe; comp. the very
interesting glimpse afforded us by Jer. xxxvi. 1-5,
of the relation between the utterance of prophecies
and their writing. Isaiah we know was otherwise
Siloam on the slopes of Ophel, below the 8S. E. wal
| of Jerusalem.
ISATAH
an author; for in 2 Chr. xxvi. 22 we read: “ Now
une rest of the acts of Uzziah first and last did
Isaiah the son of Amoz the prophet write’’; and
though that historical work has perished, the fact
remains to show that Isaiah’s mind was not alien
from the cares of written composition (comp. also
2 Chr. xxxii. 32: and observe the first person used
in vill. 1-5). The organic structure of the whole
book also, which we hope to make apparent, favors
the same belief. On the whole, that Isaiah was
himself the compiler, claims to be accepted as the
true view. The principal objection deserving of
notice is that founded upon xxxvii. 38. It has
been alleged (Hitzig, im loc.) that Sennacherib’s
murder took place B. c. 696, two years after Man-
asseh’s accession; others, however, question this
(comp. Hiivernick’s Linlectung): at all events the
passage is quite reconcilable with the belief of [saiah’s
being the compiler, if we suppose him to have lived
two or three years after Manasseh’s accession, even
without our having recourse to the expedient of
attributing the verse in question and the one before
it toa later hand. The name given in xxxvi. 11,
1%, to the Hebrew spoken in Jerusalem, “ the Jews’
language,” F117, is no evidence of a later age:
it is perfectly conceivable that while the written
language remained the same in both kingdoms, as
is evidenced by the prophetical books, the spoken
dialect (comp. Judg. xii. 6) of the kingdom of
Judah may have diverged so far from that of the
(now perished) kingdom of Israel as to have re-
ceived a distinct designation; and its name would
naturally, like that of the kingdom itself, be drawn
from the tribe which formed the chief constituent
of the population. As we are seeking for objective
evidence, we may neglect those wild hypotheses
which some have indulged in, respecting an original
work and its subsequent modifications; for since
they originate in the denial of divine inspiration
conjoined with reliance on a merely subjective ap-
preciation of the several writings, such hypotheses
must be assigned to the region of fancy rather
than of historic investigation.
8. In this introductory verse we have. yet to
notice the description which it gives of Isaiah’s
prophesyings: they are “the vision which he saw.”’
When we hear of wstons we are apt to think of a
mental condition in which the mind is withdrawn
altogether from the perception of objects actually
present, and contemplates, instead of these, another
set of objects which appear at the moment sensibly
present —a sort of dream without sleep. Such a
vision was that of St. Peter at Joppa. Such again
we recognize in Is. vi. — the only instance of this
kind of pure vision in the book; in Jeremiah, Eze-
kiel, and Zechariah, they abound. But Isaiah’s
mental state in his prophesying appears ordinarily
to have been different from this. Outward objects
really present were not withdrawn from his percep-
tion, but appear to have blended to his view, at
times, with the spiritual which was really present,
though not recognizable except to the eye of faith
(e. g., the presence of Jehovah); at times, with the
future, whether sensible or spiritual, which seemed
to the prophet as if actually present. In this view,
his prophesyings are not to be regarded as utter-
ances, in the delivery of which the Holy Ghost em-
ployed the intellectual and physical organs of the
prophet as mere instruments wielded by itself, but
as vision, 1. é., the description by the prophet him-
self under divine direction (2 Tim. iii. 16) of that
ISATAH | —
which at the time he seemed to himself to vee,
this view be just, it follows that in the deseripti
which the prophet gives of that which appearec
be before him, we cannot be at once sure, whet
he is describing what was actually objectively p
ent, or whether the objects delineated as pre:
belonged to the future. For example; at first si
the description given of the condition of Judal
i. 5-9, portraying an invasion, might be underst,
of what was actually present, and so might lea(|
either to supplement the history of 2 K, wit,
hypothetical invasion, or put forward the time;
the prophesying to Ahaz or Hezekiah. But r¢|
lecting that it is riscon, we see that it may be ta:
as simply predictive and threatening, and there!
as still spoken in Uzziah’s reign. Similarly ii:
v. 13, x. 28-32, are all predictive. So in the}
ond part is Ixiv. 11. Further, it would be onl}
accordance with this method of prophetic sigh;
we found the prophet describing some future 4)
as if present, and from that standing-point i
nouncing some more distant future, sometime)
future, and sometimes, again, as present. An}
fact it is thus that Isaiah represents the cor)
fortunes of God’s people in the second part ofi
prophecy. Comp. xlii. 13-17, xlix. 18, xly. 4
lili. 3-10, 11, 12, lxiii. 1-6, as illustrations of
manner in which the relations of past, present, \
future time are in vision blended together. _|
It has been remarked above as characteristi)
Isaiah’s ordinary prophetic vision, that the actil
present is not lost to view. In fact this was en
tial to his proper function. His first and immeit
concern was with his contemporaries, as thie
prover of sin. and to build up the piety of belie's
Even when his vision the most contemplatesh
future, he yet does not lose his reference tch
present, but (as we shall see even in the sea
part) he makes his prophesyings tell by exhort!)
and reproof upon the state of things actually ara
him. From all this it results, that we oftena
it difficult to discriminate his predictions froru
rebukes of present disorders. His contempors:
however, would be under no such difficulty. 1h
idolatrous and ungodly Hebrew would *
recognize his own description; the pious wou'b
confirmed and cheered.
- II. In order to realize the relation of Isa’
prophetic ministry to his own contemporarieW
need to take account both of the foreign relayn
of Judah at the time, and internally of its 112
and religious aspects. Our materials are scly
and are to be collected partly out of 2 K. él:
Chr., and partly out of the remaining writin) ©
contemporary prophets, Joel (probably), Obat!
and Micah, in Judah; and Hosea, Amos, and Ji
in Israel. Of these the most assistance is obti¢
from Micah. .
1. Under Uzziah the political position of :
}
had greatly recovered from the blows suffered 11¢
Amaziah; the fortifications of Jerusalem itself|
restored; castles were built in the country;°
arrangements in the army and equipments 22°
fensive artillery were established; and consid I
successes in war gained against the Philistine hi
Arabians, and the Ammonites. [Uzzian.] ™
prosperity continued during the reign of Joi™
except that, towards the close of this latter 15”
troubles threatened from the alliance of Israel”
Syria. [JorHam.] The consequence of this/*
perity was an influx of wealth, and this will
increased means of military strength withdrew
ISATAH
‘dence from Jehovah, and led them to trust in
dly resources. Moreover great disorders existed
e internal administration, all of which, whether
al or religious, were, by the very nature of the
monwealth, as theocratic, alike amenable to
hetic rebuke. It was the very business of Isaiah
other prophets to raise their voices as public
mers, as well as to fulfill the work which be-
s to religious teachers in edifying God’s true
ants and calling the irreligious to repentance.
srdingly our prophet steps forward into public
with the divine message, dressed after the
ner of prophets in general — girded in coarse
black, or at least dark colored, hair-cloth (comp.
cx. 2,1. 3; 2 K. i. 8; Zech. xiii. 4) — emblem-
ily indicating by this attire of mourning that
yvah spoke to his people in grief and resent-
t. [SackcLtoru.] From his house, which
ars to have been in Jerusalem (comp. vii. 3,
“ii. 5), he goes forth to places of general con-
se, chiefly no doubt, as Christ and his Apostles
rwards did, to the colonnades and courts of the
ple, and proclaims in the audience of the people
e word of Jehovah.”
. And what is the tenor of his message in the
of Uzziah and Jotham? This we read in chs.
Chap. i. is very general in its contents. In
ising it we may fancy that we hear the very
e of the Seer as he stands (perhaps) in the
rt of the Israelites denouncing to nobles and
le, then assembling for divine worship, the
le estimate of their character formed by Jehovah,
his approaching chastisements. ‘They are a
il nation; they have provoked the Holy One
srael to anger. Flourishing as their worldly
lition now appears, the man whose eyes are
ied sees another scene before him (1-9) — the
. laid waste, and Zion left as a cottage in a vine-
t —(a picture realized in the Syro-Ephraimitish
\ and more especially in the Assyrian invasion
he great event round which the whole of the
| part of the book revolves). Men of Sodom
Gomorrah that they are, let them hearken!
may go on if they will with their ritual worship,
tmpling ’ Jehovah’s courts ; nevertheless, He
jes them: the stain of innocent blood is on
t hands; the weak are oppressed ; there is bribery
corruption in the administration of justice.
‘them reform; if they will not, Jehovah will
1 out their sins in the smelting fire of his judg-
Zion shall be purified, and thus saved,
‘st the sinners and recreants from Jehovah in
‘shall perish in their much-loved idolatries.”’
‘ discourse suitably heads the book; it sounds
As they are detached nia
it is possible they have been grouped together yw;
out strict observance of their chronological orde
(a.) The first (xiii. 1—xiv. 27) is against Baby,
placed first, either because it was first in poin)
utterance, or because Babylon in prophetic vis
particularly when Isaiah compiled his book, hes)
in importance all the earthly powers oppose:
God’s people, and therefore was to be first sti;
down by the shaft of prophecy. As yet, not Bj
lon but Nineveh was the imperial city; but Is:
possessed not a mere foreboding drawn from pc;
cal sagacity, but an assured knowledge, that By
lon would be the seat of dominion and a lea)
antagonist. to the theocratic people. Not onlyi
he tell Hezekiah a few years later, when Nin=
was still the seat of empire, that his sons shoul}
carried captive ‘to Babylon,” but in this “ buré)
he also foretells both the towering ambition )
glory of that city, and its final overthrow.¢ bh
ode of triumph (xiv. 8-23) in this burden is am
the most poetical passages in all literature. |;
remarkable that the overthrow of Babylon is ii
24, 25, associated with the blow inflicted uporh
Ninevite empire in the destruction of Sennachey
army (for here again this great miracle of dn
judgment looms out into the prophet’s view), we
very disaster, however, probably helped on thes
of Babylon at the cost of its northern rival. |
explanation seems to be that Babylon was regele
as merely another phase of Asshur’s sovereiit
(comp. 2 K. xxiii. 29), so that the overthro\o
Sennacherib’s army was a harbinger of that br
complete destruction of the power of Asshur ve
F
approach. The destruction of Sennacherib’s ar,
the centre object of the first part of the book ; an ih
action of predictive prophecy, and of miracle a
tion to it, cannot be gainsaid without setting asidi
authenticity of the narrative altogether.
b This remarkable word, NID, * lifting t
variously understood, some taking it to refer to/i
to be borne by the parties threatened, others as iif
ing up of the voice in a solemn utterance. A hue
years later the term had been so misused by}
prophets, that Jeremiah (xxiii. 83-40) seems to ibi
its use. See 1 Chr. xy. 22, where in text and mai
of A. V. it is rendered “song,” “ carriage,’
“lifting up.” .
¢ Compare our remarks in p. 1160. Even i
were conceded to be the production of a later prié
than Isaiah (which there is no just cause whatev ft
believing), the problem which it presents to skep'!s!
would remain as hard as ever; for whence shou it
author learn that the ultimate condition of Ba}
would be such as is here delineated? (xiii. 19-22) 1
no time of Hebrew literature was there reason {jal
ticipate this of Babylon in particular more thi °
other cities. In vain does skepticism quote 1
nothing is said there of the witimate conditiy
Damascus ; and it is obvious enough that any c
blow as that (e. g.) inflicted by Tiglath-pileser a!
make Damascus for a while appear to be “no /Y
compared with what it had been, and would cv)
many of its streets into desolation. How differe’ th
language used of Babylon! And how wondéllll
verified by time! We have the parallel languag?”
verification in reference to Idumea (xxxiv.).
)
“!
ISAIAH
; burden announces.
ids to x].—xlviii.
b.) The short and pregnant “ burden ”’ against
listia (xiv. 29-32) in the year that Ahaz died,
-vecasioned by the revolt of the Philistines from
wh and their successful inroad, recorded 2 Chr.
“If Judah’s rule was a serpent, that
syria would prove a basilisk —a flying dragon;
their gates howl at the smoke which announced
invading army! Meanwhile Zion would repose
under the protection of her king: ” — language
nly predictive, as the compiler in giving the
iii. 18.
s evidently felt; comp. xxxvii.
¢.) The “ burden of Moab” (xv., xvi.) is remark-
| for the elegiac strain in which the prophet
ails the disasters of Moab, and for the dramatic
racter of xvi. 1-6, in which 3-5 is the petition
ihe Moabites to Judah, and ver. 6 Judah’s
ver. For Moab’s relation to Israel see MOAB.
1.) Chapters xvii., xviii.
3 the attention is withdrawn from Damascus
turned to Israel, and then to Ethiopia. Israel
ars as closely associated with Damascus, and
ed dependent upon her, and as having adopted
religious rites, ‘ strange slips,” ver. 10 (comp.
xvi. 10, of Ahaz), which shall not. profit her.
brings us to the time of the Syro-Ephraimitic
nee; at all events Ephraim has not yet ceased
tist. Chap. xvii. 12-14, as well as xviii. 1-7,
+ again to the event of xxxvii. But why this
? The solution seems to be that, though
ria would be the ruin both of Aram and of
1, and though it would even threaten Judah
4” ver. 14), it should not then conquer Judah
p- turn of xiv. 31, 32). And with this last
ght ch. xviii. is inseparably connected; for it
vall of congratulation to Ethiopia (« woe” in
(of A. V. should be “ho!” as ly. 1; also in
‘omit “saying ’’), whose deputies, predictively
ned as having come to Palestine to learn the
ess of the Assyrian invasion (comp. xxxvii. 9),
-nt back by the prophet charged with the glad
/of Asshur’s overthrow described in wv. 4-6.
\t. T we have the conversion of Ethiopia; for
‘people tall, and shorn ” is itself «the present ”’
_ brought unto Jehovah. (Comp. Acts viii.
i and the present condition of Ethiopia. )
|f8e repeated predictions of Zion’s deliverance
Asshur, in conjunction with Asshur’s triumph
‘4ion’s enemies, entered deeply into the essence
’ prophet’s public ministry; the great aim of
( was to fix the dependence of his countrymen
“ upon Jehovah.
| a
_ 800d deal of this burden is an enlargement of
xxi, 27-30, from the imitation of which the
)' of its style in part arises. It in turn reap-
in an enlarged edition in Jer. xlviii. The two
‘ding verses (Is. xvi. 18, 14), which furnish no
‘ound for doubting whether Isaiah wrote the
Of it, recount that of old time the purport of
Runeciation has been decreed (namely, in Num.
Aad xxiv. 17), but that within three years it
|
This prophecy is a note
reparation for the second part of the book; for
picture which it draws of Babylon, as having
ob in captivity, and being compelled to relin-
sh her prey (xiv. 1-3), is in brief the same as is
re fully delineated in xlvii.; while the conclud-
yerses about Sennacherib’s army (24-27) stand
omewhat the same relation to the rest of the
arden,” as the full history in xxxvi., xxxvii.
This prophecy is
led “the burden of Damascus; and yet after
ISAIAH 1155
(e.) In the “ burden of Egypt” (xis. the propher
seems to be pursuing the same object. Both Israel
(2 K. xvii. 4) and Judah (Is. xxxi.) were naturally
disposed to look towards Egypt for succor against
Assyria. Probably it was to counteract this ten-
dency that the prophet is here directed to prophesy
the utter helplessness of Egypt under God’s judg-
ments: she should be given over to Asshur (the
“cruel lord’ and “ fierce king’’ of ver. 4, not
Psammetichus), and should also suffer the most
dreadful culamities through civil dissensions and
through drought, — unless this drought is a figure
founded upon the peculiar usefulness of the Nile,
and the veneration with which it was regarded
(1-15). But the result should be that numerous
cities of Egypt should own Jehovah for their God,
and be joined in brotherhood with his worshippers
in Israel and in Asshur; —a, reference to Messianic
times.?
(f-) In the midst of these “burdens ”’ stands a
passage which presents Isaiah in a new aspect, an
aspect in which he appears in this instance only.
It was not uncommon both in the O. T. and in the
New (comp. Acts xxi. 11) for a prophet to add to
his spoken word an action symbolizing its import.
Sargon, known here only, was king of Assyria,
probably between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib.
His armies were now in the south of Palestine be-
sieging Ashdod. It has been plausibly conjectured
that Tirhakah, king of Meroé, and Sethos, the king
of Egypt, were now in alliance. The more em-
phatically to enforce the warning already conveyed
in the “ burden of Egypt’? — not to look thither-
ward for help — Isaiah was commanded to appear
in the streets and temple of Jerusalem stripped of
his sackcloth mantle, and wearing his vest only,
with his feet also bare. “Thus shall Egyptians
and Ethiopians walk, captives before the king of
Assyria.”” For three years was he directed (from
time to time, we may suppose) thus to show him-
self in public view, — to make the lesson the more
impressive by constant repetition.
(g-) In “the burden of the desert of the sea,’’
a poetical designation of Babylonia (xxi. 1-10),
the images in which the fall of Babylon is indicated
are sketched with Aschylean rapidity, and certainly
not less than Aischylean awfulness and grandeur.
As before (xiii. 17), the Medes are the captors. It
is to comfort Judah sighing under the “ treacherous
spoiling ’’ (v. 2) and continual « threshing ”’ (v. 10)
of Asshur — Ninevite and Babylonian — that the
Spirit of God moves the prophet to this utterance.c
(h.) “The burden of Dumah,’”’ — in which the
watchman can see nothing but night, let them ask
him as often as they will —and “ of Arabia’? (xxi.
11-17), relate apparently to some Assyrian inva-
sion.
(.) In “the burden of the valley of vision”
(xxii. 1-14), it is doubtless Jerusalem that is thus
designated, and not without sadness, as having been
so long the home of prophetic vision to so little
result. The scene presented is that of Jerusalem
should begin to be fulfilled. It was not completely
fulfilled even in Jeremiah’s time.
6 Comp. the close of the * burden of Tyre.” The
“city of destruction ” (xix. 18) is supposed by many
to be Beth-shemesh of Jer. xliii. 18, specified because
hitherto an especial seat of idolatry. Onias's misuse
of this prediction is well known. [See IR-HA-HERES.
¢ In vy. 8 and 4 the poet dramatically represents
the feelings of the Babylonians.
1156 ISAIAH
during an invasion; in the hostile army are named
Elam and Kir, nations which no doubt contributed
troops both to the Ninevite and to the Babylonian
armies. The latter is probably here contemplated. a
The homiletic purpose of this prediction in reference
to Isaiah’s contemporaries, was to inculcate a pious
and humble dependence upon Jehovah in place of
any mere fleshly confidence.
(k.) The passage xxii. 15-25 is singular in Isaiah
as a prophesying against an individual. Comp. the
word of Amos (vii. ) against Amaziah, and of Jere-
miah (xx.) against Pashur. Shebna was probably
as ungodly as they. One of the king’s highest
functionaries, he seems to have been leader “of a
party opposed to Jehovah (vy. 25, “the burden that
is upon it’’). Himself a stranger in Jerusalem —
perhaps an alien, as Ewald conjectures from the
un-Hebrew form of his name — he may have been
introduced by Hezekiah’s predecessor Ahaz; he
made great parade of his rdnk (ver. 18; comp. 2
Sam. xv. 1), and presumed upon his elevation so
far as to hew out a tomb high up in the cliffs
(probably on the western or southwestern side of
Jerusalem, where so many were excavated), as an
ostentatious display of his greatness (comp. 2 Chr.
xxxii. 383, margin). We may believe him to have
been engaged with this business outside the walls
when Isaiah came to him with his message. Shebna
fancies his power securely rooted; but Jehovah will
roll him up as a ball and toss him away into a far
distant land, —disgrace that he is to his master !
his stately robes of office, with his broad magnificent
girdle, shall invest another, Eliakim. Ch. xxxvi.
3, seems to indicate a decline of his power, as it
also shows Eliakim’s promotion to Shebna’s former
post. Perhaps he was disgraced and exiled by
Hezekiah, after the event of xxxvii., when the sin-
ners in Zion were overawed and great ascendency
for a while secured to the party which was true to
Jehovah. If his fall was the consequence of the
Assyrian overthrow, we can better understand both
the denunciation against the individual and the
position it occupies in the record.
(l.) The last *‘ burden ”’ is against Tyre (xxiii.).
The only cause specified by Isaiah for the judgment
upon Tyre is her pride (ver. 9; comp. Kz. xxviii.
2,6); and we can understand how the Tyrians,
proud of their material progress and its outward
displays, may have looked with contempt upon the
plainer habits of the theocratic people. But this
was not the only ground. The contagion of her
idolatry reached Jerusalem (1 K. xi. 5, 83; 2 K.
xi. 18, xxiii. 13). Otherwise also she was an in-
jurious neighbor (Ps. Ixxxiii. 7; Joel, iii. 6; Am.
i, 9). It therefore behoved Jehovah, both as aven-
a That it is not Sennacherib’s invasion, we infer
from the unrelieved description of godlessness and
recklessness (vv. 11, 12), and the threatened punish-
ment unto death (ver. 14), whereas Hezekiah’s piety
was conspicuous, and saved the city. (Comp. 2 Chr.
xxxvi. 12, 16.) Moreover, the famine in 2 K. xxy. 3
throws light on Is. xxii. 2. ‘That vv. 9-11 agree
with 2 Chr. xxxii. 8-5 proves nothing: the same
measures would be taken in any invasion (comp. Is.
vii. 3). The former part of ver. 2 and vv. 12, 18,
describe the state of things preceding the imagined
present.
6 * Behold the land of the Chaldeans ; this people,”
t. e. the Chaldeans, “was not: Asshur founded it for
the inhabitants of the wilderness,” assigning a loca-
tion to the Chaldeans, heretofore nomadic, Job i. 17;
‘ they,” the Chaldzeans, ‘set up their watch-towers ;
ISAIAH
ging his own worship, and as the guardian
avenger of his peculiar people, to punish ‘
Shalmaneser appears to have been foiled i
five years’ siege; Nebuchadnezzar was more
cessful, capturing at least the mainland part o
city; and to this latter circumstance ver. 13 re
In vv. 15-17 it seems to be intimated that
the pressure of Asshur should be removed (b
Medo-Persian conquest), Tyre should revive.
utter destruction is not predicted by Isaiah
afterwards was by Ezekiel. Ver. 18 pro
points to Messianic times: comp. Mark vii
Acts xxi. 3; Euseb. H. #. x. 4.
9. The next four chapters, xxiv.—xxvil., forr
prophecy essentially connected with the pree
ten “ burdens’ (xiii.-xxiii.), of which it is in
a general summary; it presents previous der
ations in one general denunciation which inc
the theocratic people itself, and therewith als
promise of blessings, especially Messianic bles
for the remnant. It no longer particularizes (]
xxv. 10, represents all enemies of God’s peor
Edom does in Ixiii. 1), but speaks of judg:
upon lands, cities, and oppressors in general {
the reference of which is to be gathered from
goes before.¢ |
The elegy of xxiv. is interrupted at ver. 1
glimpse at the happy remnant (ver. 15, fires:
ably means east), but is resumed at ver. 16, |
ver. 21 the dark night passes away altoget!
usher in an inexpressibly glorious day.@ |
In xxv., after commemorating the destruct
all oppressors (“city ’’ ver. 2, contemplates
lon as type of all), the prophet gives us in v
a most glowing description of Messianic ble
which connects itself with the N. T. by numr
links, indicating the oneness of the prophetic,
(“the Spirit of Christ,’’ 1 Pet. i. 11), wit!
which dwells in the later revelation.¢ |
In xxvi., vv. 12-18 describe the new, happ?
of God’s people as God’s work wholly (cor.
“by thee only’’); all thew efforts were fit
till God graciously interposed. The new coil
of Israel is figuratively a resurrection (com
kiel’s vision of dry bones, Ez. xxxvii.), a fit
omnipotent agency; as indeed the glorifie's
of the Church hereafter will be liters ae
rection.
In xxvii. 1, “ Leviathan the seciens ea
Leviathan the twisting serpent, and the dro
the sea,’’ are perhaps Nineveh and Babylon
phases of the same Asshur—and Egypt jo
ver. 13); all, however, symbolizing adverse)"
of evil. The reader will observe that in thie
of his ministry, Isaiah already contempl:
they demolished her (Tyre’s) palaces: He rie
aruin.” In the face of all external evidence,
not accept Ewald’s ingenious conjecture of i 3
for DTW. .
¢ Thus comp. xxiv. 18-15, xxvii. 9, with x é
also xxv. 2 with xiii. 19; also xxv. 3-12 wi! X
7, xxiii. 18; and xxy. 5 with xviii. 4-6. |
d In ver. 21, “Jehovah shall visit the hoot
height ” — stars, symbolic of rulers, as Mark i
The * ancients 0 of ver. 23 represent the Chv);
the elders in Rev. iv. 4. :
e In ver. 7 “the face,” 7. e. * the surf of
covering,”’ is the veil itself as lying upon t i
‘of the covering.”’? In ver. 11 we have thei
endeavors of Moab to escape out of the flood! 4
wrath.
=
od
ISAIAH
ure deliverance of his people as a restoration
m captivity, especially from Assyria, vv. 12, 13
mp. xi. 11, 16), as he does in the second part;
Babylon being a second phase of Asshur.
40. Chs. xxviii.-xxxv. The former part of this
tion seems to be of a fragmentary character,
ing, as Hengstenberg with much probability con-
etures, the substance of discourses not fully com-
micated, and spoken at different times. The
ter part hangs more closely together, and may
th considerable certainty be assigned to the time
Sennacherib’s invasion. At such a season the
irit of prophecy would be especially awake.
Ch. xxviii. 1-6 is clearly predictive; it therefore
saceeded Shalmaneser’s invasion, when Samaria,
he crown of pride’’ surmounting its beautiful
I, was destroyed. But the men of Judah also, ver.
(comp. ver. 14), are threatened. And here we
ve a picture given us of the way in which Jeho-
h’s word was received by Isaiah’s contemporaries.
iest and prophet were drunk with a spirit of
atuation, — “ they erred in vision, they stumbled
judgment,” and therefore only scoffed at his
nistrations.¢
In the lips of these false prophets, prophesying,
proportion to its falsehood, would be exaggerated
the wildness and incoherency of the style. Hence
2 scofting prophets and priests made it a matter
reproach against Isaiah that his style was so
in and simple — as if he were dealing with little
ildren, ver. 9. And in mockery they accumulate
mosyllables as imitating his style (tsav la-tsav,
w la-tsav, kav la-kav, kav la-kav, zeeir sham,
ir sham, ver. 10). ‘Twist my words”? (is
iah’s reply) “into a mocking jabber if ye will;
id shall in turn speak to you by the jabber of
eign invaders! ’’ (comp. Deut. xxviii. 49). They
isted that they had made a “ vision ’’ — a com-
et with death and hell (vv. 15, 18, “agree-
mt,” Hebr. vision), and that through the meas-
® which they, seer and priest together, had
opted, no invasion should hurt them. But the
me which Jehovah lays in Zion (God’s own
»phets) alone secures those who trust in it; ye
ul perish (16-22). Ver. 16 is applied in the
_T. to Christ; he is now the prophet who saves
ose who believe in him. This glimpse into He-
bw life explains to us in part the cause of the
lure of the prophetic ministry. The travesty of
she word of Jehovah ”’ preoccupied men’s minds,
jat least confused them; while further the con-
ting voices of different prophets, the false and
» true, would furnish them, as in all ages it does
the worldly and the skeptical, a ground for entire
belief.
“Cannot ye wise men apply to the conduct of
I affairs in relation to God that shrewdness and
sdom, which the farmer displays in dealing with
‘ yarious businesses, and which God has given
‘xe to him and to you?” (23-29).
The priest and the prophet.” There is no rea-
| to understand these as connected with idolatry.
*re were always (it would seem) a numerous party
»© assumed the hair-wove mantle of the prophet
Wearing a hairy garment to deceive’’); and these
le-clad Inen perhaps even swarmed in the streets
Jerusalem. [ELyAH, p. 703, note e.] The priests,
the other hand, were the aristocracy of J udah,
|, under the king, to a great extent ruled its policy.
¢ the coalition of strategus and orator at Athens,
Priest and prophet played into each other’s hands
| Jarneatem. Whatever public policy the priests
uh
ISAIAH 1157
Ch. xxix. Jerusalem was to be visited with
extreme danger and terror, and then sudden de-
liverance, vy. 1-8. (Sennacherib’s invasion again!
But the threatening and promise seemed very enig
matical; prophets, and rulers, and scholars, coula
make nothing of the riddle (9-12). Alas’ the
people themselves will only hearken to the prophets
and priests speaking out of their own heart; even
their so-called piety to Jehovah is regulated, not
by his true organs, but by pretended ones, ver. 13
(comp. the condition of the Jews in relation to their
rabbins and to Christ, Matt. xv. 8, 9); but all
their vaunted policy shall be confounded; the wild
wood shall become a fruitful field, and the fruitful
field a wild wood; — the humble pupils of Jehovah
and these self-wise leaders shall interchange their
places of dishonor and prosperity, vv. 13-24.
One instance of the false leading of these proph-
ets and priests (xxx. 1) in opposition to the true
prophets (vv. 10, 11) was the policy of courting
the help of Egypt against Assyria. Against this,
Isaiah is commanded to protest, which he does both
in xxx. 1-17, and in xxx. 1-3, pointing out at the
same time the fruitlessness of all measures of hu-
man policy and the necessity of trusting in Jehovah
alone for deliverance. In xxx. 18-33, and xxxi.
4-9, there is added to each address the prediction
of the Assyrian’s overthrow and its consequences,
xxx. 19-24, in terms which, when read in the light
of the event, seem very clear, but which no doubt
appeared to the worldly and skeptical at the time
mere frenzy.
As the time approaches, the spirit of prophecy
becomes more and more glowing; that marvelous
deliverance from Asshur, wherein God’s ‘ Name’”’
(xxx. 27) so gloriously came near, opens even
clearer glimpses into the time when God should
indeed come and reign, in the Anointed One, and
when virtue and righteousness should everywhere
prevail (xxxii. 1-8, 15--20); then the mighty Jeho-
vah should be a king dwelling amongst his people
(xxxiii. 17, 22); he should himself be a sea of
glory and defense encircling them, in which all
hostile galleys should perish. At that glorious
display of Jehovah’s nearness (namely, that afforded
in the Assyrian’s overthrow), they who had re-
jected Jehovah in his servants and prophets, the
sinners in Zion, should be filled with dismay, dread-
ing lest his terrible judgment should alight upon
themselves also (xxxiii. 14). With these glorious
predictions are blended also descriptions of the
grief and despair which should precede that hour,
xxxii. 9-14 (?) and xxxiii. 7-9, and the earnest
prayer then to be offered by the pious (xxxiii. 2).
In ch. xxxiv. the prediction must certainly be
taken with a particular reference to Idumea (this is
shown by the challenge in ver. 16, to compare the
fulfillment with the prophecy); we are however led,
both by the placing of the prophecy and by Ixiii. 2,
to take it in a general sense as well as typical.¢
advised, they would be seconded therein by prophets,
“in the name of Jehovah.’ Isaiah’s contemporary
shows us in what an unprincipled manner the proph-
ets abused their function for their own advantage (Mic.
iii. 5-7, 11): “The prophets prophesied falsely, and
the priests bare rule by their means” (Jer. v. 31).
Hence prophets and priests are so often named to-
gether (comp. xxix. 9, 10).
b In ver. 10, read “some days over a year shal!
ye be troubled.”
c The reference to * the book of Jehovah,” ver. 16
as containing this prediction, deserves notice. As the
1158 ISAIAH
As xxxiv. has a general sense, so xxxv. indicates
in general terms the deliverance of Israel as if out
vf captivity, rejoicing in their secure and: happy
march through the wilderness. It may be doubted
whether the description is meant to apply to any
deliverance out of temporal captivity, closely as the
imagery approaches that of the second part. It
rather seems to picture the march of the spiritual
{srael to her eternal Zion (Heb. xii. 22).
ll. xxxvii.xxxix.— At length the season so
often, though no doubt obscurely foretold, arrived.
The Assyrian was near with forces apparently irre-
sistible. In the universal consternation which en-
sued, all the hope of the state centred upon Isaiah;
the highest functionaries of the state, — Shebna
too, — wait upon him in the name of their sove-
reign, confessing that they were now in the very
extremity of danger (xxxvii. 3), and entreating his
prayers; a signal token this, of the approved
fidelity of the prophet in the ministry which he
had so long exercised. The short answer which
Jehovab gave through him was, that the Assyrian
king should hear intelligence which would send
him back to his own land, there to perish. The
event shows that the intelligence pointed to was
that of the destruction of his army. Accordingly
Hezekiah communicated to Sennacherib, now at
Libnah, his refusal to submit, expressing his assur-
ance of heing protected by Jehovah (comp. ver. 10).
This drew from the Assyrian king a letter of defi-
ance against Jehovah himself, as being no more
able to defend Jerusalem, than other tutelary gods
had been to defend the countries which he had
conquered. On Hezekiah spreading this letter
before Jehovah in the ‘Temple for him to read and
answer (ver. 17), Isaiah was commissioned to send
a fuller reply to the pious king (21-35), the mani-
fest. object of which was the more completely to
signalize, especially to God’s own people them-
selves, the meaning of the coming event.2 How
the deliverance was to be effected, Isaiah was not
commissioned to tell; but the very next night (2
K. xix. 35) brought the appalling fulfillment. A
divine interposition so marvelous, so evidently
miraculous, was in its magnificence worthy of
being the kernel of Isaiah’s whole book; it is in-
deed that without which the whole book falls to
pieces, but with which it forms a well-organized
whole (comp. Ps. lxxvi., xlvi., xlviii.).
prophet’s spoken word was “the word of Jehovah,”
so his written word is here called * the book of Jeho-
vah.”? Jt shows Isaiah’s estimate of his prophetical
writings. So xxx. 8 points to an enduring record in
which he was to deposit his testimony concerning
Egypt. (In xxx. 9, for “ That this is,” etc., read
‘€ Because this is,” etc.)
a How like Isaiah’s style the whole passage is!
Xxxvii. 26 refers to the numerous predictions of As-
shur’s conquests and overthrow found in preceding
parts of the book (comp. xliv. 8; xlvi. 9-11, &c ).
Comp. ver. 27 with xli. 2. “Sign? in ver. 30, as in
vii. 14-16 ; — There must be a remnant; therefore ye
shall now be delivered. For further explanation,
Ewald refers to the law in Lev. xxv. 5, 11: * Your
condition this year will be like that of a Sabbath year ;
next year (the land being even then not quite cleared
of invaders) like that of the jubilee year: as at the
jubilee the Hebrew commonwealth starts afresh, re-
stored to its proper condition, so now reformation,
the fruit of affliction, shall introduce better days ”
(ver. 31).
b For Hezekiah’s sickness was 15 years before his
Xeath. whereas the destruction of Sennacherib’s army
t
ISAIAH
Chs. xxxviii., xxxix. chronologically precede
two previous ones: ® but there seems to be at
fold purpose in this arrangement: one ethical
illustrate God’s discipline exercised over his n
favored servants, and the other literary, to in
duce by the prediction of the Babylonian Capti
the second part of the book. As the two prece¢
chapters look back upon the prediction of the:
part, and therefore stand even before xxxyiii,
xxxix. looks forward to the subsequent proph
ings, and is therefore placed immediately pe
them.¢ |
12. The last 27 chapters form a prophecy, wl
coherence of structure and unity of authorship,
generally admitted even by those who deny th:
was written by Isaiah. The point of time.
situation from which the prophet here speak
for the most part that of the Captivity in Bab,
(comp., é. g., lxiv. 10, 11). But this is adoptec
a principle already noted as characterizing ‘« visic
namely, that the prophet sees the future aj
present. ‘That the present with the prophet in |
section was imagined and not real, is indicate:
the specification of sins which are rebuked;
neglect of sacrifices (xliii. 22-24), unaccept
sacrifices (Ixvi. 3), various idolatries (lvii. 3-
Ixv. 8, 4); sins belonging to a period before \
exile, and not to the exile itself.¢ But that
imagined time and place should be maintai
through so long a composition, is unquestionab|
remarkable phenomenon. It is, however, expla’
by the fact, that the prophet in these later proph}
ings is a writer rather than a public speaker, wri|
for the edification of God’s people in those fu:
days of the approach of which Isaiah was awé
For the punishment of exile had been of old>
nounced in case of disobedience even by M>
himself (Ley. xxvi. 31-35), and thus contempl
by Solomon (1 K. viii. 46-50); moreover, Is!
had himself often realized and predicted it, J
reference repeatedly to Babylon in particular (xxx
6, 7, xxvil. 12, 13, xxi. 2, 10, xiv. 2, 3, xi. 11,2
vi. 11, 12); which was also done by Micah (iv.)
vii. 12, 13). Apart therefore from the immect
suggestion of an inspiring afflatus, it was a thowr
already fixed in Isaiah’s mind by a chain of fe
going revelations, that the Hebrews would bee
ported to Babylon, and that too within a gen»
tion or two. We dwell upon this, because it ns
(so chronologers determine) occurred 12 or 18 y:
before the same date.
¢ Since xxxviii. 9-20 is not in 2 K., and on}
other hand in 2 K. are found many touches not fc
in Is. (¢. g. 2 K. xviii. 14-16 ; xx. 4, 5, 9, &e.), ere
are generally agreed that neither account was dit
from the other, but both of them from the re'
mentioned in 2 Chr. xxxii. 82 as “ the vision of Isih
the prophet, the son of Amoz, (found) in (not, «in
A. V., ‘and in’) the book of the kings of Judah}
Israel” ; which record Isaiah adopted with modi
tions into the compilation of his prophecies.
d As it is for the benefit of God’s own people (
Isaiah writes, and not to affect heathen nation!0
whom he had no commission, the arguing ages
idolatry, of which we have so much in this part, to
be ascribed to idolatrous tendencies among the
brews themselves, which ceased at the Captivity >?
the deportation probably (Hengst.) affected chiefly)¢
best disposed of the nation, especially the an
whom there appears to have been a disproportio
number both among those who were exiled and tae
who returned.
.
; ISAIAH
acknowledged, and we have already made the
nark, that “ vision’ even in its most heightened
m still adapted itself more or less to the previous
ntal condition of the seer. We can _ under-
nd, therefore, how Isaiah might be led to write
ophesyings, such as should serve as his minis-
‘jal bequest to his people when the hour of their
ptivity should have fallen upon them.
This same fact, namely, that the prophet is here,
the undisturbed retirement of his chamber, giv-
tus a written prophecy, and not recording, as in
e early part of the book, spoken discourses, goes
‘to explain the greater profusion of words, and
e clearer, more flowing, and more complete ex-
sition of thoughts, which generally characterize
is second part; whereas the first part frequently
hibits great abruptness, and a close compression
d terseness of diction, at times almost enigmati-
[—as an indignant man might speak among
insayers from whom little was to be hoped. This
ference of style, so far as it exists (for it has been
satly exaggerated ), may be further ascribed to the
ference of purpose; for here Isaiah generally ap-
as as the tender and compassionate comforter
the pious and afflicted; whereas before he appears
her as accuser and denouncer. There exists after
sufficient similarity of diction to indicate Isaiah’s
nd (see Keil’s /in/eitung, § 72, note 7).
This second part falls into three sections, each,
it happens, consisting of nine chapters; the two
it end with the refrain, “There is no peace,
th Jehovah (07 “my God*’), to the wicked; ”’
1 the third with the same thought amplified.
(1.) The first section (xl.—xlviii.) has for its main
jie the comforting assurance of the deliverance
m Babylon by Koresh (Cyrus) who is even named
ice (xli. 2, 3, 25, xliv. 28, xlv. 1-4, 13, xlvi. 11,
iii. 14,15).¢ This section abounds with argu-
nts against idolatry, founded mainly (not wholly,
the noble passage xliv. 9-20) upon the gift of
diction possessed by Jehovah's prophets, espe-
lly as shown by their predicting Cyrus, and even
ning him (xli. 26, xliv. 8, 24-26, xlv. 4, 19, 21,
i. 8-11, xviii. 3-8, 15). Idols and heathen
‘iners are taunted with not being able to predict
4. 1-7, 21-24, xliii. 8-13, xlv. 20-21, xlvii. 10-
Y This power of foretelling the future, as shown
this instance, is insisted upon as the test of
‘inity.o It is of importance to observe, in refer-
e to the prophet’s standing-point in this second
}t, that in speaking both of the Captivity in
/yylon and of the deliverance out of it,. there is
|xepting Cyrus’s name) no specification of partic-
| cireumstances, such as we might expect to find
he writer had written at the end of the exile;
ee
/ The point has been argued for, and the evidence
fas Satisfactory (Hiivernick, Hengst.), that Koresh.
‘ord meaning Sun, was commonly in the East, and
licularly in Persia, a title of princes, and that it
\. assumed by Cyrus, whose original name was
{adates, on his ascending the throne. It stands,
l ever, in history as his own proper name. This
i ance of particularizing in prophecy is paralleled by
‘Specification of Josiah’s name (1 K. xiii. 2) some
‘years before his time.
It is difficult to acquit the passages above cited
“mpudent and indeed suicidal mendacity, if they
¥) not written before Cyrus appeared on the political
ie.
Ta the discussion and refutation of all expositions
ch understand by “the servant of Jehovah” here
Yn the second section, the Jewish people, or the
|
;
%
ISAIAH 115$
the delineation is of a general kind, borrowed fre-
quently from the history of Moses and Joshua. Let
it be observed, in particular, that the language
respecting the wilderness (e. g. xli. 17-20), through
which the redeemed were to pass, is unmistakably
ideal and symbolical.
It is characteristic of sacred prophecy in general,
that the ‘“vision’’ of a great deliverance leads the
seer to glance at the great deliverance to come
through Jesus Christ. This association of ideas is
found in several passages in the first part of Isaiah,
in which the destruction of the Assyrian army
suggests the thought of Christ (e. g. x. 24-xi. 16,
xxxi. 8-xxxii. 2). This principle of association
prevails in the second part taken as a whole; but
in the first section, taken apart, it appears as yet
imperfectly. However, xlii. 1-7 is a clear prediction
of the Messiah, and that too as viewed in part in
contrast with Cyrus; for the “ servant’’ of Jehovah
is meek and gentle (ver. 2, 3), and will establish
the true religion in the earth (ver. 4). Neverthe-
less, since the prophet regards the two deliverances
as referable to the same type of thought (comp. lxi.
1-3), so the announcement of one (xl. 3-5) is held
by all the four Evangelists, and by John Bayptist
himself, as predictive of the announcement of the
other.¢
(2.) The second section (xlix.-lvii.) is distin-
guished from the first by several features. The
person of Cyrus as well as his name, and the speci-
fication of Babylon (named in the first section four
times) and of its gods, and of the Chaldeans (named
before five times), disappear altogether. Return
from exile is indeed repeatedly spoken of and at
length (xlix. 9-26, li. 9-lii. 12, lv. 12, 13, lvii. 14);
but in such general terms as admit of being applied
to the spiritual and Messianic, as well as to the
literal restoration. And that the Messianic restora-
tion (whether a spiritual restoration or not) is prin-
cipally intended, is clear from the connection of the
restoration promised in xlix. 9-25 with the Messiah
portrayed in xlix. 1-8;¢ from the description of
the suffering Christ (in 1. 5, 6) in the midst of the
promise of deliverance (1. 1-11); from the same
description in lii. 13-liii. 12, between the passages
li. 1-lii. 12, and liv. 1-17; and from the exhibition
of Christ in lv. 4 (connected in ver. 3 with the
Messianic promise given to David), forming the
foundation on which is raised the promise of lv.
3-13. Comp. also the interpretation of liv. 13 given
by Christ himself in John vi. 45, and that of Ixi.
1-3 in Luke iv. 18. In fact the place of Cyrus in
the first section is in this second section held by
his greater Antitype.¢
(3.) In the third section (lviii.-Ixvi.) as Cyrus
pious among them, or the prophetical order, or some
other object than the Messiah, comp. Hengstenberg’s
Christology, vol. ii.
d In this passage Christ is called ‘ Israel,’ as the
concentration and consummation of the covenant-
people — as he in whom its idea is to be realized.
e That Jesus of Nazareth is the object which in
* vision” the prophet saw in 1. 6, and in lii. 18, liii.
12 (connecting lii. 18 with liii. 12 as one passage), will
hardly be questioned amongst ourselves, except by
those whose minds are prepossessed by the notion that
predictive revelation is inconceivable. Meanwhile all
will acknowledge the truth of Ewald’s remark: “In
the Servant of Jahve, who so vividly hovers before his
view, the prophet discerns a new clear light shed
abroad over all possible situations of that time; in
him he finds the balm of consolation, the cheer of
1160 ISAIAH
nowhere appears, so neither does “ Jehovah’s ser-
vant ’’ occur so frequently to view as in the second.
The only delineation of the latter is in lxi. 1-3
and in lxiii. 1-6, 9. He no longer appears as suf-
fering, but only as saving and avenging Zion.¢
The section is mainly occupied with various practi-
cal exhortations founded upon the views of the
tuture already set forth. In the second the pare-
nesis is almost all consoling, taking in lv. 1-7 the
form of advice; only in lii. and towards the close
in lvi. 9-lvii. 14 is the language accusing and
minatory. In this third section, on the other hand,
the prophesying is very much in this last-named
strain (cf. lviii. 1-7, lix. 1-8, Ixy. 1-16, lxvi. 1-6,
15-17, 24); taking the form of national self-bewail-
ment in lix. 9-15 and Ixiii. 15-lxiv. 12. Still,
interspersed in this admonition, accusation, and
threatening, there are gleams, and even bright
tracts, of more cheering matter; besides the con-
ditional promises as arguments for well-doing in
lviii. § 14 and Ixyi. 1, 2, we have the long passage
of general and unconditional promise in lix. 20-
lxiii. 6, and the shorter ones Ixy. 17-25, Ixvi. 7-14,
18-23; and in some of these passages the future of
Zion is depicted with brighter coloring than almost
anywhere before in the whole book. But on the
whole the predominant feature of this section is
exhortation with the view, as it should seem, of
qualifying men to receive the promised blessings.
There was to be “no peace for the wicked,’ but
only for those who turned from ungodliness in
Jacob; and therefore the prophet in such various
forms of exhortations urges the topic of repentance,
— promising, advising, leading to confession (Ixiv.
6-12; comp. Hos. xiv. 2, 3), warning, threatening.
In reference to the sins especially selected for rebuke,
we find specified idolatry Ixv. 8, 4, 11, Ixvi. 17 (as
in the second section lvii. 3-10), bloodshedding,
and injustice (lix. 1-15), selfishness (Ixv. 5), and
merely outward and ceremonial religiousness (Ixvi.
1-3). If it were not for the place given to idolatry,
we might suppose with Dr. Henderson that the
spirit of God is already by prophetic anticipation
rebuking the Judaism of the time of Jesus Christ,
— so accurately in niany places are its features de-
lineated as denounced in the N. T. But the speci-
fication of idolatry leads us to seek for the imme-
diate objects of this parzenesis in the prophet’s own
time, when indeed the Pharisaism displayed in the
N. T. already existed, being in fact in all ages the
natural product of an unconverted, unspiritual heart
combining with the observance of a positive religion,
and in all ages (comp. e. g. Ps. 1.) antagonistic to
true piety.
While we can clearly discern certain dominant
thoughts and aims in each of these three sections,
we must not, however, expect to find them pursued
with the regularity which we look for in a modern
sermon; such treatment is wholly alien from the
spirit of prophecy, which always more or less is in
the strict sense of the word desultory. Accordingly
we find in these, as in the earlier portions of the
book, the transitions sudden, and the exhortation
every now and then varied by dramatic interlocu-
everlasting hope, the weapon wherewith to combat and
shame down those who understand not the time, the
means of impressive exhortation. And if in this long
piece (xl.-lxvi.) a multitude of very diverse weighty
thoughts emerge into view, yet this is the dominant
thought which binds everything together ”’ (Propheten,
fi. p. 407).
ISAIAH a
tion, by description, by odes of thanksgiving,
prayers. :
III. Numberless attacks have been made
German critics upon the integrity of the w]
book, different critics pronouncing different porti
of the first part spurious, and many coneurrin;
reject the second part altogether. A few obse;
tions, particularly on this latter point, appear th)
fore to be necessary.
1. The first writer who ever breathed a suspic
j that Isaiah was not the author of the last twer
seven chapters was Koppe, in remarks upon ch
in his German translation of Lowth’s /saiah, y,
lished in the years 1779-1781. This was prese
after followed up by Déderlein, especially in|
Latin translation and commentary in 1789;
Eichhorn, who in a later period most fully develc|
his views on this point in his Hebrdischen J)
pheten, 1816-1819; and the most fully and eff;
ively by Justi. The majority of the German eri
have given in their adhesion to these Views |
Paulus (1793), Bertholdt (1812), De Wette (18)
Gesenius (1820, 1821), Hitzig (1833), Kn:
(1838), Umbreit and Ewald (1841). Defender)
the integrity of the book have not, however, Ii
wanting — particularly Jahn in his Linleii)
(1802); Moller in his De Authentia Oraculo;
Jescme (Copenhagen, 1825); Kleinert in his 12
theit des Jesaias (1829); Hengstenberg in i
Christology, vol. ii.; Hivernick, Linleitung, Bi
(1849); Stier in his Jesaias nicht Pea
(1850); and Keil, Linlettung (1853), in which
the reader will find a most satisfactory compend)
of the controversy and of the grounds for the ;
erally received view.
2. The catalogue of authors who gainsay Isai’
authorship of this second part is, in point of na
bers, of critical ability, and of profound Heli
scholarship, sufficiently imposing. Neverthis
when we come to inquire into their grounds F
jection, we soon cease to attach much value to/i
formidable array of authorities. The circumste
mainly urged by them is the unquestionable
that the author has to a considerable view ti
his standing-point at the close of the Babylosl
Captivity as if that were his present, and ip
thence looks forward into the subsequent fuije
Now is it possible (they ask) that in such a mae
and to such a degree a Seer should step out of)
own time, and plant his foot so firmly in a &
time? We must grant (they urge) that he mb
gaze upon a future not very distant, as if preitt
and represent it accordingly; but in the case br
us infallible insight and prescience must be p'lt
cated of him; for this idea of an Isaiah who ki
even Cyrus’s name was not realized for two
turies later, and a chance hit is here out of)
question. «This, however, is inconceivable. 4
prophet’s prescience must be limited to the ni!
of foreboding (Ahnungq), and to the deductions =
patent facts taken in combination with real or |p
posed truths. Prophets were bounded like ¢@
men by the horizon of their own age} oan
rowed the object of their soothsaying from
a Restoration from captivity is spoken of in i
12, Ixi. 4-7, lxii. 4, 5, 10; but for the most pall
such general terms as might easily be understoc|#
referring to spiritual restoration only ; but sine he
literal restoration pre-required repentance, this a
| tation may be taken with a reference to litere! re
| tion as well.
“7
¥
ISAIAH
ent; and excited by the relations of their pres-
they spoke to their contemporaries of what
eted other people's minds or their own, occupy-
themselves only with that future whose rewards
junishments were likely to reach their contem-
aries. For exegesis the position is impregnable,
t the prophetic writings are to be interpreted
ach case out of the relations belonging to the
e of the prophet; and from this follows as a
lary the critical Canon: that that time, those
e-relations, out of which a prophetic writer is
lained, are his time, his time-relations ; — to that
2 he must be referred as the date of his own
tence” (Hitzig, p. 463-468).
. This is the main argument. Other grounds
sh are alleged are confessedly ‘ secondary and
rnal,” and are really of no great weight. The
t important of these is founded upon the differ-
in the complexion of style which has already
i noticed; this point will come into view again
ently. A number of particulars of diction said
e non-Isaianic have been accumulated; but the
oning founded upon them has been satisfactorily
by opposing evidence of a similar kind (see
, Hinleitung, § 72). It is not, however, on
i considerations that the chief stress is laid by
impugners of the Isaianic authorship of this
ion of Scripture: the great ground of objection
s already stated, the incompatibility of those
1omena of prediction which are noted in the
ings in question, with the subjective theories
ispiration (or rather non-inspiration) which the
er has just had submitted to him. The incom-
jility is confessed. But where is the solution
te difficulty to be sought? Are those theories
‘tainly true that all evidence must give way
tem? This is not the place for combating
1: but, for our own part, we are so firmly con-
xl that the theory is utterly discredited by the
exhibited to us in the Bible throughout, that
te content to lack in this case the countenance
s upholders. Their judgment in the critical
jon before us is determined, not by their
arship, but avowedly by the prepossessions of
unbelief.
For our present purpose it must suffice briefly
dicate the following reasons as establishing the
|
|
| *
In the critical discussions respecting the proph-
aseribed to Isaiah, the language which has some-
| been used has led to a misapprehension of the
‘question at issue. Such terms as * spurious,”
| ado-Isaiah,” have been very naturally understood
‘iplying that the portions so designated are re-
das unworthy of a place among the writings of
( ebrew Prophets, or even as the work of fraud.
iis has not been generally, if ever, intended by
who have used such expressions. The question
wntially one of authorship and date ; it does not
arily affect the value, the inspiration, or the
‘icity of the portions of Scripture under consider-
| Take, for example, the last 27 chapters of
» Whoever was the author of that wonderful com-
on, it shines by its own light; and its splendor
! lessened by the supposition that the name of
«citer, like that of the Book of Job, must remain
1 Wi. If he were not the Isaiah who wrote the
’ prophecies which have been collected in the
ees we have two great prophets instead of
: His lofty strains of exhortation, warning, and
ation do not lose their power when we consider
“specially adapted to the condition of his imme-
‘ coutem poraries, rather than designed for the
tion of the people 150 years or more after the
|
|
4
| ds
ISAIAH 1161
integrity of the whole book, and as vindicating th«
authenticity of the second part: —
(a.) Externally. — The unanimous testimony of
Jewish and Christian tradition — Ecclus. xlviii. 24
25, which manifestly (in the words mapexdAeot
Tovs wevOodvtas ev Sidy and sredeke — ra
imdkpupa mply 7) mapayevécOar adrd) refers tc
this second part. The use apparently made of the
second part by Jeremiah (x. 1-16, v. 25, xxv. 31.
1., li.), Ezekiel (xxiii. 40, 41), and Zephaniah (ii. 15,
ili. 10). The decree of Cyrus in Ezr. i. 2-4, which
plainly is founded upon Is. xliv. 28, xlv. 1, 13, ae-
crediting Josephus’s statement (Anté. xi. 1, § 2) that
the Jews showed Cyrus Isaiah’s predictions of him.
The inspired testimony of the N. T., which often
(Matt. iii. 3 and the parallel passages; Luke iy.
17; Acts viii. 28; Rom. x. 16, 20) quotes with
specification of Isaiah’s name prophecies found in
the second part.
(0.) Internally. — The unity of design and con-
struction which, as we have seen, connects these
last twenty-seven chapters with the preceding parts
of the book. — The oneness of diction which per-
vades the whole book. — The peculiar elevation and
grandeur of style, which, as is universally acknowl-
edged, distinguishes the whole contents of the
second part as much as of the first, and which
assigns their composition to the golden age of He-
brew literature.— The absence of any other name
than Isaiah’s claiming the authorship. At the time
to which the composition is assigned, a Zechariah
or a Malachi could gain a separate name and book;
how was it that an author of such transcendent
gifts, as “the Great Unnamed ”’ who wrote xl.—Ixvi.,
could gain none? — The claims which the writer
makes to the foreknowledge of the deliverance by
Cyrus, which claims, on the opposing view, must
be regarded as a fraudulent personation of an earlier
writer. — Lastly, the predictions which it contains
of the character, sufferings, death, and glorifica-
tion of Jesus Christ: a believer in Christ cannot
fail to regard those predictions as affixing to this
second part the broad seal of Divine Inspiration;
whereby the chief ground of objection against its
having been written by Isaiah is at once anni-
hilated.@
IV. It remains to make a few observations on
death of the author. Those who feel compelled from
internal evidence to ascribe the latter part of Isaiah
to a writer who flourished in the time of the Captivity,
do not on that account value the work the less, but
regard this view of it as investing it with new interest.
Thus Dr. Noyes calls the author “the greatest of all
the Jewish prophets’? (New Trans. of the Hebrew
Prophets, 4th ed., i. p. xli.); Dean Stanley speaks of
these chapters as ‘ the most deeply inspired, the most
truly Evangelical, of any portion of the Prophetical
writings, whatever be their date, and whoever their
author” (Hist. of the Jewish Church, ii. 687); and
Dean Milman remarks: “It is well known that the
later chapters of Isaiah are attributed, by the common
consent of most of the profoundly learned writers
of Germany .. . to a different writer, whom they
call the great nameless Prophet, or the second Isaiah,
who wrote during the exile. I must acknowledge
that these chapters, in my judgment, read with in-
finitely greater force, sublimity, and reality under
this view. If they lose, and I hardly feel that they
do lose, in what is commonly called prophetic, they
_Yise far mere in historical, interest. . . . As to what
are usually called the Messianic predictions .. . they
have the same force and meaning, whether uttered by
one or two prophets, at one or two different periods *
1162 ISAIAH
ISAIAH
Isaiah’s style; though in truth the abundance of the | elaborate and artificial: it rather shows a lofty
materials which offer themselves makes it a difficult
matter to give anything like a just and definite
view of the subject, without trespassing unduly
upon the limits necessarily prescribed to us. On
this point we cannot do better than introduce some
of the remarks with which Ewald prefaces his
translation of such parts of the book as he is dis-
posed to acknowledge as Isaiah's (Propheten, i.
166-179): —
‘In Isaiah we see prophetic authorship reaching
its culminating point. Everything conspired to
raise him to an elevation to which no prophet
either before or after could as writer attain. Among
the other prophets, each of the more important
ones is distinguished by some one particular excel-
lence, and some one peculiar talent: in Isaiah, all
kinds of talent and all beauties of prophetic dis-
course meet together so as mutually to temper and
qualify each other; it is not so much any single
feature that distinguishes him as the symmetry and
perfection of the whole.
‘¢ We cannot fail to assume, as the first condition
of Isaiah’s peculiar historical greatness, a native
power and a vivacity of spirit, which even among
prophets is seldom to be met with. It is but rarely
that we see combined in one and the same spirit
the three several characteristics of — first, the most
profound prophetic excitement and the purest senti-
ment; next, the most indefatigable and successful
practical activity amidst all perplexities and changes
of outward life; and, thirdly, that facility and beauty
in representing thought which is the prerogative
of the genuine poet: but this threefold combination
we find realized in Isaiah as in no other prophet;
and from the traces which we can perceive of the
unceasing joint-working of these three powers we
must draw our conclusions as to the original great-
ness of his genius. — Both as prophet and as author
Isaiah stands upon that calm, sunny height, which
in each several branch of ancient literature one
eminently favored spirit at the right time takes
possession of; which seems as it were to have been
waiting for him; and which, when he has come
and mounted the ascent, seems to keep and guard
him to the last as its own right man. In the senti-
ments which he expresses, in the topics of his dis-
courses, and in the manner of expression, Isaiah
uniformly reveals himself as the Kingly Prophet.
-‘In reference to the last named point, it cannot
be said that his manner of representing thought is
(Hist. of the Jews, i. 462, note, new Amer. ed.). David-
son, in his Introduction to the Old Testament (iii. 59),
after a full discussion of the authorship, concludes as
follows: ‘ Among all the prophetic writings. the first
place in many respects is due to those of the younger
Isaiah. . . . None has announced in such strains as
his the downfall of all earthly powers ; or [so] unfolded
to the view of the afflicted the transcendent glory of
Jehovah's salvation which should arise upon the rem-
nant of Israel, forsaken and persecuted. None has
penetrated so far into the essence of the new dispensa-
tion. . . . There is majesty in his sentiments, beauty
and force in his language, propriety and elegance in
his imagery.’? Delitzsch, one of the most orthodox
and conservative of the modern German theologians,
in his elaborate article on Jsatah in Fairbairn’s Im-
perial Bible Dictionary, maintains that all the proph-
ecies in the book which bears the name of Isaiah are
sorrectly ascribed to him; but also remarks that, on
She contrary supposition, “the prophetic discourses
‘h. xl.-lxvi. would not necessarily lose anything of | History of the Jewish Chu *h.
plicity and an unconcern about external attra
ness, abandoning itself freely to the leading
requirement of each several thought; but neye
less it always rolls along in a full stream y
overpowers all resistance, and never fails aj
right place to accomplish at every turn its ¢
without toil or effort.
“‘ The progress and development of the dise
is always majestic, achieving much with few
which though short are yet clear and transpa
an overflowing, swelling fullness of thought, 1
might readily lose itself in the vast and inde}
but which always at the right time with tigh’
collects and tempers its exuberance; to the bh
exhausting the thought and completing the |
ance, and yet never too diffuse. This severe
control is the most admirably seen in those |
utterances, which, by briefly sketched image
thoughts, give us the vague apprehension of |
thing infinite, whilst nevertheless they stand }
us complete in themselves and clearly delini
é. g., viii. 6-ix. 6, xiv. 29-32, xviii. 1-7, xxi. 1)
while in the long piece, xxviii.—xxxii., if the
position here and there for a moment langv:
it is only to lift itself up again afresh with
greater might. In this rich and thickly cn
fullness of thought and word, it is but seldor)
the simile which is employed appears apart,
forth and complete itself (xxxi. 4, 5); in gt
it crowds into the delineation of the object wll
is meant to illustrate and is swallowed up in,
aye, and frequently simile after simile; and j
many threads of the discourse which for a m)
appeared ravelled together soon disentangle «
selves into perfect clearness ; — a characii
which belongs to this prophet alone, a freed
language which with no one else so easily sw
‘¢ The yersification in like manner is alwait
and yet. strongly marked: while howeve|
prophet is little concerned about anxiously ji
ing out to each verse its proper number of 11
not unfrequently he repeats the same word
members (xxxi. 8, xxxii. 17, xi. 5, xix. 13.
with so much power and beauty in the
within, he did not so much require a pain)
finish in the outside. The structure of the 10
is always easy and beautifully rounded.
“ Still the main point lies here, — that w¢
not in the case of Isaiah, as in that of other’
ets, specify any particular peculiarity, or any (0
=
their predictive character and of their incon!
value. Their anonymous author might pass|¢
forward, also, as the greatest evangelist of [
Testament. We have no doctrinal reasons whic
forbid us to distinguish in the book of Isaiak
ecies of Isaiah himself, and prophecies of ano
prophets annexed to these.” (Fairbairn, 1. gi §
He had before spoken of the composite charé-!
the historical books of the Old Testament, anf
book of Proverbs, ‘ where, under the name of §
the gnomic pearls of different times and of?V
authors are arranged beside one another, ju/#
the Psalter the poets of many centuries are (¢
under the banner of David, the father of lyric f
So Prof. Stuart observes, “ It is of little or no *
ical or doctrinal importance which way this
is decided” (Crit. Hist. of the Old Test. O|
109). On this subject see also the excellent rer k
Stanley, in his Note “ On the Authorship of tl}!
of the Old Testament,’? appended to vol.
ISAIAH
ras attaching to his general style. He is not
especially lyrical prophet, or the especially ele-
al prophet, or the especially oratorical and
atory prophet, as we should describe a Joel, a
ea, a Micah, with whom there is a greater
valence of some particular color ; but, just as
subject requires, he has readily at command
y several kind of style and every several change
lelineation ; and it is precisely this that, in point
mguage, establishes his greatness, as well as in
eral forms one of his most towering points of
lence. His only fundamental peculiarity is
lofty, majestic calmness of his style, proceeding
of the perfect command which he feels he pos-
es over his subject-matter. This calmness,
ever, no way demands that the strain shall
when occasion requires, be more vehemently
ted and assail the hearer with mightier blows;
even the extremest excitement. which does here
there intervene, is in the main bridled still by
same spirit of calmness, and, not overstepping
limits which that spirit assigns, it soon with
r self-control returns back to its wonted tone
quability (ii. 10-iii. 1, xxviii. 11-23, xxix. 9-
Neither does this calmness in discourse re-
e that the subject shall always be treated only
plain, level way, without any variation of form ;
er, Isaiah shows himself master in just that
aty of manner which suits the relation in which
hearers stand to the matter now in hand. If
rishes to bring home to their minds a distant
h which they like not to hear, and to judge
a by a sentence pronounced by their own
th, he retreats back into a popular statement
_ease drawn from ordinary life (vv. 1-6, xxviii.
19). If he will draw the attention of the over-
_to some new truth, or to some future prospect,
urprises them by a brief oracle clothed in an
‘matical dress, leaving it to their penetration to
ower its solution (vii. 14-16, xxix. 1-8). When
anhappy temper of people’s minds which noth-
ean amend leads to loud lamentation, his speech
mes for a while the strain of elegy and lament
1-23, xxii. 4,5). Do the frivolous leaders of
deople mock ? — he outdoes them at their own
Jons, and crushes them under the fearful ear-
| of divine mockery (xxviii. 10-13). Even a
ironical word in passing will drop from the
prophet (xvii. 8, glory). Thus his discourse
38 to every complexion: it is tender and stern,
istic and threatening, mourning and again ex-
g in divine joy, mocking and earnest ; but ever
ae right time it returns back to its original
‘tion and repose, and never loses the clear
‘nd-color of its divine seriousness.”
, this delineation of Isaiah’s style, Ewald con-
lates exclusively the Isaiah of i—xxxix., in
h part of the book itself, however, there are
al passages of which he will not allow Isaiah
}2 the author. hese are the following: xii.,
‘Q-xiv. 23, xxi. 1-10, xxiv.—xxvii., xxxiv., xxxv.
ference to all these passages, with the exeep-
of the first, the ground of objection is obvious
{ 4 moment’s observation of the contents; on
\ nalistic views of prophecy, none of them can
‘cribed to Isaiah. For the proof of their gen-
Ness it is sufficient to refer to Drechsler’s
het Jesaja, or to Keil’s -Kinleitung. We
‘st, however, help noticing the estimate which
)onesty of Ewald’s ssthetical judgment forms
€ style of nearly all these passages. He pro-
“ces the magniticent denunciation of Babylon,
ISAIAH 1163
xiii. 2-xiv. 23, to be referable to the same authos
as the prediction of Babylon’s overthrow in xxi. 1-
10, and both as alike remarkable for ‘the poetica:
facility of the words, images, and sentiments,’
particularizing xiv. 5-20 especially as ‘an ode of
high poetical finish,’ which in the last strophe
(vv. 20-23) rises to * prophetical sublimity.’? In
xxiv.-xxvii. he finds parts, particularly the “ beau-
tiful utterances’? in xxv. 6-8, xxvii. 9, 12, 13,
which he considers as plainly borrowed from oracles
which are now lost; while lastly, in xxxiv., xxxv.
(which in his 20th lecture on Hebrew poetry Bishop
Lowth selects for particular comment on account
of its peculiar poetical merit), he traces much that
‘‘reéchoes words of the genuine Isaiah.”’
If we refer to that part of Ewald’s Pvopheten
which treats of xl.-Ixvi., which he ascribes to ‘the
Great Unnamed,” the terms in which he speaks of
its style of composition do not fall far short of those
which he has employed respecting the former part.
“ Creative as this prophet is in his views and
thoughts, he is not less peculiar and new in his
language, which at times is highly inspired, and
carries away the reader with a wonderful power. —
Although, after the general manner of the later
prophets, the discourse is apt to be too diffuse in
delineation; yet, on the other side, it often moves
confusedly and heavily, owing to the over-gushing
fullness of fresh thoughts continually streaming in.
But whenever it rises to a higher strain, as e. ¢.,
xl., xlii. 1-4, it then attains to such a pure lumin-
ous sublimity, and carries the hearer away with
such a wonderful charm of diction, that one might
be ready to fancy he was listening to another
prophet altogether, if other grounds did not convince
us that itis one and the same prophet speaking,
only in different moods of feeling. Jn no prophet
does the mood in the composition of particular pas-
sages so much vary, as throughout the three several
sections into which this part of the book is divided,
while under vehement excitement the prophet pur-
sues the most diverse objects. It is his business at
different times, to comfort, to exhort, to shame, to
chasten; to show, as out of heaven, the heavenly
image of the Servant of the Lord, and, in contrast,
to scourge the folly and base groveling of image-
worship; to teach what conduct the times require,
and to rebuke those who linger behind the occa-
sion, and then also to draw them along by his own
example — his prayers, confessions, and thanks-
givings, thus smoothing for them the approach to
the exalted object of the New Time. ‘Thus the
complexion of the style, although hardly anywhere
passing into the representation of visions properly so
called, varies in a constant interchange; and rightly
to recognize these changes is the great problem for
the interpretation ’’ (Propheten, vol. ii. 407-409).
For obvious reasons we have preferred citing the
xsthetical judgments of so accomplished a critic
as Ewald, to attempting any original criticism of
our own; and this all the more willingly, because
the inference to be drawn from the above cited pas-
saves (the reader will please especially to mark the
sentences which we have put into italics) is clear,
that in point of style, after taking account of the
considerations already stated by us, we can find no
difficulty in recognizing in the second part the
presence of the same plastic genius as we discover
in the first. And, altogether, the esthetic criti-
cism of all the different parts of the book brings
us to the conclusion substantiated by the evidence
previously accumulated; namely, that the whole
1164 ISAIAH .
of the book originated in one mind, and that mind
one of the most sublime and variously gifted in-
struments which the Spirit of God has ever em-
ployed to pour forth its voice upon the world.
V. The following are the most important works
on Isaiah: Vitringa’s Commentarius in Librum
Prophetiarum Isaie, 2 vols. fol. 1714, a vast mine
of materials ; Rosenmiiller’s Scholia, 1818-1820
[8d ed., 1829-84], or his somewhat briefer Scholia
in Compendium redacta, 1831, which, though ra-
tionalistic, is [are] sober, and valuable in particular
for the full use which he makes of Jerome and the
Jewish expositors ; Gesenius’s Philologisch-kriti-
scher und historischer Commentar, 1821 [and
Ucbersetzung, 2e Aujfl., 1829]; Hitzig’s Prophet
Jesaja iibersetzt und ausgelegt, 1833, and Knobel,
1843 [3d ed. 1861], in the Kurzgefasztes Lxeget-
isches Handbuch zum Alt. Testam., which are all
three decidedly skeptical, but for lexical and _his-
torical materials are of very great value; Ewald’s
Propheten des Alten Bundes (1840-41, 2¢ Ausg.
1867-68], which, though likewise skeptical, is ab-
solutely indispensable for a just appreciation of the
poetry; the second volume of Hengstenberg’s Christ-
ology, translated in Clark’s Foreign Theological
Library, 1856; Drechsler’s Prophet Jesaa iiber-
setzt und erkldrt, now in course of publication
[completed after the author’s death by F. Delitzsch
and A. Hahn, 3 Theile, 1845-57], and Rud. Stier’s
Jesaias nicht Pseudo-Jesaias, 1850-51, which is a
commentary on the last 27 chapters. The two
chief English works are Bishop Lowth’s Jsazah, a
new translation, with Notes, Critical, Philological,
and Laxplanatory, 1778 [18th ed., 1842], (whose
incessant correction of the Hebrew text is con-
stantly to be mistrusted), and Dr. Ebenezer Hen-
derson’s Translation and Commentary, 2d ed.,
1857. K. H. 8S.
* The strong internal evidence of the common
origin of the various writings attributed to Isaiah
is of a cumulative character, and (especially as re-
quiring often for its just presentation the aid of
exegesis) can only be adequately exhibited at con-
siderable length. 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.
————
SSS
SS
SS
SS
eo @ at “ew
798
SS
Hoey a0 |
i
__CAU SEWAY ———
> \ 1.
< ATRIUM
z :
!
K E
: a .
> . E
|.
z Le ; 3
; LU YW
yo / Le ,
Ws YU y a
BRIDCE G Coe LE Ye Y y y 7 c
|_| ee yy,
VUE UMA Yi, Ys Sp WL z d A a
AS
No. 4.— Plan of Haram Area at Jerusalem
JERUSALEM
w of the identity being admitted. Josephus
es the dimensions of the Hippicus as 25 cubits,
374 feet. square, whereas the tower in the citadel
(6 feet 6 inches by 70 feet 3 inches (Rob. Bibl.
s. Ist ed. i. 456), and, as Josephus never dimin-
es the size of anything Jewish, this alone should
ke us pause. Even if we are to assume that it
me of the three great towers built by Herod, as
as its architecture is concerned, it may as well
Phasaélus or Mariamne as Hippicus. Indeed its
yensions accord with the first named of these far
ter than with the last. But the great test is
locality, and unfortunately the tower in the
idel hardly agrees in this respect in one point
h the description of Josephus. In the first place
makes it a corner tower, whereas, at the time he
te, the tower in the citadel must have been in a
ntering angle of the wall, as it is now. In the
t he says it was “over against Psephinus”’
J. y. 4, § 3), which never could be said of this
er. Again, in the same passage, he describes
three towers as standing on the north side of
wall. If this were so, the two others must have
no in his time in the centre of the city, where
‘od never would have placed them. They also
said to have stood on a height, whereas east-
d of the citadel the ground falls rapidly. Add
hese that the position of the army of Titus when
sat down before Jerusalem is in itself almost
icient to settle the point. After despatching
‘10th Legion to the Mount of Olives he located
self with the principal division of his army
osite the Tower Psephinus, but his right wing
tified itself at the tower called Hippicus, and
distant in like manner about two stadia from
preity” (B. J. v. 3, § 5). It is almost im-
‘ible to apply this passage to the tower in the
del, against which no attack ever was made or
nded. Indeed, at no period of the siege did
is attempt to storm the walls situated on the
‘hts. His attack was made from the northern
eau, and it was there that his troops were. en-
ped, and consequently it must have been
ssite the angle now occupied by the remains
td the Kasr Jalud that they were placed. From
‘context it seems almost impossible. that they
id have been encamped in the valley opposite
present citadel.
hese, and other objections which will be noticed
te sequel, seem fatal to the idea of the tower in
citadel being the one Josephus alludes to. But
ve northwestern angle of the present city there
‘the remains of an ancient building of beveled
onry and large stones, like those of the founda-
softhe Temple (Rob. Bibl. Res. i. 471; Schultz,
Krafft, 37, &c.), whose position answers so com-
‘ly every point of the locality of Hippicus as
fibed by Josephus, as to leave no reasonable
it that it marks the site of this celebrated
%. It stood and stands “on the northern side
le old wall” — “ona height,”’ the very highest
4 in the town — “over against Psephinus ? —
* Nothing could seem to be more palpable to an
er, than that in the Tower of David, so called,
e present citadel of Jerusalem, we have the re-
| Sof one of the three great Herodian towers, spared
‘tus, when the city was demolished Cian Vis 1
| No theory, which would make it more modern,
'xplain the structure. Its lower part bears every
| of antiquity, and its cubic solidity (an unusual
se) accords with Josephus’s description of these
|
ee
JERUSALEM 117
‘is a corner tower,’’ and just such a one as would
naturally be taken as the starting-point for the
description of the walls. Indeed, if it had hap-
pened that the Kas Jalud were as well preserved
as the tower in the citadel, or that the latter had
retained only two or three courses of its masonry,
it is more than probable that no one would have
doubted that the Kasr Jalud was the Hippicus;
but with that tendency which prevails to ascribe a
name to what is prominent rather than to what is
less obvious, these remains have been overlooked,
and difficulties have been consequently introduced
into the description of the city, which have hitherto
seemed almost insuperable.¢
III. Walls. — Assuming therefore for the present
that the Kasr Jalud, as these ruins are now popu-
larly called, is the remains of the Hippicus, we have
no difficulty in determining either the direction or
the extent of the walls of Jerusalem, as described
by Josephus (B. J. v. 4, § 2), and as shown in
Plate I.
The first or old wall began on the north at the
tower called Hippicus, and, extending to the Xystus,
joined the council house, and ended at the west
cloister of the Temple. Its southern direction is
described as passing the Gate of the Essenes (prob-
ably the modern Jaffa Gate), and, bending above
the fountain of Siloam, it reached Ophel, and was
joined to the eastern cloister of the Temple. The
importance of this last indication will be apparent
in the sequel when speaking of the third wall.
The second wall began at the Gate Gennath, in
the old wall, probably near the Hippicus, and passed
round the northern quarter of the city, inclosing,
as will be shown hereafter, the great valley of the
Tyropeeon, which leads up to the Damascus Gate;
and then, proceeding southward, joined the fortress
Antonia. Recent discoveries of old beveled masonry
in the immediate proximity of the Damascus Gate
leave littie doubt but that, so far at least, its direc-
tion was identical with that of the modern wall;
and some part at least of the northern portion of
the western wall of the Haram area is probably
built on its foundations.
The third wall was not commenced till twelve
years after the date of the Crucifixion, when it was
undertaken by king Herod Agrippa; and was in-
tended to inclose the suburbs which had grown out
on the northern sides of the city, which before this
had been left exposed (B. J. v. 4, § 2). It began
at the Hippicus, and reached as far as the tower
Psephinus, till it came opposite the monument of
Queen Helena of Adiabene; it then passed by the
sepulchral monuments of the kings — a well-known
locality — and turning south at the monument of |
the Fuller, joined the old wall at the valley called
the Valley of Kedron. This last is perhaps the
most important point in the description. If the
Temple had extended the whole width of the modern
Haram area, this wall must have joined its northern
cloister, or if the whole of the north side of the
Temple were covered by the tower Antonia it might
towers. (B. J. v. 4, § 8.) If it was either of them, it
must have been Hippicus, for Phasaélus and Mariamne
lay east of it, and there could not have been a fortress
west of this point. Its position relative to the site of
the Temple, and to the wall which stretched between
them, along the northern brow of Zion, harmonizes
with this view. The ruins of Kiil’at el-Jalid offer no
rival claim — suggesting nothing more than a modern
bastion and an ancient wall. Ss. W.
1318 JERUSALEM
have been said to have extended to that fortress,
but in either of these cases it is quite impossible
that it could have passed outside the present Haran
wall so as to meet the old wall at the southeastern
angle of the Temple, where Josephus in his de-
scription makes the old wall end. There does not
seem to be any possible solution of the difficulty,
except the one pointed out above, that the Temple
was only 600 feet square; that the space between
the Temple and the Valley of Kedron was not in-
closed within the walls till Agrippa’s time, and
that the present eastern wall of the Haram is the
identical wall built by that king — a solution which
not only accords with the words of Josephus but
with all the local peculiarities of the place.
It may also be added that Josephus’s description
(B. J. v. 4, § 2) of the immense stones of which
this wall was constructed, fully bears out the ap-
pearance of the great stones at the angles, and does
away with the necessity of supposing, on account
of their magnificence, that they are parts of the
substructure of the Temple proper.
After describing these walls, Josephus adds
that the whole circumference of the city was 33
stadia, or nearly four English miles, which is as
near as may be the extent indicated by the localities.
He then adds (B. J. v. 4, § 3) that the number of
towers in the old wall was 60, the middle wall 40,
aud the new wall 99. Taking the distance of these
towers as 150 feet from centre to centre, which is
probably very near the truth on the average, the
first and last named walls are as nearly as may be
commensurate, but the middle wall is so much too
short that either we must assume a mistake some-
where, or, what is more probable, that Josephus
enumerated the towers not only to where it ended
at the Antonia, but round the Antonia and Temple
to where it joined the old wall above Siloam. With
this addition the 150 feet again is perfectly con-
sistent with the facts of the case and ‘with the
localities. Altogether it appears that the extent
and direction of the walls is not now a matter ad-
mitting of much controversy, and probably would
never have been so, but for the difficulties arising
from the position of the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, which will be alluded to hereafter.
IV. Antonia. — Before leaving the subject of
the walls, it may be well to fix the situation of the
Turris Antonia, as far as the data at our command
will admit. It certainly was attached to the Temple
buildings, and on the northern side of them; but
whether covering the whole space, or only a portion,
has been much disputed. After stating that the
Temple was foursquare, and a stadium on each side,
Josephus goes on to say (B. J. y. 5, § 2), that with
Antonia it was six stadia in circumference. The
most obvious conclusion from this would be that
the Antonia was of the same dimensions as the
Temple, and of the form shown in the diagram
(wood-cut No. 5), where A marks the Temple, and
B Antonia, according to this theory. In other
a * Josephus (B. J. y. 4, § 4, vi. 8, § 1) represents
the old wall, with its towers, to have been carried
along the brow of an eminence, increasing their ap-
parent elevation. The course given in the preceding
map (Plate I) could never have been the line which
he describes,
This wall extended from Hippicus to the Xystus,
which was an open place, used for popular assemblies,
on the eastern brow of Zion, and connected by the
bridge with the Temple. (LB. J. ii. 16, § 3, vi. 6, § 2,
ri. 8,§ 1.) A glance at the map will show that in
JERUSALEM
| words, it assumes that the Antonia occup!
tically the platform on which the so-called
of Omar now stands, and there is nothing
locality to contradict such an assumption (s
a
(
A
Le
No. 5. No. €
vi. 5, § 4). On the contrary, the fact of the
being the highest rock in the immediate ne
hood would confirm all we are told of the s
of the Jewish citadel. There are, however,
facts mentioned in the account of the sieg
render such a view nearly if not quite unter
It is said that when Titus reviewed his 2
Bezetha (B. J. v. 9, § 1), the Jews looked ¢
the north wall of the Temple. If Antonia, on
ground, and probably with higher walls, ha
vened, this could not have been possible; ;
expression must have been that they loo
from the walls of Antonia. We have also a
(B. J. v. 7, § 3) which makes this even cle:
is there asserted that “John and his faeti
fended themselves from the tower Antoni
from the northern cloisters of the Temple, and
the Romans”’ (from the context evidently
taneously) “ before the monument of king
ander.’’ We are therefore forced to ado
alternative, which the words of Josephus !
justify, that the Antonia was a tower o}
attached to the northwestern angle of the 1
as shown in the plan. Indeed, the words ot
phus hardly justify any other interpretation;
says (B. J. v. 5, § 8) that “it was situated
corner of two cloisters of the court of the Ter
of that on the west, and that on the north.”
ably it was surrounded by a wall, inelosing
and other appurtenances of a citadel, and
inclosing wall at least two stadia in circuit.
have been two and a half, or even three, as
in the diagram (wood eut No. 6), where C.
the size and position of the Antonia on tl
position that its entire circumference was two
and D D the size it would attain if only thre¢
sides were counted, and if Josephus did not
the four stadia of the Temple as a fixed qu
and deducted the part covered by the fortres|
the whole sum; but in this instance we bh:
local indication to guide us. The question 1
come one of no very great importance, as it i,
certain that, if the Temple was only 600 feet
it did not oceupy the whole of the northern ||
this feature the line given does not correspon
the description.
The third wall, as above stated, joined the |
ward part of the) old wall at the valley call
Valley of Kidron. It could not, then, have jo
at the point indicated in the text and map,
point lies between the Kidron and the Tyropoeon ¥!
more than one third of the distance from the f
The specification which this writer considers
most important point in the description,” is ¢
by Dr. Robinson in support of the theory w
seeks to displace. (Bibl. Res. i. 461.) 8.
JERUSALEM
ram area, and consequently that neither was
ool of Bethesda ”’ its northern ditch, nor the
a which the governor’s house now stands its
undation. With the Temple area fixed as
by no hypothesis could it be made to stretch
as that; and the object, therefore, which
opographers had in view in extending the
jons, must now be abandoned.@
Hills and Valleys. — Notwithstanding the
eat degree of certainty with which the site
Temple, the position of the Hippicus, and
ection of the walls may be determined, there
ll one or two points within the city, the
as of which have not yet been fixed in so
tory a manner. ‘Topographers are still at
s to the true direction of the upper part of
ropeon Valley, and, consequently, as to the
3 of Acra, and various smaller points de-
t on the fixation of these two. Fortunately
ermination of these points has no bearing
er on any of the great historical questions
out of the topography; and though it would
bt be satisfactory if they could be definitively
they are among the least important points
ise in discussing the descriptions of Josephus.
difficulty of determining the true course of
yer part of the Tyropceon valley is caused by
ubility to determine whether Josephus, in
ing the city (B. J. v. 4, § 1), limits his de-
n to the city of Jerusalem, properly so called,
miscribed by the first or old wall, or whether
udes the City of David also, and speaks of
ole city as inclosed by the third or great
Agrippa. In the first case the Tyropceon
ave been the depression leading from a spot
@ the northwest angle of the 'emple towards
fa Gate; in the second it was the great valley
from the same point northwards towards
mascus Gate.
Principal reason for adopting the first hy-
s arises from the words of Josephus himself,
seribes the Tyropcon as an open space or
ion within the city, at “which the corre-
ig rows of houses on both hills end” (B. J.
1). This would exactly answer the position
ley running to the Jaffa Gate, and conse-
‘Within the old walls, and would apply to
tavine as might easily have been obliterated
mulation of rubbish in after times; but it
0 easy to see how it can be made applicable
‘ayalley as that running towards the Da-
Gate, which must have had a wall on either
d the slope of which is so gradual, that then,
the “rows of houses”? might — though it
means follows that they must — have run
{without interruption. We cannot indeed
ie description to this valley, unless we assume
houses were built close up to the old wall,
eave almost no plain space in front of it,
‘the formation of the bottom of the valley
sinally steeper and narrower than it now is.
| whole, this view presents perhaps less dif-
than the obliteration of the other valley,
ts most zealous advocates are now forced to
ater the most patient search; added to the
y that must have existed in carrying the old
Toss its gorge, which Josephus would have
‘it had it existed.
ete) hy ee ep
‘he opposite view, namely, that the fortress
‘apparently occupied the whole northern part
‘resent Haram area, is strongly presented by |
JERUSALEM 1319
The direct evidence seems so nearly balanced,
that either hypothesis might be adopted if we were
content to fix the position of the hill Acra from
that of this valley, as is usually done, instead of
from extraneous evidence, as we fortunately are able
to de with tolerable certainty in this matter.
In all the transactions mentioned in the 12th
and 13th books of the Antiquities, Josephus com-
monly uses the word “Axpa as the corresponding
term to the Hebrew word JMetziduh, translated
stronghold, fortress, and tower in the books of the
Maccabees, when speaking of the fortress which ad-
joined the Temple in the north; and if we might
assume that the hill Acra and the tower Acra were
one and the same place, the question might be con-
sidered as settled.
It is more than probable that this was so, for in
describing the ‘upper market place,’’ which was
called the “citadel” by David (B. J. v. § 1),
Josephus uses the word @podpiov, which he also
applies to the Acra after it was destroyed (Ant. xiii.
16, § 5), or Bdpis, as the old name apparently
immediately before it was rebuilt by Herod, and by
him called the Antonia (Ané. xviii. 4, § 3).
It is also only by assuming that the Acra was
on the Temple Hill that we can understand the
position of the valley which the Asmoneans filled
up. It certainly was not the northern part of the
Tyropceon which is apparent at the present day,
nor the other valley to the westward, the filling up
of which would not have joined the city to the
Temple (5. J. v. 4, § 1). It could only have been
a transverse valley running in the direction of, and
nearly in the position of, the Via Dolorosa.
It is true that Josephus describes the citadel or
Acra of Jerusalem (Ant. xiii. 4, 9) as situated in
the ‘ lower city ep TH KaTW WOAEL, xii. dD, § 4,
B. J. i. 1, § 4), which would equally apply to either
of the assumed sites, were it not that he qualities
it by saying that it was built so high as to dominate
the Temple, and at the same time lying close to it
(Ant. xii. 9, § 3), which can only apply to a build-
ing situated on the Temple Hill. It must also be
observed that the whole of the Temple Hill is very
much lower than the hill on which the city itself
was located, and, consequently, that the Temple
and its adjuncts may, with great propriety, he
called the lower city, as contradistinguished from
the other half, which, from the superior elevation
of the plateau on which it stands, is truly the upper
city.
If we adopt this view, it will account for the
great leveling operations which at one time have
been carried on at the northwestern angle of the
Haram area, and the marks of which have been
always a puzzle to antiquaries. These are utterly
unmeaning on any hypothesis yet suggested, for so
far from contributing to the defense of any work
erected here, their effect from their position must
have been the very reverse. But if we admit that
they were the works which occupied the Jews for
three years of incessant labor (Ant. xiii. 7, § 6)
after the destruction of the Acra, their appearance
is at onee accounted for, and the description of
Josephus made plain.
If this view of the matter be correct, the word
aupikuptos (B. J. v.6, § 1), about which so much
controversy has. been raised, must. be translated
Dr. Robinson, in Bibl. Sacra, iii. 616-684. Also in
Bibl. Res., 1852, pp. 230-243. Ss. W
1320 JERUSALEM
sloping down on either side,” a meaning which it
will bear equally as well as “gibbous,” which is
usually affixed to it, and which only could be ap-
‘plied if the hill within the old wall were indicated.
On reviewing the whole question, the great. pre-
ponderance of evidence seems to be in favor of the
assumption that the hill Acra and the citadel Acra
were one and the same place ; that Acra was sit-
uated on the northern side of the Temple, on the
same hill, and probably on the same spot, originally
occupied by David as the stronghold of Zion (2 Sam.
v. 7-9), and near where Baris and Antonia after-
wards stood; and consequently that the great
northern depression running towards the Damascus
Gate is the Tyropeon valley, and that the Valley of
the Asmoneans was a transverse cut, separating
the hill Bezetha from the Acra or citadel on the
Temple Hill.
If this view of the internal topography of the
city be granted, the remaining hills and valleys fall
into their places easily and as a matter of course.
The citadel, or upper market-place of Josephus, was
the modern Zion, or the city inclosed within the
old wall; Acra was the ancient Zion, or the hill on
which the Temple, the City of David, Baris, Acra,
and Antonia, stood. It lay over against the other;
and apparently between these two, in the valley,
stood the lower city, and the place called Millo.
Bezetha was the well-defined hill to the north of
the Temple, just beyond the valley in which the
Piscina Probatica was situated. The fourth hill
which Josephus enumerates, but does not name,
must have been the ridge between the last-named
valley and that of the Tyropceon, and was separated
from the Temple Hill by the Valley of the As-
moneans. The other minor localities will be pointed
out in the sequel as they occur in order.@
VI. Population.— There is no point in which
the exaggeration in which Josephus occasionally
indulges is more apparent than in speaking of the
population of the city. The inhabitants were dead;
no record remained; and to magnify the greatness
of the city was a compliment to the prowess of the
conquerors. Still the assertions that three millions
were collected at the Passover (B. J. vi. 9, § 3);
that a million of people perished in the siege; that
100,000 escaped, etc., are so childish, that it is sur-
prising any one could ever have repeated them.
Even the more moderate calculation of Tacitus of -
60,000 inhabitants, is far beyond the limits of prob-
ability.°
Placing the Hippicus on the farthest northern
point possible, and consequently extending the walls
as far as either authority or local circumstances will
admit, still the area within the old walls never could
have exceeded 180 acres. Assuming, as is some-
times done, that the site of the present Church of
the Holy Sepulchre was outside the old walls, this
area must be reduced to 120 or 130 acres; but
taking it at the larger area, its power of accom-,
modating such a multitude as Josephus describes
may be illustrated by reference to a recent example.
The great Exhibition Building of 1851 covered 18
acres — just a tenth of this. On three days near
‘ts closing 100,000 or 105,000 persons visited it;
a * for an answer to the speculations under this
head, see, in part, Bibl. Sacra, iii, 417-488, Rob. Bibl.
Res. 1852, pp. 207-211, and, in part, section IV.,
below. 8. W.
» It is instructive to compare these with the moderate
Agures of Jeremiah (Iii. 28-80) where he enumerates |
JERUSALEM
but it is not assumed that more than from
_ to 70,000 were under its roof at the same n
Any one who was in the building on the
will recollect how impossible it was to mo}
one place to another ; how frightful in f
crush was both in the galleries and on th
and that in many places even standing roor
hardly be obtained ; yet if 600,000 or 700,00(
; were in Jerusalem after the fall of the ow
(almost at the beginning of the siege), thi
there must have been denser than in the r
Palace; eating, drinking, sleeping, or fightiy
erally impossible; and considering how the i
town must be encumbered with buildings, ¢)
in Jerusalem would have been more crowdit
most crowded moments.
But fortunately we are not left to such
data as these. No town in the east can be.
out where each inhabitant has not at least 50
yards on an average allowed to him. In s
the crowded cities of the west, such as p
London, Liverpool, Hamburg, etc., the six
reduced to about 80 yards to each inhabitai
this only applies to the poorest and more ey
places, with houses many stories high, not tei
containing palaces and public buildings. ic
on the other hand, averages 200 yards of suyfi
space for every person living within its prin
But, on the lowest estimate, the ordinary p
tion of Jerusalem must have stood nearly
lows: Taking the area of the city inclosed
two old walls at 750,000 yards, and that ineled
the wall of Agrippa at 1,500,000, we have 2,$),
for the whole. ‘Taking the population of »
city at the probable number of one person
yards we have 15,000, and at the extreme |
30 yards we should have 25,000 inhabitantsr
old city.
perity, may have amounted to from 30,000)
50,000; and assuming that in times of festil
half were added to this amount, which is an ¢
would stay in a: beleaguered city who had a
A
flee to, it is hardly probable that the men wlea:
up to fight for the defense of the city wouleq
se
tl
it
the number of women and children who wou
refuge elsewhere; so that the probability
about the usual population of the city were
that time.
It may also be mentioned that the army
Titus brought up against Jerusalem did not
from 25,000 to 30,000 effective men of alin
were the sight-seers at the Crystal Palacep
2
;
€
S
it
And at 100 yards to each indiyijal
the new city about 15,000 more; so that tho
lation of Jerusalem, in its days of greatesp1
4
000 souls, but could hardly ever have ‘cl
(
re
estimate, there may have been 60,000 or 700
the city when Titus came up against it. As) «
which, taking the probabilities of the case, iil
the number that would be required to attach {
tified town defended by from 8,000 to 10,0( m
capable of bearing arms.
Had the garrisc|be
more numerous the siege would have been jpro
able, but taking the whole incidents of Josh
P
narrative, there is nothing to lead us to
C
that the Jews ever could have mustered ),0
the number of persons carried into eaptivity b, eb
chadnezzar in three deportations from both “ ®
province as only 4,600, though they seem to harsWe
off every one who could go, nearly depopula'g #
place.
JERUSALEM
JERUSALEM 1821
atants at any period of the siege; half that | (Ps. Ixxxvii. 2)“ The ord has chosen Zion”
yer is probably nearer the truth. The main
est this question has in a topographical point
ww, is the additional argument it affords for
ag Hippicus as far north as it has been placed
, and generally to extend the walls to the
est extent justifiable, in order to accommodate
ulation at all worthy of the greatness of the
[t is also interesting as showing the utter
sibility of the argument of those who would
t the whole northwest corner of the present
rom the old walls, so as to accommodate the
Sepulchre with a site outside the walls, in
dance with the Bible narrative.
1. Zion. — One of the great difficulties which
erplexed most authors in examining the ancient
raphy of Jerusalem, is the correct fixation of
ality of the sacred Mount of Zion. It can-
e disputed that from the time of Constantine
wards to the present day, this name has been
d to the western hill on which the city of
alem now stands, and in fact always stood.
twithstanding this, it seems equally certain
ip to the time of the destruction of the city
tus, the name was applied exclusively to the
n hill, or that on which the Temple stood.
fortunately the name Zion is not found in the
} of Josephus, so that we have not his assist-
which would be invaluable in this case, aud
is no passage in the Bible which directly
s the identity of the hills Moriah and Zion,
h many which cannot well be understood
ut this assumption. The cumulative proof,
er, is such as almost perfectly to supply this
m the passages in 2 Sam. v. 7, and 1 Chr.
8, it is quite clear that Zion and the city of
were identical, for it is there said, “ David
he castle of Zion, which is the City of David.”
| David dwelt in the castle, therefore they
it the City of David. And he built the city
about, even from Millo round about, and
repaired the rest of the city.” This last ex-
on would seem to separate the city of Jeru-
Which was repaired, from that of David
was built, though it is scarcely distinct enough
relied upon. Besides these, perhaps the most
ot passage is that in the 48th Psalm, verse 2,
it is said, “ Beautiful for situation, the joy
whole earth, is Mount Zion, on the sides of
mth, the city of the great King,” which it
almost impossible to apply to the modern
the most southern extremity of the city.
are also a great’ many passages in the Bible
Zion is spoken of as a separate city from
lem, as for instance, “ For out of Jerusalem
30 forth a remnant, and they that escape out
unt Zion” (2 K. xix. 31). “Do good in thy
pleasure unto Zion; build thou the walls of
lem” (Ps. li. 18). “The Lord shall yet
tt Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem ”
17). “ For the people shall dwell in Zion
rusalem” (Is. xxx. 19). «The Lord shall
ut of Zion, and utter his voice from Jeru-
” (Joel iii. 16; Am. i. 2). There are also
*tless passages in which Zion is spoken of as
y place in such terms as are never applied to
m, and which can only be understood as
d to the Holy Temple Mount. Such expres-
for instance, as “I set. my king on my holy
Zion” (Ps. ii. 6) — “ The Lord loveth the
f Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob” |
(Ps. exxxii. 13) — “ The city of the Lord, the Zion
of the Holy One of Israel ”’ (Is. lx. 14) —“ Arise ye,
and let us go up to Zion to the Lord” (Jer. xxxi.
6) — “ Thus saith the Lord, I am returned to Zion ”’
(Zech. viii. 83) —“T am the Lord thy God, dwelling
in Zion, my holy mountain”? (Joel iii. 17) — « For
the Lord dwelleth in Zion’? (Joel iii. 21), and
many others, which will occur to every one at all
familiar with the Scriptures, seem to us to indicate
plainly the hill of the Temple. Substitute the word
Jerusalem for Zion in these passages, and we feel
at once how it grates on the ear; for such epithets
as these are never applied to that city; on the con-
trary, if there is a curse uttered, or term of dis-
paragement, it is seldom applied to Zion, but always
to her unfortunate sister, Jerusalem. It is never
said, — The Lord dwelleth in Jerusalem; or, loveth
Jerusalem; or any such expression, which surely
would have occurred, had Jerusalem and Zion been
one and the same place, as they now are, and gen-
erally supposed to have been. Though these cannot
be taken as absolute proof, they certainly amount
to strong presumptive evidence that Zion and the
Temple Hill were one and the same place. ‘There
is one curious passage, however, which is scarcely
intelligible on any other hypothesis than this; it is
known that the sepulchres of David and his sue-
cessors were on Mount Zion, or in the City of David,
but the wicked king Ahaz for his crimes was buried
in Jerusalem, “‘in the city,’ and “not in the
sepulchres of the kings’? (2 Chr. xxviii. 27). Je-
horam (2 Chr. xxi. 20) narrowly escaped the same
punishment, and the distinction is so marked that
it cannot be overlooked. The modern sepulchre of
David (Neby Daiid) is, and always must have been
in Jerusalem; not, as the Bible expressly tells us,
in the city of David, as contradistinguished from
the city of the Jebusites.
When from the Old Testament we turn to the
Books of the Maccabees, we come to some passages
written by persons who certainly were acquainted
with the localities, which seem to fix the site of
Zion with a considerable amount of certainty; as,
for instance, “ They went up into Mount Zion, and
saw the sanctuary desolate and the altar profaned,
and the shrubs growing in the courts as a forest ”’
(1 Mace. iv. 87 and 60). “ After this went Nicanor
up to Mount Zion, and there came out of the
sanctuary certain persons”? (1 Mace. vii. 33), and
several others, which seem to leave no doubt that
at that time Zion and the Temple Hill were con-
sidered one and the same place. It may also be
added that the Rabbis with one accord place the
Temple on Mount Zion, and though their authority
in matters of doctrine may be valueless, still their
traditions ought to have been sufficiently distinct
to justify their being considered as authorities on a
merely topographical point of this sort. There is
also a passage in Nehemiah (iii. 16) which will be
alluded to in the next section, and which, added to
the above, seems to leave very little doubt that in
ancient times the name of Zion was applied to the
eastern and not to the western hill of Jerusalem.
[See § IV. Amer. ed.]
VIL. Topography of the Book of Nehemiah. —
The only description of the ancient city of Jeru-
salem which exists in the Bible, so extensive in
form as to enable us to follow it as a topographical
description, is that found in the Book of Nehemiah,
and although it is hardly sufficiently distinct to
enable us to settle all the moot points, it contains
1322 JERUSALEM
such valuable indications that it is well worthy of
the most attentive examination.
FISHCATE
TOWER OF \HANANEEL,
TOWER\GF ME AH
SHEEP\ GATE
PRISON GATE
DUNC LCATE
VALLEY eee
s
No 7.— Diagram of places mentioned in dedication
of walls.
The easiest way to arrive at any correct conclu-
sion regarding it, is to take first the description of
the Dedication of the Walls in ch. xii. (31-40), and
drawing such a diagram as this, we easily get at
the main features of the old wall at least.
The order of procession was that the princes of
Judah went up upon the wall at some point as
nearly as possible opposite to the Temple, and one
half of them, turning to the right, went towards
the Dung Gate, ‘and at the Fountain Gate, which
was over against them”? (or, in other words, on the
opposite or Temple side of the city), ‘went up by
the stairs of the City of David at the going up of
the wall, above the house of David, even unto the
Water Gate eastward.’’ The Water Gate, therefore,
was one of the southern gates of the Temple, and
the stairs that led up to it are here identified with
those of the City of David, and consequently with
Zion.
The other party turned to the left, or north-
wards, and passed from beyond the tower of the
furnaces even “unto the broad wall,’’ and passing
the Gate of Ephraim, the Old Gate, the Fish Gate,
the towers of Hananeel and Meah, to the Sheep
Gate, “stood still in the Prison Gate,’’ as the other
party had in the Water Gate. ‘So stood the two
companies of them that gave thanks in the house
of God.”
If from this we turn to the third chapter, which
gives a description of the repairs of the wall, we
have no difficulty in identifying all the places men-
tioned in the first sixteen verses, with those env:
merated in the 12th chapter. The repairs began
at the Sheep Gate on the north side, and in imme-
diate proximity with the Temple, and all the places
named in the dedication are again named, but in
the reverse order, till we come to the Tower of the
Furnaces, which, if not identical with the tower in
the citadel, so often mistaken for the Hippicus,
snust at least have stood very near to it. Mention
is then made, but now in the direct order of the
dedication, of « the Valley Gate,”’ the “ Dung Gate,”
“the Fountain Gate; "’ and lastly, the “stairs that
go down from the City of David.”” Between these
last two places we find mention made of the pool
of Siloah and the king's garden, so that we have
long passed the so-called sepulchre of David on the
modern Zion, and are in the immediate proximity
le
f
JERUSALEM :
of the Temple; most probably in the valley |
tween the City of David and the city of Jerusal,
What follows is most important (ver. 16), A,
him repaired Nehemiah, the son of Azbuk, |
ruler of the half part of Beth-zur, unto the p,
over against the sepulchres of David, and to ,
pool that was made, and unto the house of ,
mighty.’’? This passage, when taken with the |,
text, seems in itself quite sufficient to set at
the question of the position of the City of Dal
of the sepulchres of the kings, and consequent {
Zion, all which could not be mentioned after j
leah if placed where modern tradition hag loc
them. f |
If the chapter ended with the 16th verse, t)
would be no difficulty in determining the sites n)
tioned above, but unfortunately we have, accor
to this view, retraced our steps very nearly to,
point from which we started, and have got thrc'l
only half the places enumerated. ‘Two hypoth»
may be suggested to account for this diffiery
the one that there was then, as in the time)
Josephus, a second wall, and that the remai
names refer to it; the other that the first 16 ve
refer to the walls of Jerusalem, and the remaii\
16 to those of the City of David. An attentive »
sideration of the subject renders it almost ceri
that the latter is the true explanation of the c:.
In the enumeration of the places repaired, in
last part of the chapter, we have two whichy
know from the description of the dedication rj
belonged to the Temple. The prison-court ii
25), which must have been connected with 1
Prison Gate, and, as shown by the order of the 1
ication, to have been on the north side of the 1a:
ple, is here also connected with the king's !I
house; all this clearly referring, as shown abovti
the castle of David, which originally oceupied x
site of the Turris Antonia. We have on thep:
posite side the “ Water Gate,’’ mentioned inx
next verse to Ophel, and consequently as clil}
identified with the southern gate of the Tene
We have also the Horse Gate, that by which A2-
liah was taken out of the Temple (2 K. xi. 1) 2
Chr. xxiii. 15), which Josephus states led to.
Kedron (Ant. ix. 7, § 3), and which is here 1”
tioned as connected with the priests’ houses, 1
probably, therefore, a part of the Temple. 1p-
tion is also made of the house of Hliashib,)
high-priest, and of the eastern gate, probably a
of the ‘l'emple. In fact, no place is mentionel
these last verses which cannot be more or lesli:
rectly identified with the localities on the Teil
Hill, and not one which ean be located in Jerusa™.
The whole of the City of David, however, wes
completely rebuilt and remodeled by Herod, 3
there are no local indications to assist us in a
taining whether the order of description ofl
places mentioned after verse 16 proceeds alonhe
northern face, and round by Ophel, and up bed
the Temple back to the Sheep Gate; or whe’
after crossing the causeway to the armory?
prison, it does not proceed along the western’
of the Temple to Ophel in the south, and &
along the eastern face, back along the norther t¢
the place from which the description started. he
latter seems the more probable hypothesis, bu he
determination of the point is not of very great li
sequence. It is enough to know that the des p-
tion in the first 16 verses applies to Jerusalem,/®
in the last 16 to Zion, or the City of Davic ®
this is sufficient to explain almost all the dif
|
\,
This
MME
iN)
hiwss
Ny
Nee
| Topography of
the Bible.
SEE
WE
~ ~
Quy :
$00 400 300 200 100 0
| scare allaede
.
WHY)
Miles
AN
uy AKAN
“i
Ue
ASD
yh
Mei
NN
\
NY
SAVANE
iM
‘
Vie
ii
ANS
~\ th
Ut
x
‘
ia,
“Mi by)
My
\
Ay Y
\
7,
\
Vi “sky ({t
SSS Seg 9/7
Ais ae
CARL LAMA bas ‘
a
—— =
=
AL
==
Jebusites:
f W\\\t
; \\
. | NN
Ry \ 4 dl)
NN ah }
Mhsih
VF
1
; o \\ i; i
RY we My Merson. RNS
JERUSALEM
JERUSALEM
g in the Old Testament which refer to the
topography of the city. [See § I[V., Amer.
Waters of Jerusalem. — The above deter-.
m explains most of the difficulties in under-
g what is said in the Bible with regard to the
upply of the city. Like Mecca, Jerusalem
o have been in all ages remarkable for some
ource of water, from which it was copiously
1 during even the worst periods of siege
nine, and which never appears to have failed
any period of its history. The principal
of this supply seems to have been situated
north; either on the spot known as the
of the Assyrians,” or in the valley to the
ard of it. The earliest distinct mention of
prings is in 2 Chr. xxxii. 4, 30, where Hez-
fearing an attack from the Assyrians,
ed the upper water-course of Gihon, and
t it straight down to the west side of the
David;”’ and again “he fortified the city,
ought in water into the midst thereof, and
the rock with iron, and made wells for wa-
teclus. xlviii. 17), in other words, he brought
ters under ground down the valley leading
1e Damascus Gate, whence they, have been
at the present day “to a pool which he
between ‘the two walls,’’ namely, those of
es of David and Jerusalem. Thanks to the
hes of Drs. Robinson and Barclay, we know
rrect the description of Tacitus is, when he
es the city as containing, “fons perennis
+ cavati sub terra montes,’’ etc., for great
t reservoirs have been found under the Tem-
a, and channels connecting them with the
n of the Virgin, and that again with the
Siloam; and many others may probably yet
overed.
ould appear that originally the overflow
he great reservoir under the Temple area
lave been by some underground channels,
y alongside of the great tunnel under the
s el-Aksa. This may at least be inferred
he form of the ground, as well as from the
the southern gate of the Temple being called
iter Gate. This is further confirmed by the
it when the Caliph Omar was searching for
rah or Holy Rock, which was then covered
th by the Christians (Jelal Addin, p. 174),
impeded by the water which ‘ran down
bs Of the gate, so that the greater part of
DS Were under water:’’ a circumstance which
very well occur if these channels were ob-
d or destroyed by the ruins of the Temple.
tse, if it is attempted to apply this tradition
Sakrah under the “ Dome of the Rock,” it
ly absurd; as, that being the highest point
neighborhood, no water could lie around it:
lying it to the real Sakrah under the Aksa,
t only consistent with facts, but enables us
stand one more circumstance with regard
waters of Jerusalem. It will require, how-
More critical examination than even that of
relay before we can feel quite certain by
channel the underground waters were co'-
into the great “excavated sea’’ (wood-cut
under the Temple, or by what exact means
rflow was managed.
nsiderable portion of these waters was at one
verted to the eastward to the great reservoir
‘Sometimes as the pool of Bethesda, but,
S$ probable proximity to the Sheep Gate, as
JERUSALEM 13823
shown above, more properly the “ piscina probatica,”
and which, from the curiously elaborate character
of its hydraulic masonry, must always have been
intended as a reservoir of water, and never could
have been the ditch of a fortification. From the
wood-cut No. 8 it will be perceived that the masonry
consists first of large blocks of stone, 18 or 2C
inches square, marked A. The joints between
their courses have been hollowed out to the depth
of 8 inches, and blocks 16 inches deep inserted in
them. The interstices are then filled up with
smaller stones, 8 inches deep, B. These are cov-
ered with a layer of coarse plaster and concrete (C),
and this again by a fine coating of plaster (1) half
an inch in thickness. It is impossible to conceive
such elaborate pains being taken with a ditch of a
fortress, even if we had any reason to suppose that
a wet ditch ever formed part of the fortifications
of Jerusalem; but its locality, covering only one
half of one side of the assumed fortress, is suf-
ficient to dispose of that idea, even if no other
reason existed against converting this carefully
formed pool into a ditch of defense.
It seems, however, that even in very ancient
times this northern supply was not deemed suffi-
cient, even with all these precautions, for the
supply of the city; and consequently large reser-
voirs were excavated from the rock, at a place near
Etham, now known as Solomon's pools, and the
water brought from them by a long canal which
enters the city above Siloam, and, with the northern
No. 8.— Section of Masonry lining Pool of Bethesda
(From Salzmann.)
supply, seems at all times to have been sufficient
for the consumption of its limited population, aided
of course by the rain water, which was probably
always stored in cisterns all over the town. The
tank now known as the pool of Hezekiah, situated
near the modern church of the Holy Sepulchre,
cannot possibly be the work referred to, as executed
by him. It is merely a receptacle within the walls
for the surplus rain water drained into the pool
now known as the Birket Mamilla, and as no out-
let eastwards or towards the Temple has been found,
it cannot ever have been of the importance ascribed
to the work of Hezekiah, even supposing the ob-
jections to the locality did not exist. These, how-
ever, cannot possibly be got over. [See § IV.,
Amer. ed.]}
X. Site of Holy Sepulchre. —If the preceding
investigations have rendered the topography of the
ancient city at all clear, there ought to be no diffi-
culty in determining the localities mentioned in the
1324 JERUSALEM
N. T. as those in which the various scenes of the
Passion and Crucifixion of our Lord took place.
There would in fact be none, were it not that, as
will be shown hereafter, changes were made in the
dark ages, which have confused the Christian to-
pography of the city to even a greater extent than
the change of the name of Zion from the eastern
to the western hill did that of the Jewish descrip-
tion of the place.
As the question now stands, the fixation of the
sites depends mainly on the answers that may be
given to two questions: First, did Constantine
and those who acted with him possess sufficient
information to enable them to ascertain exactly the
precise localities of the crucifixion and burial of
Christ? Secondly, is the present church of the
Holy Sepulchre that which he built, or does it
stand on the same spot ?
To the second question a negative answer must
be given, if the first can be answered with any
reasonable degree of probability. Either the local-
ities could not have been correctly ascertained in
the time of Constantine, or it must be that at some
subsequent period they were changed. ‘The site
of the present church is so obviously at variance
with the facts of the Bible narrative, that almost
all the best qualified investigators have assumed
that the means did not exist for ascertaining the
localities correctly when the church was built, with-
out its suggesting itself to them that subsequent
change may perhaps contain the true solution of the
difficulty. On the other hand everything seems to
tend to confirm the probability of the first question
being capable of being answered satisfactorily.
In the first place, though the city was destroyed
by Titus, and the Jews were at one time prohibited
from approaching it, it can almost certainly be
proved that there were Christians always present on
the spot, and the succession of Christian bishops
can be made out with very tolerable certainty and
completeness; so that it is more than probable they
would retain the memory of the sacred sites in
unbroken continuity of tradition. Besides this, it
can be shown (Findlay, On the Site of the Holy
Sepulchre) that the Romans recorded carefully all
the principal localities in their conquered provinces,
and had maps or plans which would enable them
to ascertain any important locality with very toler-
able precision. It must also be borne in mind that
during the three centuries that elapsed between the
crucifixion and the age of Constantine, the Christ-
ians were too important a sect, even in the eyes of
the Romans, to be neglected, and their proceedings
and traditions would certainly attract the attention
of at least the Roman governor of Judea; and some
records must certainly have existed in Jerusalem,
which ought to have been sufficient to fix the local-
ities Even if it is argued that this knowledge
might not have been sufficient to identify the exact
rock-cut sepulchre of Joseph of Arimatheea, it must
have been sufficient to determine the site of such a
place as Golgotha, and of the Prztorium; and as
the scenes of the Passion all lay near one another,
materials must have existed for fixing them with
at least very tolerable approximate certainty. As
the question now lies between two sites which are
very far apart, one being in the town, the other
on its eastern boundary, it is nearly certain that
the authorities had the knowledge sufficient to de-
termine at least which of the two was the most
probable.
The account given by Eusebius of the uncovering
JERUSALEM |
of the rock, expresses no doubt or uncertainty
the matter. In order to insult the i 28)
cording to his account (Vita Const. iii. 26), «
ous persons had heaped earth upon it, and e)
an idol temple on the site.’’ Te earth was ren)
and he says (Theophania, Lee’s Transluti
199), ‘¢ it is astonishing to see even the roek |
ing out erect and alone on a level land, and i
only one cave in it; lest, had there been man}
miracle of Him who overcame death might
been obscured;’’ and as if in order that ,
might be no mistake as to its position, he
tinues, “ Accordingly on the very spot thaij
nessed our Saviour’s sufferings a new Jeru\
was constructed over against the one so celel
of old, which since the foul stain of guilt brg
on it by the murder of the Lord has experi
the last extremity of desolation. It was o
this city that the emperor began to rear a 1)
ment of our Saviour’s victory over death wit:
and lavish magnificence’? (Vita Const. iii)
This passage ought of itself to be sufficient |
the question at rest, for it is minutely descr’;
of the site of the building now known as the Mg
of Omar, but wholly inapplicable to the site «t
present church, which was then, and must ceri
in the time of Titus or of Herod have been 1I
the walls of the city of Jerusalem, and n|
opposite to nor over against it. |
The buildings which Constantine or his m
Helena, erected, will be more particularly des
elsewhere [SEPULCHRE]; in the mean while:
sufficient to say that it will be proved by whi
lows, that two of them now remain — the 0
Anastasis, a circular building erected over thet
itself; the other the ‘“ Golden Gateway,” which
the propylea described by Eusebius as leadi
the atrium of the basilica. He says it opened «
THS wWAaTElas eryopas,” in other words, that |
a broad market-place in front of it, as all 1
places or places of pilgrimage had, and have,
East. Beyond this was an atrium leading t
basilica. This was destroyed in the end of ther
century by el-Hakeem, the mad Khalif of fy
in the words of William of Tyre (lib. 1. ey
“usque ad solum diruta,”’ or as it is more quit
expressed by Albericus (Le Quien, Oriens Chris!
p. 475), ‘Solo cosequare mandayit.”’ Fortw e
however, even the Moslems respected the to)
Christ, whom they consider one of the N
prophets, inferior only to the Founder of thei)!
religion; and they left the “Dome of the Ik
uninjured as we now see it. q
In order to prove these assertions, there are
classes of evidence which may be appealed tial
which must coincide, or the question must 12
still in doubt: — ;
First, it is necessary that the cireumstan( ‘
the locality should accord with those of thell
narrative. |
Secondly, the incidental notices furnish,
those travellers who visited Jerusalem betwee t!
time of Constantine and that of the Crusades!"
be descriptive of these localities; and, 3
Thirdly, the architectural evidence of the f
ings themselves must be that of the age to
they are assigned.
Taking the last first, it is hardly necess)
remark how important this class of eviden:h
become in all questions of this sort of late
Before the gradation of styles had been Pp
investigated nothing could be more wild th
A
2
JERUSALEM
ination of the dates assigned to all the
yal buildings of Europe. Now that the
metric scale has been fixed, nothing is either
or so certain as to fix the date of any build-
any part of one, and it is admitted by all
lowists that it is the most sure and con-
evidence that can be adduced on the sub-
his country the progression of style is only
lly understood as applied to medieval build-
mit with sufficient knowledge it is equally
ble to Indian, Mohammedan, Classical, or
. in fact to all true styles, and no one who
liar with the gradation of styles that took
yetween the time of Hadrian and that of
an can fail to see that the Golden Gateway
yme of the Rock are about half-way in the
and are in fact buildings which must have
rected within the century in which Con-
e flourished. With regard to the Golden
wy, which is practically unaltered, this is
yted. It is precisely of that style which is
mly in the buildings of the end of the third,
nning of the fourth century, and accords so
tely with those found at Rome, Spalatro,
ewhere, as to leave no reasonable doubt on
ject. Had it been as early as the time of
n, the bent entablature which covers both
ernal and internal openings could not have
, while had it been as late as the age of Jus-
its classical features would have been ex-
d for the peculiar incised style of his build-
It may also be remarked that, although in
er wall, it is a festal, not a fortified entrance,
ver could have been intended as a city gate,
ist have led to some sacred or palatial edifice.
lifficult, indeed, to suggest what that could
een, except tue basilica described by Euse-
ae
ae
(nmi
a uy
—Intenor of Golden Gateway. From a Photo-
graph.
exterior of the other building (the Anastasis)
en repaired and covered with colored tiles
‘scriptions in more modern times; but the
tis nearly unaltered (vide Plates by Cather-
nd Arundale, in Fergusson’s Topography of
‘t Jerusalem), and even externally, wherever
ating of tiles has peeled off, the old Roman
arch appears in lieu of its pointed substitute.
‘talso be added that it is essentially a tomb-
g, similar in form and arrangement, as it is
‘il, to the Tomb of the Emperor Constantine
JERUSALEM 1825
at Rome, or of his daughter Constantia, outside
the walls, and indeed more or less like all the tomb-
buildings of that age.
Though the drawings of these buildings have
been published for more than ten years, and photo-
graphs are now available, no competent archeologist
or architect has ventured to deny that these are
buildings of the age here ascribed to them; and
we have therefore the pertinent question, which still
remains unanswered, What tomb-like building did
Constantine or any one in his age erect at Jeru-
salem, over a mass of the living rock, rising eight
or nine feet above the bases of the columns, and
extending over the whole central area of the
church, with a sacred cave in it, unless it were
the church of the Holy Anastasis, described by
Eusebius ?
Supposing it were possible to put this evidence
aside, the most plausible suggestion is to appeal to
the presumed historical fact that it was built by
Omar, or by the Moslems at all events. There is,
however, no proof whatever of this assumption
What Omar did build is the small mosque on the
east of the Aksa, overhanging the southern wall,
and which still bears his name; and no Moham-:
medan writer of any sort, anterior to the recovery
of the city from the Christians by Saladin, ventures
to assert that his countrymen built the Dome of
the Rock. On the contrary, while they are most
minute in describing the building of the Aksa, they
are entirely silent about this building, and only
assume that it was theirs after they came into
permanent possession of it after the Crusades. It
may also be added that, whatever it is, it certainly
is not a mosque. The principal and essential feature
in all these buildings is the Kibleh, or niche point-
ing towards Mecca. No mosque in the whole
world, of whatever shape or form, is without this;
but in the place where it should be in this building
is found the principal entrance, so that the worship-
per enters with his back to Mecca—a sacrilege
which to the Mohammedans, if this were a mosque,
would be impossible. Had it been called the Tomb
of Omar, this incongruity would not have been
apparent, for all the old Moslem and Christian
tombs adopt nearly the same ordinance; but no
tradition hints that either Omar or any Moslem
saint was ever buried within its precincts.
Nor will it answer to assume, as is generally
done, that it was built in the first century of the
Hegira over the Sacred Rock of the Temple; for
from the account of the Moslem and Christian his-
torians of the time it is quite evident that at that
time the site and dimensions of the Jewish Templs
could be ascertained, and were known. As shown
above, this building certainly always was outside
the limits of the Temple, so that this could not be
the object of its erection. The Mosque of Omai
properly so called, the great Mosque el-Aksa, the
mosques of the Mogrebins and of Abu bekr, are
all within the limits of the old Temple, and were
meant to be so (see wood-cut No. 4). They are
so because in all ages the Mohammedans held the
Jewish Temple to be a sacred spot, as certainly as
the Christians held it to be accursed, and all their
sacred buildings stand within its precincts. So far
as we now know there was nothing in Jerusalem
of a sacred character built by the Mohammedans
outside the four walls of the Temple anterior to the
recovery of the city by Saladin.
Irrefragable as this evidence appears to be, it
would be impossible to maintain it otherwi3e than
1826 JERUSALEM
by assuming that Constantine blindly adopted a
wrong locality, if the sites now assumed tc be true |
were such as did not accord with the details of the
Bible narratives: fortunately, however, they agree
with them to the minutest detail.
To understand this it is necessary to bear in
mind that at the time of the crucifixion the third
wall, or that of Agrippa (as shown in Plate II.),
did not exist, but was commenced twelve years
afterwards: the spot where the Dome of the Rock
therefore now stands was at that time outside the
walls, and open to the country.
It was also a place where certainly tombs did
exist. It has been shown above that the sepulchres
of David and the other kings of Israel were in this
neighborhood. We know from Josephus (B. J. vy.
7, § 3) that “John and his faction defended them-
selves from the Tower of Antonia, and from the
northern cloister of the Temple, and fought the
JERUSALEM 9 ae
Romans before the monument of king Alexan¢
so that there certainly were tombs hereabouts
there is a passage in Jeremiah (xxxi. 38-
which apparently describes prophetically the I
ing of the third wall and the inclosure o,
northern parts of the city from Gareb — most
ably the hill on which Psephinos stood — to G
which is mentioned as in immediate juxtapo)
to the Horse Gate of the Temple, out of whic
wicked queen Athaliah was taken to execu
and the description of “the whole yalley o
dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the
unto the brook of Kidron, and the corner 9
horse-gate toward the east,’ is in itself snff
to prove that this locality was then, as it is,
the great cemetery of Jerusalem; and as thes
chre was nigh at hand to the place of exec
(John xix. 42), every probability exists to
that this may have been the scene of the Pass
|
i pea
ZN
aa Mh
The Pretorium where Christ was judged was
most probably the Antonia, which at that time, as
before and afterwards, was the citadel of Jerusalem
and the residence of the governors, and the Xystus
and Council-house were certainly, as shown above,
in this neighborhood. Leaving these localities the
Saviour, bearing his cross, must certainly have gone
towards the country, and might well meet Simon
or any one coming towards the city; thus every
detail of the description is satisfied, and none of-
fended by the locality now assumed.
The third class of evidence is from its nature by
no means so clear, but there is nothing whatever in
it to contradict, and a great deal that directly con-
a “Behold the day is come, saith the Lord, that
the city shall be built to the Lord, from the tower of
Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. And the
measuring-line shall yet go forth over against it upon
the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath.
Jerusalem. The Mosques in the Holy Place
hte
Be ARES 4
from N. W.
firms the above statements. The earliest (
travellers who visited Jerusalem after the dis:
of the Sepulchre by Constantine is one kno)
the Bordeaux pilgrim; he seems to have a
place about the year 333. In his Itinerary
describing the palace of David, the Great
gogue, and other objects inside the city, be
| Inde ut eas foris murum de Sione euntib
'Portam Neopolitanam ad partem dextram de
:in valle sunt parietes ubi domus fuit sive pal
Pontii Pilati. Ibi Dominus auditus est ant
pateretur. A sinistra autem parte est mont
Golgotha, ubi Dominus crucifixus est. Inde
ad lapidem missum est cripta ubi corpus ¢us
Dine
And the whole valley of the dead bodies and
ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of 1
unto the corner of the horse-gate toward th
shall be holy unto the Lord; it shall not be Pp
up nor thrown down any more for ever.”
JERUSALEM
it, et tertia die resurrexit. Ibidem modo
Constantini Inperatoris Basilica facta est,
Dominicum mire pulchritudinis.”’ From
is evident that passing out of the modern
ate he turned round the outside of the walls
left. lad he gone to the right, past the
ate, both the ancient and modern Golgotha
have been on his right hand; but passing
the Temple area he may have had the house
te on his right in the valley, where some
ms placed it. He must have had Golgotha
2 Sepulchre on his left, as he describes them.
uw therefore as his testimony goes, it is clear
not speaking of the modern Golgotha, which
e the city, while the very expression ‘ foris
. seems to indicate what the context con-
hat it was a place on the verge of the city,
the left hand of one passing round the walls,
ther words the place marked on the accom-
g map.
minus Martyr is the only other traveller
works have come down to us, who visited
y Lefore the Mohammedan conquest; his de-
in is ‘not sufficiently distinct for much reli-
1 be placed on it, though all it does say is
1 accordance with the eastern than the west-
2; but he incidentally supplies one fact. He
‘Juxta ipsum altare est crypta ubi si ponas
‘audies flumen aquarum, et si jactas intus
aut quid natare potest et vade ad fontem
‘et ibi illud suscipies’? (Ant. Mart. /tin. p.
There is every reason to believe, from the
hes of Drs. Robinson and Barclay, that the
of the Haram area is excavated with subter-
‘water-channels, and that therefore if you
0 ir ear almost anywhere you may hear the
‘of the water; and all these waters can only
mut towards Siloam. We also know that
1e eave in me Cee of the Rock there is
Biloam, so that if an a shie were aerped
‘in so far as we now know, it would come
te. If we presume that Antoninus was speak-
the present sepulchre the passage is utterly
ligible. There is no well, and no trace has
ven discovered of any communication with
. As far as our present knowledge goes,
jection is in itself fatal to the modern site.
‘ird and most important narrative has been
éd to us by Adamnanus, an abbot of Iona,
‘ok it down from the mouth of Arculfus, a
‘bishop who visited the Holy Land in the
the seventh century. He not only describes,
ves from memory a plan of the Church of
oly Sepulchre, but without any very precise
‘on of its locality. He then describes the
» el-Aksa as a square building situated on
| of the Temple of Solomon, and with details
ave no doubt as to its identity; but either
ts all mention of the Dome of the Rock,
certainly was then, as it is now, the most
‘uous and most important building in Jeru-
or the inference is inevitable, that he has
described it under the designation of the
| of the Sepulchre, which the whole context
‘ead us to infer was really the case.
es these, there are various passages in the
of the Fathers which are unintelligible if
ame that the present church was the ne
y Constantine. Dositheus, for instance (ii.
JERUSALEM 1827
1,§ 7), says, that owing to the steepness of tha.
gr round, or to the hill or valley, to the westward of
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, it had only its
one wall on that side, “Exe 6 vads Tov aylou . Td
gov Kata Mey Thy vow Sia Td elvan bpos jsdvov
Tov Torxov adrod. ‘This cannot be appli:d to the
present church, inasmuch as towards the west in
that locality there i is space for any amount of build-
ing; but it is literally correct as applied to the so-
called Dome of the Rock, which does stand so near
the edge of the valley between the two towns that
it would be impossible to erect any considerable
building there.
The illuminated Cross, mentioned by St. Cytil
(Fpist. ad Const.) is unintelligible, unless we assume
the Sepulchre to have been on the side of the city
next to the Mount of Olives. But even more dis-
tinct than this is a passage in the writings of St.
Epiphanius, writing in the 4th century, who, speak-
ing of Golgotha, says, ‘It does not occupy an ele-
vated position as compared with other places. sur-
rounding it. Over against it, the Mount of Olives
is higher. Again, the hill that formerly existed in
Zion, but which is now leveled, was once higher
than the sacred spct.”” As we cannot be sure to
which hill he app’ies the name, Zion, no great stress
can be laid on that; but no one acquainted with
the localities would speak of the modern Golgotha
as over against the Mount of Olives. So far there-
fore, as this goes, it is in favor of the proposed
view.
The slight notices contained in other works are
hardly sufficient to determine the question one way
or the other, but the mass of evidence adduced
above would probably never have been questioned,
were it not that from the time of the Crusades
down to the present day (which is the period dur-
ing which we are really and practically acquainted
with the history and topography cf Jerusalem), it
s|is certain that the church in the Latin quarter of
the city has always been considered as containing
the Tomb of Christ, and as being the church which
Constantine erected over the sacred cave; and as
no record exists — nor indeed is it likvly that it
should — of a transference of the site, there is a
difficulty in persuading others that it really took
place. As however there is nothing to contradict,
and everything to confirm, the assumption that a
transference did take place about this time, it is
not important to the argument whether or not we
are able to show exactly how it took place, though
nothing seems to be more likely or natural under
the circumstances.
Architecturally, there is literally no feature or
[and] no detail which would induce us to believe
that any part of the present church is older than the
time of the Crusades. ‘The only things about it
of more ancient date are the fragments of an old
classical cornice, which are worked in as string
courses with the Gothic details of the externa
facade, and singularly enouzh this cornice is iden-
tical in style with, and certainly belongs to’ the age
of, the Golden Gateway and Dome of the Rock,
and consequently can scarcely be anything else than
a fragment of the old basilica, which el-Hakeem
had destroyed in the previous century, and the re-
mains of which must still have been scattered about
when the Crusaders arrived.
It is well known that a furious persecution of
the Christians was carried on, as above mentionett,
at the end of the 10th century. Their great ha-
silica was destroyed, their Tomb appropriated, tirey
1328 JERUSALEM
were driven from the city, and dared not approach
the holy places under pain of death. As the perse-
cution relaxed, afew crept back to their old quarter
of the city, and there most naturally built them-
selves a church in which to celebrate the sacred
mysteries of Easter. It is not necessary to assume
fraud in this proceeding any more than to impute
it to those who built sepulchral churches in Italy,
Spain, or England. Thousands have prayed and
wept in these simulated sepulchres all over the
world, and how much more appropriately at Jeru-
salem! Being in the city, and so near the spot,
it was almost impossible but that it should event-
ually come to be assumed that instead of a simu-
lated, it was the true sepulchre, and it would have
required more than human virtue on the part of
the priests if they had undeceived the unsuspecting
pilgrims, whose faith and liberality were no doubt
quickened by the assumption. Had the Christians
never recovered the city, the difference would never
have been discovered in the dark ages; but when
unexpectedly those who had knelt and prayed as
pilgrims, came back as armed men, and actually
possessed the city, it was either necessary to confess
the deception or to persevere in it; and, as was too
often the case, the latter course was pursued, and
hence all the subsequent confusion.
Nothing, however, can be more remarkable than
the different ways in which the Crusaders treated
the Dome of the Rock and the Mosque el-Aksa.
The latter they always called the “Templum seu
palatium Solomonis,’’ and treated it with the con-
tempt always applied by Christians to anything
Jewish. ‘The Mosque was turned into a stable,
the buildings into dwellings for knights, who took
the title of Knights Templars, from their residence
in the Temple. But the Dome of the Rock they
called “Templum Domini.” (Jacob de Vitry, c.
62; Sewulf, el. de Voyage, iv. 833; Maundeville,
Voiage, etc., 100, 105; Mar. Sanutus, iii. xiv. 9;
Brocardus, vi. 1047.) Priests and a choir were
appointed to perform service in it, and during the
whole time of the Christian occupation it was held
certainly as sacred, if not more so, than the church
of the Holy Sepulchre in the town. (Will. of Tyre,
vili. 3.) Had they believed or suspected that the
rock was that on which the Jewish temple stood it
would have been treated as the Aksa was, but they
knew that the Dome of the Rock was a Christian
building, and sacred to the Saviour; though in the
uncritical spirit of the age they never seem exactly
to have known either what it was, or by whom it
was erected. [See § IV. Amer. ed.]
XI. Rebuilding of the Temple by Julian. —
Before leaving the subject, it is necessary to revert
to the attempt of Julian the Apostate to rebuild
the Temple of the Jews. It was undertaken avow-
edly as a slight to the Christians, and with the idea
of establishing a counterpoise to the influence and
position they had attained by the acts of Constan-
tine. It was commenced about six months before
his death, and during that period the work seems
to have been pushed forward with extraordinary
activity under the guidance of his friend Alypius.
Not only were large sums of money collected for
the purpose, and an enormous concourse of the
Jews assembled on the spot, but an immense mass
@ This fact the writer owes, with many other val-
uable rectifications, to the observation of his friend
Mr. G. Grove. The wood-cut, etc., is from a large
photuyiapn which, with many others, was taken
JERUSALEM
of materials was brought together, and the wi
of the foundations at least carried vigorously,
during this period of excitement, before the mir,
occurred, which put a final stop to the undertak.
Even if we have not historical evidence of tl,
facts, the appearance of the south wall of the |
ram would lead us to expect that something of ,
sort had been attempted at this period. As he
mentioned, the great tunnel-like vault under ,
Mosque el-Aksa, with its four-domed vestibule,
almost certainly part of the temple of Herod |
TEMPLE], and coeval with his period, but ex.
nally to this, certain architectural decorations bh,
SK Zs
No. 10.— Frontispiece of Julian in south wallf
Haram.
been added (wood-cut No. 10), and that so a
that daylight can be perceived between the
walls and the subsequent decorations, except at
points of attachment.¢ It is not. difficult to as’
tain, approximately at least, the age of these -
juncts. From their classical forms they eanno'é
so late as the time of Justinian; while on the oi?
hand they are slightly more modern in style tn
the architecture of the Golden Gateway, or tn
any of the classical details of the Dome of &
Rock. They may therefore with very toler?
certainty be ascribed to the age of Julian, A.
from the historical accounts, they are just sucl
we would expect to find them. Above them?
inscription bearing the name of Hadrian has t®
inserted in the wall, but turned upside down; |
the whole of the masonry being of that inter”
diate character between that which we know t
ancient and that which we easily recognize as
especially for the writer on the spot, and to wl
he owes much of the information detailed ab’,
though it has been impossible to refer to it on!
occasions.
|
|
|
|
|
Sy =e
SS =
Ws: =
>> —2
SS. Ze
= ria
Ca
Sea
oe
te
. Pi
LT RAM
wr
Ses
“Uj
| \
AA y
flit \ \
: -
reqs UE et
Tombs of
~ se
oat hes
\\ nih
bd 455 vrs x 1
ay! PR
SQ th
WS wi
NY
ON
foe
yn
Nt \(
SN \
Si
se ANY
i \\,
eed
My,
ui!
Me
=A
“a Ny s -
Wee if " mS
veby NY : 4
oeeeatnnl
we 5
py “ny pe
I /
ALAS }
AS CORTRNTN Vy 4,
4,
SS thy,
rch of the
Wee
wv
7
G
Fetal
| Vy
Nil
ie Mount of es SRS , Mis
__Evil Coungit Wim. a SF Be
‘ JERUSALEM
“y
JERUSALEM
- of the Mohammedans, there can be little
t but that it belongs to this period.
mong the incidents mentioned as occurring at
time is one bearing rather distinctly on the
graphy of the site. It is said (Gregory Nazian-
ad Jud. et Gent. 7, 1, and confirmed by Sozo-
) that when the workmen were driven from
‘works by the globes of fire that issued from
foundations, they sought refuge in a neighbor-
church (ém{ 7 tev wAnalov fepav, or, as
men has it, eis +b fepdy) — an expression
h would be unintelligible did not the buildings
onstantine exist at that time on the spot; for,
at these, there could not be any chureh or
d place in the neighborhood to which the ex-
ion could be applied. The principal bearing,
wer, of Julian’s attempt on the topography of
salem consists in the fact of its proving not
that the site of the Jewish Temple was perfectly
NORTH
JERUSALEM 1329
well known at this period -— A. Dp. 362 — but that
the spot was then, as always, held accursed by the
Christians, and as doomed by the denunciation of
Christ himself never to be reéstablished; and this
consequently makes it as absurd to suppose that
the Aksa is a building of Justinian as that the
Dome of the Rock or the Golden Gateway — if
Christian buildings— ever stood within its pre-
cincts.4
XII. Church of Justinian. — Nearly two cen-
turies after the attempt of Julian, Justinian erected
a church at Jerusalem; of which, fortunately, we
have so full and detailed an account in the works
of Procopius (de Adificiis Const.)that we can have
little difficulty in fixing its site, though no remains
(at least above ground) exist to verify our conjec-
tures. The description given by Procopius is so
clear, and the details he gives with regard to the
necessity of building up the substructure point so
ili Ea
fort sex@ED
wena) sem ae
No. 11. — Plan of Jerusalem in the 12th century.
\stakably to the spot near to which it must
| stood, that almost all topographers have
l vd to the conclusion that the Mosque el-Aksa
identical church referred to. Apart from the
lleration already mentioned, the architecture
tt building is alone sufficient to refute any
is this shown from Julian’s attempt, but all the
historians, Christian and Mohammedan, who refer
to Omar’s visit to Jerusalem, relate that the Sakhrah
was covered with filth and abhorred by the Chris-
tians; and more than this, we have the direct testi-
mony of Eutychius, writing in the 9th century,
(dea. No seven-aisled basilica was built in that; from Alexandria (Annales, ii. 289), “That the
sind least of all by Justinian, whose favorite
‘yas a dome on pendentives, which in fact, in
‘ie, had become the type of an Oriental Church.
28, the Aksa has no apse, and, from its situa-
> 1ever could have had either that or any of the
S ial features of a Christian basilica. Its whole
Cecture is that of the end of the 7th century,
‘8 ordinance is essentially that of a mosque.
tardly necessary to argue this point, however,
| Aksa stands on a spot which was perfectly
"1 then, and ever afterwards, to be the very
* of the site of Solomon’s Temple. Not only
84
Christians had built no church within the area of
the Temple on account of the denunciations of the
Lord, and had left it in ruins.”
Notwithstanding this there is no difficulty in
fixing on the site of this church, inasmuch as the
vaults that fill up the southeastern angle of the
Haram area are almost certainly of the age of Jus-
tinian (wood-cuts Nos. 3, 4), and are just such as
a * The only authentic historical fact, under this
head, is that the emperor Julian made an abortive
attempt to rebuild the Temple. Ss. W.
1330 JERUSALEM
Procopius describes; so that if it were situated at
the northern extremity of the vaults, all the argu-
ments that apply to the Aksa equally apply to this
situation.
We have also direct testimony that a church did
exist here immediately after Justinian’s time in the
following words of Ant. Martyr.: « Ante ruinas
vero templi Solomonis aqua decurrit ad fontem
Siloam, secus porticum Solomonis in ecclesia est
sedes in qua sedit Pilatus quando audivit Dominum”’
(Jtin. p. 16). As the portico of Solomon was the
eastern portico of the Temple, this exactly describes
the position of the church in question.
_ But whether we assume the Aksa, or a church
outside the Temple, on these vaults, to have been
the Mary church of Justinian, how comes it that
Justinian chose this remote corner of the city, and
so difficult a site, for the erection of his church ?
Why did he not go to the quarter where —if the
modern theory be correct —all the sacred localities
of the Christians were grouped together in the
middle of the city? The answer seems inevitable:
that it was because in those times the Sepulchre
and Golgotha were here, and not on’ the spot to
which the Sepulchre with his Mary-church have
subsequently been transferred. It may also be
added that the fact of Justinian having built a
church in the neighborhood is in itself almost suf-
ficient to prove that in his age the site and dimen-
sions of the Jewish Temple were known, and also
that the localities immediately outside the Temple
were then considered as sacred by the Christians.
[See § IV., Amer. ed.]
XIII. Conclusion. — Having now gone through
all the principal sites of the Christian edifices, as
they stood anterior to the destruction of the churches
by el-Hakeem, the plan (No. 4) of the area of the
Haram will be easily understood. Both Constan-
tine’s and Justinian’s churches having disappeared,
of course the restoration of these is partly conjec-
tural. Nothing now remains in the Haram area
but the Mohammedan buildings situated within
the area of Solomon’s Temple. Of the Christian
buildings which once existed there, there remain
only the great Anastasis of Constantine — now
known as “ the Mosque of Omar” and “ the Dome
of the Rock ’’ — certainly the most interesting, as
well as one of the most beautiful Christian build-
ings in the East, and a small but equally interesting
little domical building called the Little Sakhrah at
the north end of the inclosure, and said to contain
a fragment of the rock which the angel sat upon,
and which closed the door of the sepulehre (Ali Bey,
li. 225). These two buildings are entire. Of Con-
stantine’s church we have only the festal entrance,
known as the Golden Gateway, and of Justinian’s
only the substructions.
It is interesting to compare this with a plan of
the city (wood-cut No. 11) made during the Cru-
sades, and copied from a manuscript of the twelfth
century, in the Library at Brussels. It gives the
traditional localities pretty much as they are now;
with the exception of St. Stephen’s Gate, which was
the name then applied to that now known as the
Damascus Gate. The gate which now bears his
name was then known as that of the Valley of
Jehoshaphat. The “Temple of Solomon,” 7. e. the
Mosque of el Aksa, is divided by a wide street from
that of our Lord; and the Sepulchre is represented
as only a smaller copy of its prototype within the
Haram area, but yery remarkably similar in design,
to say the least of it.
JERUSALEM
Having now gone through the main outfi
the topography of Jerusalem, in so far as the
of this article would admit, or as seems nec
for the elucidation of the subject, the many ¢
which remain will be given under their se
titles, as TempLe, Toms, PALACE, ete. It
remains, before concluding, to recapitulate her
the great difficulties which seem hitherto to
rendered the subject confused, and in fact
plicable, were (1) the improper application ,
name of Zion to the western hill, and (2
assumption that the present Church of the
Sepulchre was that built by Constantine.
The moment we transfer the name, Zion,
the western to the eastern hill, and the scenes.
Passion from the present site of the Holy Sepi
to the area of the Haram, all the difficultie
appear; and it only requires a little patience
perhaps in some instances a little further inve
tion on the spot, fur the topography of Jeru
to become as well, or -better established, than
of any city of the ancient world. Je
* TV. TopoGRAPHY OF THE City.
It will be seen from the preceding that 4
points in the topography of Jerusalem whic
Fergusson regarded as demanding special elt
tion are the site of Mount Zion, and the site :
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. With refere
both, he has advanced theories which are or
— theories which not only have not been bro!
before, and are unsupported by a single trac
but which, so far as is known, contradict the
ous impressions of the Christian world. Sp:
tions so novel respecting localities so promin;
the history of the sacred city, naturally awake
reader’s surprise and suspicion, and demand «;
did scrutiny. |
We will examine these points separately —
I. Mount Zion.— Mr. Fergusson’s theory #
the Mount Zion of the sacred writers is not
western hill on which the city of Je
stands, and in fact always stood,’’ but * the e
hill, or that on which the Temple stood.” __
On this point we will consider —
(1.) The testimony of the Sacred Scriptur
The sacred historian says, “ As for the «i
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of ‘
could not drive them out, but the Jebusites
with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unt
day ’’ (Josh. xv. 63). Four hundred years }
‘“‘ David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, wh
Jebus, where the Jebusites were, the inhabi
of the land. And the inhabitants of Jebus sé
David, Thou shalt not come hither. Neverth*
David took the castle of Zion, which is the Ci\'
David. And David dwelt in the castle; ther)
they called it, The City of David’? (1 Chr. |
5, 7). Here was his citadel, and here his tet
and hence the frequent allusions in the Bible t
towers, bulwarks, and palaces of Zion. A few ?
later, “‘ David made him houses in the City of Dit
and prepared a place for the ark of God,
pitched for it a tent.’ So they brought thu
of God, and set it in the midst of the tent
David had pitched for it”? (1 Chr. xv. 1). T
years after, “* Solomon began to build the ho '
the Lord at Jerusalem, in Mount Moriah” (2
iii. 1). Seven years later, “ Solomon assert
the elders of Israel unto Jerusalem, to bring u
ark of the covenant of the Lord, out of the Ci‘
David, which is Zion’? (2 Chr. y. 2), and thei
JERUSALEM JERUSALEM 1331
in the City of David, but the wicked king Ahzz,
for his crimes, was buried in Jerusalem, ‘in th
city,’ ard ‘not in the sepulchres of the kings.
Jehoram narrowly escaped the same punishment,
and the distinction is so marked, that it cannot be
overlooked.” The burial of King Ahaz is thus
recorded: “ And they buried him in the city, in
Jerusalem, but they brought him not into the sep-.
ulchres of the kings’? (2 Chr. xxviii. 27). That
of King Jehoram is as follows: «« He departed with-
out being desired, howbeit they buried him in the
City of David, but not in the sepulchres of the
kings’? (2 Chr. xxi. 20). That of King Joash
(which Mr. Fergusson overlooks) is as follows :
“They buried him in the City of David, but they
buried him not in the sepulchres of the kings”
(2 Chr. xxiv. 25). Mr. Fergusson assumes that
there is a ‘“ marked distinction’? between the first
and the last two records. We assume that the
three accounts are, in substance, identical; and we
submit the point to the judgment of the reader,
merely adding, that of the three monarchs, Jehoram
was apparently the most execrated, and Josephus,
who is silent about the burial of Ahaz, describes
that of Jehoram as ignominious.
Mr. Fergusson says, “ There are a great many
passages in which Zion is spoken of as a separate
city from Jerusalem,’’, and adduces instances in
which the Hebrew scholar will recognize simply the
parallelism of Hebrew poetry; no more proving
that Zion was a separate city from Jerusalem, than
the exclamation, “How goodly are thy tents, O
Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel,’ proves that
Jacob was a separate people from Israel.
The term Zion came, naturally, to be employed
both by sacred and profane writers, as the repre-
sentative of the whole city, of which it formed so
prominent a part. It was thus used by the later
prophets, quoted above, as also in the Book of the
Maccabees, where it evidently incluces the Temple
and adjacent mount.
The passage cited by Mr. Fergusson from Nehe-
miah (iii. 16) which he pronounces “ important,”
is as follows: “ After him repaired Nehemiah the
son of Azbuk, the ruler of the half part of Beth-zur,
unto the place over against the sepulchres of David,
and to the pool that was made, and unto the house
of the mighty.’ These localities, with many others
named in the chapter, can only be fixed conjectur-
ally. On the face of the passage they accord well
with the received theory respecting Mount Zion,
with which locality Dr. Barclay, after carefully ex-
amining the matter on the ground, associates them,
and represents the wall here described as running
“along the precipitous brow of Zion” (City, etc.,
pp- 126, 155). This interpretation has just received
striking confirmation, and the verse preceding (Neh.
iii. 15) becomes a proof-text in the argument which
identifies the ancient City of David with the modern
Zion. In this verse mention is made of “ the stairs
that go down trom the City of David,’ and Mr.
Tristram reports the interesting discovery of a flight
of steps in the rock, in some excavations made by
the Anglican Bishop below the English Cemetery
on Mount Zion (Land of /srael).¢ From this,
as from the previous Scripture quotations, Mr. Fer-
gusson’s theory derives no support. This disposes
of the Biblical testimony.
the account of their removing the ark and
iting it in the Temple.
m this it is clear that the Jebusite strong-
which David stormed, and where he dwelt,
ion, or the City of David; that the ark of the
int was brought to this spot, and from it was
erred to the Temple on Mount Moriah; and
fount Moriah, the site of the Temple, could
we heen identical with Zion, the City of David.
riew appears on the face of the narrative, and
is not a passage of Scripture which conflicts
t, or which it renders difficult or obscure.
Fergusson says, “ There are numberless pas-
in which Zion is spoken of as a holy place, in
erms as are never applied to Jerusalem, and
can only be applied to the holy Temple
3”? Surely, no strains could be too elevated
ipplied to the mount on which the tabernacle
itched, and where the ark of the covenant
—the seat of the theocracy, the throne alike
‘id and of David’s Lord, the centre of domin-
ad of worship. Indeed, the verse quoted,
have I set my king upon my holy hill of
could only be affirmed of that western hill
_was the royal residence. The same may be
‘the verse quoted as specially difficult, on the
d theory, in its allusion to the sides of the
the reference here being to the lofty site of
y; and to one who approaches it from the
_the precipitous brow of Zion invests the
tion with a force and beauty which would
by a transfer to the other eminence.
| moreover, a mistaken impression that greater
7 is ascribed to Zion than to Jerusalem, or
.¢ two names are, in this respect, carefully
aished. What passage in the Bible recog-
| ceater sacredness in a locality than the plain-
-ostrophe: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem,
right hand forget her cunning; if I do not
der thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of
ith; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my
xy”? The Song of songs sets forth the
beauty of the bride, or loved one, by the
!‘comely as Jerusalem ’’; and the call of the
‘cal prophet is, “ Awake, put on thy strength,
', put on thy beautiful garments, O Jeru-
he holy city.” The localities are thus con-
( identified, “To declare the name of the
Zion and his praise in Jerusalem.” The
€re, and may be, used interchangeably, with-
rating on the ear’; and the extraordinary
4, “Tt is never said, The Lord dwelleth in
m, or loveth Jerusalem, or any such expres-
)€ meet with the inspired declarations from
onicles, the Psalms. ard the Prophets, «I
/osen Jerusalem that my name might be
© “The God of Israel, whose habitation is
alem”; “Blessed be the Lord out of Zion,
elleth at Jerusalem”; «Thus saith the
44m returned unto Zion, and will dwell in
tst of Jerusalem.” Our Saviour expressly
she profanation of the name; and through
2 of the same sacred associations, the be-
I sciple could find no more fitting type of
© self, as he beheld it in vision — the New
“0 of the saints in glory. |
*rgusson remarks «that the sepulchres of
aa Successors were on Mount Zion, or
of steps leading down from the ¢ City of David,’ as wel
as the southwest slope down which another flight led,’
ete. (Ritter, Geog. of Pal. iv. 52).
|, both at the time of Nehemiah (iii. 15) and
‘The southeast slope of Zion, down which
= (Krafft, Topographie, pp. 61, 152), a flight
;
=:
1332 JERUSALEM
We will now consider —
(2.) The testimony of Josephus. — Josephus does
not use the word Zion; but his paraphrase of the
Scriptural narrative accords entirely with the above:
‘ David took the lower city by force, but the citadel
held out still’? (Ant. xiv. 4, § 2), with the other
particulars as already given. He also says, ‘“ The
city was built upon two hills, and that which con-
tains the upper city, is much higher, and accord-
ingly it was called the citadel by King David”
(Ant. xiv. 15, § 2). In the siege by Pompey, one
party within counseling resistance and the other
submission, the former “seized upon the Temple
and cut off the bridge which reached from it to the
city, and prepared themselves to abide a siege, but
the others admitted Pompey’s army in, and deliv-
ered up both the city and the king’s palace to him ”
(Ant. xiv. 4, § 2), and, having secured these, he
laid siege to the Temple, and captured its occupants.
In the siege by Herod, “« When the outer court of
the Temple and the lower city were taken, the Jews
fled into the inner court of the Temple and into the
upper city’ (Ant. xiv. 16, § 2). In the siege by
Titus, after the lower city had been taken, and it
became necessary to raise an embankment against
the upper city, ‘the works were erected on the
west side of the city, over against the royal palace ”’
(B. J. vi. 8, § 1). Describing the Temple, Josephus
says, “‘ In the western parts of the inclosure of the
Temple were four gates, one leading over to the
royal palace: the valley between being interrupted
to form a passage” (Ant. xv. 11,§ 5). He says
that “king Agrippa built himself a very large | —
dining-room in the royal palace,’’ from which he
‘could observe what was done in the Temple”’;
which so displeased the Jews, that they ‘erected a
wall upon the uppermost building which belonged
to the inner court of the Temple, to the west; which
wall, when it was built, intercepted the prospect
of the dining-room in the palace’’ (Ant. xx. 8,
§ 11).
Nothing can be plainer than that the upper city
of Josephus is identical with the Zion, or City of
David, of the sacred Scriptures; that the citadel
and the royal palace were on this western hill; that
the Temple was on the lower eastern hill, separated
from the western by a deep valley, which was
spanned by a bridge; and that the site of the Temple
is identical with the Mount Moriah of the Bible,
and distinct from Mount Zion. This view, which is
in harmony with the Scriptural view already given,
accords also with every other allusion in Josephus
to these localities. And the substructions of the
bridge above referred to, are the most striking
feature in the remains of the modern city. With
this, we take leave of Josephus.
(3.) Christian Itineraries. — This brings us to
the Christian Itineraries, etc., and their testimony
is uniform and unbroken. Except one or two wild
speculations, no other Mount Zion has been known,
from the days of Eusebius down, than the high
western hill of Jerusalem which now bears the
name. So late as 1852, Prof. Robinson referred to
this as one of the few points “ yet unassailed”’
(Bowl. Res. p. 206).
The careful reader of the preceding article, in-
cluding the “ Annals’’ of the city, will notice the
confusion which has been introduced into it by this
theory of its “Topography.’’ The writers of the
historical portions (Messrs. Grove and Wright),
both eminent Biblical scholars, have passed over to
their fellow-contributor (Mr. Fergusson) most of
JERUSALEM
the topographical points; but it was impo
for them to write an intelligible narrative wi
contradicting him. From many sentences 5
same kind, we select three or four which ex
the necessary failure of the attempt to harm
the theory with the facts of history and t
raphy.
‘« As before, the lower city was immediately t
and, as before, the citadel held out. The undat
J cbitattes believed in the _impregnability of
fortress. A crowd of warriors rushed forward,
the citadel, the fastness of Zion, was taken.
the first fine that that memorable name ap}
in the history. David at once procceded to se
himself in his new acquisition. He inelosec
whole of the city with a wall, and connected it
the citadel. In the latter he took up his
quarters, and the Zion of the Jebusites became
City of David.”’ — (pp. 1282, 1283.)
“The Temple was at last gained; but it see
as if half the work remained to be done. The u
city, higher than Moriah, inclosed by the ori
wall of David and Solomon, and on all sides
cipitous, except at the north, where it was defe
by the wall and towers of Herod, was still ¢
taken. ‘Titus first tried a parley, he standin
the east end of the bridge, between the Temple
the upper city, and John and Simon on - the
end.’’ — (p. 1807.)
“¢ Acra was situated on the northern side oj
Temple, on the same hill, and probably on the.
spot occupied by David as the stronghold of Zi
(p. 1320.)
‘“« There is no passage in the Bible which di
asserts the identity of the hills Zion and Mc
though [there are] many which cannot we
understood without this assumption. The cur
tive proof, however, is such as almost perfect
supply this want.’’ — (p. 1821.)
The first two extracts are from the histo,
and the last two from the topographical, po
of the article; and the reader will see that a
in irreconcilable conflict. Before quitting:
theme, let us gather into one sentence such p)
as are consistent with each other and with ky
facts and’ probabilities. -—
The city or stronghold of the Jebusites wa:
southern portion of "the western ridge, the hig
most inaccessible, and easily fortified ground i
city; conquered by David, it became his. fr
abode; his castle or citadel was here, and rem
here; his palace was built here, and through’
cessive reigns and dynasties, down to the Chr!
era, it continued to be the royal residence: iJ
the ancient as it is the modern Zion, inclos'!
the old wall, the original wall; it was the 1
city, the upper market-place; it was here tha
ark abode until its removal to the Temple; the j
sepulchres were here; and Moriah was the sou”
portion of the eastern ridge, and on this the Ti
was built. This statement embodies, we be
\
the truth of history, and with this we close thi
cussion of the site of Mount Zion.
We pass now to the other point: i
II. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Fergusson’s theory is, “that the building 0
Known to: Christiana aimee Mosque of a
by Moslems called the Dome of the Rock
identical church which Constantine erected
the rock which contained the tomb of Cht
Since the publication of the preceding arti
has renewed the discussion of this point F
JERUSALEM
hlet,2 from which we shall also quote, as it
ins a more compact summary of his argu-
e concedes, above, the conclusiveness of the
ment by which Dr. Robinson has shown that
resent church does not cover “ the place where
ard lay.” This has been the battle-ground
sent writers on the topography of the city, and
eoncession renders it unnecessary to adduce
the proofs which the Professor has brought
her, and which may be found in his Biblical
arches (in 1838, ii. 64-80; in 1852, pp. 254-
631-633). The “ power of logic” with which
are presented is not affected by any theory
h may be held respecting the identity of any
* spot. The argument reaches “ its legitimate
lusion,”’ alike whether the reader accepts some
- site, or whether he regards the true site as
nd the reach of modern discovery. The theory
offered, like the one which we have examined,
vel and startling, and like that, is put forth
much confidence by a writer who has never
tined the localities. We submit our reasons
ejecting it; and as we agree with Mr. Fergus-
shat the site of the church 1s not the place of
Lord’s burial, our interest in the question is
ly historical.
r. Fergusson’s theory fails to explain the pres-
shurch, a building of great intrinsic and his-
interest. When, and by whom were its early
dations laid? Who built up its original walls ?
how many centuries has it been palmed upon
yublic as the Church of the Sepulchre? Has
argest and most remarkable Christian sanctuary
ie East, planted in the very centre and conflu-
‘of Christian devotion, come down to us with-
a chronicle or even an intimation of its origin ?
repeat that the early history of such an edifice
1 not, since the Christian era, and in the most
picuous spot in Christendom, have faded into
* oblivion, like that of some temiple of the Old
Id, around which the sands of the desert had
ered for ages before Christ.
r. Fergusson’s theory, while failing to account
he existence of the most imposing church in
Hast, fails also to account for the disappearance
very vestige of another church of imperial
nificence. This argument, like the preceding,
lateral, and we do not offer it as independent
& Church edifices in Palestine, large and
‘1, have been destroyed by violence, or have
abled by decay. Some of them have been re-
or repaired, and perpetuated on their present
like that of the Nativity in Bethlehem, or
‘of the Sepulchre in Jerusalem; and others are
ly traceable, if not impressive, in their ruins,
that of the Baptist in Samaria, that of St.
‘ge in Lydda, that of St. Anne in Eleutherop-
‘and the ancient cathedral church in Tyre.
‘what church of the largest class has had a his-
‘which corresponds with this theory? The
2ror Justinian had a passion for church-build-
‘and decorated his metropolis with a majestic
le, which is still its boast. He erected another
erusalem, which he designed to be worthy of
» City of the Great King,’ and of the Virgin
ner, in whose special honor it was built, “on
‘h great expense and labor were bestowed to
2 it one of the most eplendid in the world.”
a
***Notes on the Site of the Holy Sepulchre at
alem, iu answer to the Edinburgh R-view.”
JERUSALEM 1235
It does not appear to have been disturbed by the
subsequent convulsions of the country; writers wh
describe the injury done to the Church of the Sep-
ulchre in the sack of the city by the Persians, and
under the Fatimite Khalifs of Egypt, so far as we
know, are silent respecting this edifice. The Mosque
el-Aksa, which in accordance with prevalent tradi-
tion, is almost universally regarded as the original
church of Justinian, Mr. Fergusson appropriates as
the Mosque of Abd el-Melek. This leaves the
church to be provided for, and in the plan of the
Haram area, which he has introduced into the Dic-
tionary and republished in his Notes, he places the
church of Justinian, and sketches its walls, where
not the slightest trace appears of a foundation an-
cient or modern. It is purely a conjectural site,
demanded by the exigencies of his theory, accord-
ing to which the solid walls, pillars, and arches of
a church described by a contemporary historian,
and sketched by Mr. Fergusson as four hundred
feet in length and one hundred and more in breadth,
have vanished as utterly as if they had been pul-
verized and scattered to the winds. It has disap-
peared, withal, from a quarter of the city which
was never needed nor used for other purposes,
where no dwellings could have encroached upon it,
and where no rubbish has accumulated. Consid-
ering the character, the location, and the dimen-
sions of this building, and the date of its erec-
tion, we hazard the assertion that no parallel to
such complete annihilation can be found in the
East.
The Mosque of Omar near it, Mr. Fergusson
claims to have been converted by the Muslim con-
querors into a mosque from a church; we advance
the same claim for the Mosque el-Aksa; and there
were similar transformations, as is well known, of
the Church of St. John in Damascus, and of the
Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, built also
by Justinian. Instead of converting to the same
use the substantial and splendid church which the
same emperor had erected here, what could have
prompted the Moslems to obliterate every memo-
rial of it? Within the same inclosure, according
to Mr. Fergusson, the “great Anastasis of Con-
stantine,” the present Mosque of Omar, built two
centuries earlier, survives in all its essential features.
“The walls of the octagon still remain untouched
in their lower parts; the circle of columns and piers
that divide the two aisles, with the entablatures,
discharging arches, and cornices, still remain en-
tirely unchanged and untouched; the pier arches
of the dome, the triforium belt, the clere-story, are
all parts of the unaltered construction of the age
of Constantine” (Notes, p. 29). The Mosque of
Abd el-Melek, the present el-Aksa, abides within
the same inclosure in its original strength. “Its
whole architecture is that of the end of the seventh
century” (p. 1329.) But the church of Justinian,
standing by their side in rival glory, mysteriously
passed away from that open area — wall and col-
umn and arch and architrave — from foundation
to top-stone, smitten like the psalmist’s bay-tree:
* And lo, it vanished from the ground,
Destroyed by hands unseen ;
Nor root, nor branch, nor leaf was found,
Where all that pride had been.”
Mr. Fergusson’s theory leaves the later history of
the church of Justinian enveloped in the samé
darkness as the earlier history of the Church of
the Sepulchre.
1334 _ JERUSALEM JERUSALEM
Phe rejecters of his theory recognize this ancient
house of worship in the building adjacent to the
southern wall of the Haram, two hundred and
eighty feet long by one hundred and ninety broad,
and which, with later appendages, both Christian
and Saracenic, answers to the description of Jus-
tinian’s Mary Church, and whose vaulted passages
below, from which Christian visitors had long been
excluded, were among the impressive objects which
it was our fortune to examine in Jerusalem.
What has been said of Justinian’s church may
be repeated on his theory respecting the church
which he affirms that Constantine built within the
same inclosure, whose walls he conjecturally traces
in the same way, with no more signs of a founda-
tion or site, and which has vanished in like man-
ner, except a festal entrance which he identifies
with the present Golden Gateway in the eastern
wall of the Haram area.
On the hypothesis of a transfer of site, not the
Christian world alone, but the Moslem world like-
wise, has been imposed upon, and by parties who
could not have concocted the fraud together. And
all this has been done subsequent to the seventh
century. So late as the close of that century, if
this theory is true, all Christians and all Moslems,
who knew anything about Jerusalem, knew that
the present Mosque of Omar was not then a mosque,
and never had been; and that the present Church
of the Sepulchre, or one on its site, was not the
Church of the Sepulchre. On both sides they
have since that date been misled by designing men.
All Christians, residents in J erusalem, and visitors,
so far as is known, have from the first ascribed the
site of the present church to the emperor, and all
Moslems, residents in Jerusalem and visitors, so far
as is known, have from the first ascribed the pres-
ent mosque to the Khalif, and yet in all these cen-
turies they have alike been the dupes and victims
of a double delusion and imposition, commencing
we know not when. Can this fact be matched,
either in historic annals, or in the fabulous legends
of the Dark Ages?
An incident in the Mohammedan conquest of the
city, narrated by both Christian and Arabian writ-
ers, may properly be cited in this connection. We
quote from the historic portion of the article:
“ The Khalif, after ratifying the terms of capitu-
lation, which secured to the Christians liberty of
worship in the churches which they had, but pro-
hibited the erection of more, entered the city and
was met at the gates by the patriarch. Omar
then, in company with the patriarch, visited the
Church of the Resurrection, and at the Muslim
time of prayer knelt down on the eastern steps of
the basilica, refusing to pray within the buildings,
in order that the possession of them might be se-
cured to the Christians. Tradition relates that
he requested a site whereon to erect a mosque for
the Mohammedan worship, and . that the patriarch
offered him the spot occupied by the reputed stone
of Jacob’s vision,” etc. (p. 1310). Passing by the
tradition, we have the historic fact that the Khalif
declined entering the church, for the reason above
given, stated in almost the same words by another
writer: “In order that his followers might have
no pretext to claim possession of the church after
his departure, under the pretense that he had wor-
shipped in it” (Bibl. Res. ii. 37). Yet if we may
velieve Mr. Fergusson, this plighted faith, under-
stevd alike by both parties, and on the testimony
sf both scrupulously respected at the outset, was
afterwards violated without any known prot
remonstrance on the part of Christians, we
not when, history and tradition being both as
respecting this transaction as in regard {
‘pious fraud ’’ by which the homage of Cli
dom was subsequently transferred to ar
locality. ;
We pass now to the testimony of early yj
and writers. i
Eusebius, who was contemporary with Cor
tine, and his biographer, represents the ¢l
which he built over the supposed sepuleh
having an open court on the east, toward
entrances, with cloisters on each side and ga
front, “after which, in the very midst of the ;
of the market (or in the middle of the |
market-place) the beautiful propylea (vestibul
the whole structure presented to those passir
on the outside the wonderful view of the 4
seen within ’’ (Vit. Const. iii. 89). Along
street of the bazaars, east of the present ch
which would make their site identical with |
market-place’’ of Eusebius, and correspond
the position of the propylea, are three granite
umns, the apparent remains of an ancient por
and which can be referred to no other stru
than the church of Constantine. Mr. Fergv
admits that the propylea of the church «h;
broad market-place in front. of it,’? and to Profi
Willis’s criticism that this would be «“Iudierc
impossible’? where he locates the building, h
plies: «+ There is now an extensive cemetery or
spot in front of this gateway; and where men
bury they can buy; where there is room for toi
there is room for stalls” (Notes, p- 50). \
reference to this locality, we quote Mr, Gr
“The main cemetery of the city seems from
early date to have been where it is still, on
steep slopes of the Valley of the Kidron. He’
was that the fragments of the idol a
destroyed by Josiah, were cast out on the ‘gr
of the children of the people’ (2 K. xxiii. 6),
the valley was always the receptacle for impur
of all kinds” (p. 1279). Connect with this’
fact that the spot was then, as it is now, out!
the city, and on its least populous side, and’
leave the reader to judge what element of absur;
is lacking in Mr. Fergusson’s supposition. |
The testimony of Eusebius on another point,
that of all the other writers whom Mr. Fergu:
depends upon, is thus summed up in his Notes -
‘In so far as the argument is concerned I wi
be prepared, if necessary, to waive the architect
evidence altogether, and to rest the proof of w.
is advanced above on any one of the following {}
points : —
“1. The assertion of Eusebius that the 11
Jerusalem, meaning thereby the buildings of :
stantine, was opposite to, and over against, the
city.
; 2. The position assigned to the Holy Pls
the Bordeaux Pilgrim. “l
“3. The connection pointed out by Antoni
between the Bir’Arroah and Siloam. of
“4. The assumed omission by Areculfus of!
mention of the Dome of the Rock, and, T may a)
the building of a Mary Church by Justinian wit
the precincts of the Haram area.’’ — (p. 55.)
We will take up in their order and fairly exam!
the “four points’? here named, with which ]
Fergusson agrees to stand or to fall.
“1. The assertion of Eusebius that the '
7
i
_ JERUSALEM JERUSALEM —-. 183
alem, meaning thereby the buildings of Con-
Pontii Pilati. Ibi Dominus auditus est antequam
ne, was opposite to, and over against, the old
pateretur. A sinistra autem parte est monticulus
Golgotha, ubi Dominus crucifixus est. Inde quasi
ad lapidem missum est cripta ubi corpus ejus
positum fuit, et tertia die resurrexit. Ibidem modo
jussu Constantini Imperatoris Basilica facta est, id
est Dominicum mire pulchritudinis.”
There is no allusion here to a “ Zion Gate,” and
none then existed. (Arcuif. i. 1.) Had the mod-
ern gate been there, no visitor would have passed
out of it to go to the opposite side of the city,
either to the right or the left, and especially not to
the left. It involves, further, the absurd supposi-
tion that the governor’s house, where the Saviour
was arraigned, was in a valley, unprotected, outside
of the city, when in the preceding paragraph the
writer has asserted that the residence of the gov-
ernor and the probable scene of the trial was the
castle of Antonia.
The natural course of one who passed out of the
city northward, going from Zion to the Neapolis
Gate, would have been formerly, as now, between
the Temple area and the site of the Church of the
Sepulchre, near to the latter, and the objects seen
would have been in just the relative position in
which this traveller describes them.
Mr. Fergusson assumes that the phrase “ foris
murum”’ requires us to believe that, the visitor's
course, here described, from Zion to the Neapolis
Gate (called Neapolis then, for the same reason
that it is now called Damascus), lay outside of the
wall. If so, the reference is to the inner wall along
the brow of Zion, the first of the “ three walls”
which surrounded this part of the city. ‘This may
be the meaning of the barbarous Latin of the old
Pilgrim, but far more probably, we think, he means
simply what we have indicated above. There never
was a road from Zion southward, and no suggestion
could be more improbable than that of plunging
from Zion into the lower Tyropcon, outside the
city, ascending the opposite slope, and making the
long detour by the northeast corner of the city to
reach the gate named. The point of destination
was northward from Zion, and the Pilgrim says
that one who would go beyond the wall, or outside
of the city, passing from Zion to the Neapolis
Gate, would see the objects described, on the
right and left. The peculiar construction of the
sentence favors this rendering of “ foris murum,”’
and we have an authority for it, exactly in point.
“ Forts; in late Latin, with the accusative = be
yond. ‘Constitutus si sit fluvius, qui foris agrum
non vagatur’ ’’ (Andrews’s Lex. in loc.). Either
of these interpretations we claim to be more natural
and probable than Mr. Fergusson’s, for the reasons
already given; and this disposes of the second
point.
“3. The connection pointed out by Antoninus
between the Bir Arroah and Siloam.”’
This testimony is: —
‘“‘ Near the altar is a crypt, where, if you place
your ear, you will hear the flowing of water; and
if you throw in an apple, or anything that will
swim, and go to Siloam, you will find it there.”
In the preceding article, Mr. Fergusson says’ “ In
so far as we know.”’ the connection exists; meaning
merely, We do not know that it does not exist. In
the Notes he says: “It is, therefore, a fact at this
hour,’’ that the connection exists. This is an un-
supported assertion. The connection has not bees
established, and the subterranean watercourses of
Jerusalem are still involved in much uncertainty ©
e assertion referred to, he quotes as follows: —
ccordingly on the very spot which witnessed
wiour’s sufferings a new Jerusalem was con-
ed, over against the one so celebrated of old,
, since the foul stain of guilt brought upon
the murder of the Lord, had experienced the
nity of desolation. It was opposite the city
he emperor began to rear a monument to the
ir’s victory over death, with rich and lavish
ificence.””
this he adds the following passage from Soc-
he mother of the emperor built a magnificent
of prayer on the place of the sepulchre,
ng a new Jerusalem opposite to the old and
ed city.”
he old city," in respect to its dwellings, was
d into two parts, “the upper’? and “the
” The former was on Mount Zion and the
on Mount Akra, and in the adjacent valleys.
ite of the Mosque of Omar is directly opposite
latter, or to the site of the Church of the
Sepulchre, which “stands directly on the
of Akra”’ (Bibl. Res. i. 391). The site of the
le and that of the church lie “ over against’
ther. ‘These are the points which Eusebius
iparing. He does not refer directly to the
_ dwellings of either the upper or the lower
he refers especially to the deserted ruins of
mple. By “the new Jerusalem,” says Mr.
3son, he means “the buildings of Constan-
Lixactly — he means these and nothing else.
y “the old Jerusalem ’’ he means the build-
‘the Temple, neither more or less. Or rather,
the primary meaning is on each side thus
ted, he intends to designate by the latter the
t city, of which the Temple was the crown,
‘the former, the modern city, of which the
_ was to be the future glory. The antithesis
plete. The other interpretation makes the
cison incongruous — the old city meaning a
on of dwellings, and the new city meaning
sachurch. Dr. Stanley has justly observed:
tever differences of opinion have arisen about
ver hills of Jerusalem, there is no question
2@ mount on which the Mosque of Omar
‘ overhanging the valley of the Kidron, has
‘he time of Solomon, if not of David, been
das the most sacred ground in Jerusalem ”’
P. p. 177, Amer. ed.). This is the fact
the Christian Fathers recognize, using each
4s, in a religious sense, the representative
city, when they say that the emperor Con-
2 “founded a new Jerusalem, opposite to
_ and deserted city,” a phrase, withal, more
2 to the eastern hill, which was burned
ivept “clear of houses,” and was still for-
than to the western hill, which had never
| us completely desolated, and was still in-
Opposite the deserted site of the Hebrew
Constantine reared the Christian sanctuary.
‘our interpretation of Eusebius and Socrates;
3 disposes of the first point.
‘The position assigned to the Holy Places by
Hdeaux Pilgrim.’
estimony is: —
e ut eas foris murum de Sione euntibus ad
* Neopolitanam ad partem dextram deorsum
Sunt parietes ubi domus fuit sive palatium
18386 JERUSALEM
The witness cited in support of the alleged fact
pronounces directly against its probability, and in
favor of the opposite theory. Dr. Barclay gives
his reasons for believing that the subterranean con-
duit of Hezekiah was brought down on the west
side of the valley running south from the Damascus
Gate, and says that on this hypothesis “ it would
pass just by the rock Golgotha,” the traditionary
site of the sepulchre, as described by Antoninus
\ City, etc., pp. 94, 300). Furthermore, in examin-
ing the fountain of Siloam, he found a subterranean
channel which supplied it, and which he traversed
for nearly a thousand feet; and on locating its
course, he was ‘perfectly satisfied that this sub-
terraneous canal derived its former supply of water,
not from Moriah, but from Zion” (ib. p. 523). He
also says: “If this channel was not constructed for
the purpose of conveying to Siloam the surplus
waters of Hezekiah’s aqueduct, then I am unable
to suggest any purpose to which it could have been
applied” (16. p. 309). [Sttoam, Amer. ed.] So
little countenance, so palpable a contradiction,
rather, is given to the “ fact’’ by the witness cited
to corroborate it; and this disposes of the third
point.
“4. The assumed omission by Arculfus of all
mention of the Dome of the Rock, and, I may add,
the building of a Mary Church by Justinian within
the precincts of the Haram area.”
We do not see the bearing of the last-named
particular. Churches in honor of the Virgin were
erected in many localities, and it is not necessary
to account for the selection of this site, though it
were easy to conjecture a reason. It proves nothing.
The remaining specification, like the other, is an
argument drawn from silence and conjecture, and
rates no higher as proof. It runs thus: If this
building were then in existence, this visitor must
have described it; the building was in existence,
and the opposite theory assumes that he did not
allude to it; therefore, the current theory is false.
We cannot but be struck with the difference be-
tween this position and the principle with which
Mr. Fergusson professedly started, of + admitting
nothing which cannot be proved, either by direct
testimony or by local indications” (p. 1312).
There is no pretense that this argument rests on
either of these: it rests on nothing but an unac-
countable ‘“‘omission.’’ And this silence is offered
as not merely corroborative evidence, but as vital
proof. Mr. Fergusson adduces this as one of four
points, ‘any one”’ of which establishes his theory
beyond question. As if the existence of St. Paul’s
in London, or of St. Peter’s in Rome, at any period,
would be absolutely disproved by the silence of a
visitor respecting either, in a professed description
of the objects of interest in the city. At the best,
it could only be a natural inference; it could never
be proof positive. And here we might rest; for if
we proceed no further, Mr. Fergusson’s last point
is disposed of, and his claim is prostrate.
But we join issue with him, and affirm that what
Arculfus descrilbes as the Church of the Sepulchre,
was the building standing on the site of the present
church, and not the Mosque of Omar, or any part
of it. Neither could “the square house of prayer
erected on the site of the Temple,” have been, as
he alleges, the Mosque el-Aksa. The pbrase “ vili
fabricati‘sunt opere,’’ could never have been applied
to this structure. The immense quadrangle, rudely
built with beams and planks over the remains of
ruins, as described by the bishop, would seem to be
Sere a
* es “
——.
JERUSALEM
a natural account of ‘the building erected }
Khalif Omar over the rock es-Stikhrah, as Dr
clay suggests, ‘“‘ which in the course of half;
tury gave place to the present elegant octagon
ifice, erected by Abd el-Melek” ( City, ete., D.
If the assigned date of the completion of the
edifice is correct, this would serve to fix.
definitely the date of Arculfus’s visit, which is
known to have been “in the latter part o
seventh century” (Wright’s /ntroduction, p,
Bohn’s ed.). |
In the Bishop's description of “the Chur
the Holy Sepulchre,’’ whatever other changes
have taken place, we have a crucial test of the |
tity of the building described with the chur
the mosque, in the account of the caye whic]
the reputed tomb of the Saviour. For this, tog
with that of Willibald, a few years later, anc
of Sewulf, still later, we refer the reader to,
Sacra, xxiy. 187, 138.
The sepulchral cave of the church, describ
these writers, Mr. Fergusson claims to have
the cave in the rock es-Siikhrah, beneath the.
of the present Mosque of Omar. This roc!
been the most stationary landmark in Jerus
and has probably changed as little as any,
object. For such accounts as have reached |
the cave within it, we refer the reader to’
Sacra, xxiv. 138, 139. !
It is not credible that these and the prec
all refer to the same excavation. }
The narrat:
Arculfus can be adjusted to the present C;
of the Sepulchre and its reputed tombs, nm
due allowance for the changes wrought by tl
struction of the building. But by no practi
change, by no possibility, can it be adjusted ;)
rock es-Stkhrah and the cave beneath it; aly
disposes of the fourth point. |
We have now completed our examination ¢
Fergusson’s “four points.” He offered to |
the proof”’ of his theory ‘on any one” of }
and we have shown that on a fair investigatic!
one of them sustains his theory in a single yi
ular, and for the most part they pointedly refi:
There remains an objection to this theo
decisive as any, which can be best gs ail
those who have been on the ground. The s)
the so-called Mosque of Omar could not have >
in our Saviour’s day, outside of the walls.
theory would break up the solid masonry ¢|
ancient substructions of the Temple area, still |
ing, making one portion modern and the,
ancient, leaving one without the city, and rete
the other within it, in a way which is simp)
credible. Whatever may have been the best
and dimensions of the Temple, with its court)
porticoes, in the inclosure above, the massive
dations of the area are one work, ard that a
of high antiquity. The immense beveled stoi
the southeast corner were laid at the same!
with the stones in the southwest corner. The?
of the same magnitude, and it does not neeb
eye of an architect to assure us that they are (
same age and style of workmanship. They.
the two extremities of the ancient southern!
as they are of the modern, stretching, as Jost
informs us, from valley to valley, and laid »
stones “immovable for all time:”’ and to-day
confirm his testimony, and contradict this tht
“We are led irresistibly to. the conelusion,”?
Dr. Robinson, on his first visit, “ that the ar (
the Jewish temple was identical on its west"
JERUSALEM
, and southern sides, with the present en-
of the Haram.’”’ ‘Ages upon ages have
away, yet these foundations endure, and are
able as at the beginning ’’ (B21. Res. i. 427).
vestigations of his second visit confirmed the
jion of his first, —from which we see not
ty visitor who has inspected this masonry can
ld his assent — that in the southwest corner,
southern part of the western wall, in the
ist corner on both sides, and along the south-
ul, we have before us “the massive sub-
ms of the ancient Jewish Temple. Such has
he impression received by travellers for cen-
and such it will probably continue to be so
3 these remains endure’”’ (Bibl. Res. (1852)
se are our main reasons for rejecting Mr.
son’s theory of the Topography of Jerusalem,
wo principal points; and if these points are
ble, almost the entire reasoning of his section
irticle falls with them. a a
» MopErRN JERUSALEM. — Walls and
— The present walls of Jerusalem are not
jan the 16th century, though the materials
th they are built belonged to former walls
ymuch more ancient. They consist of hewn
of a moderate size, laid in mortar. They
uilt for the most part with a breastwork;
the exterior face of the wall is carried up
‘feet higher than the interior part of the
‘aving a broad and convenient walk along
of the latter for the accommodation of the
rs. This is protected by the parapet or
fork, which has battlements and loopholes.
we also flights of steps to ascend or descend
enient distances on the inside *’ (Rob. Bibl.
352). The walls embrace a circuit of about
2s. On the west, south, and east sides
ad generally as near the edge of the val-
the ground will allow; except that the
n extremity of Zion and a part of Moriah
. as Ophel) being outside of the city, the
there run across the ridge of those hills.
wy in height from 20 to 50 feet, according
ilepth of the ravines below, which formed an
nt part of the natural defenses of the city.
lls on the north side, where the ground is
yen and level, are protected to some extent
hes or trenches. It is a peculiarity of a
this northern wall that it consists of a mass
val rock, 75 feet high, with strata so exactly
nding with those of the opposite ledge that
sage between them must be artificial. It
ve been a quarry for obtaining stones for
‘sof the city. Fortifications of this character,
ded as they are by higher positions in the
, Would be utterly useless against European
| Yet, imperfect as they are in this respect,
ills so notched with battlements and seeming
and fall (like a waving line) with the de--
of the ground, especially as they suddenly
jwemselves to the traveller approaching the
a the west, form a picturesque oriental sight
» be forgotten.
sity has four gates at present in use, which
Wards the cardinal points. Though they
‘er names among the natives, they are known
vllers as the Yafa (Joppa) Gate on the west
Ȣ Damascus Gate on the north side, the
St. Stephen on the east, and of Zion on the
| The first two are so called after the places
1 the roads starting from them lead: that
JERUSALEM 1387
of St. Stephen from a popular belief that this martyi
was put to death in that quarter, and that of Zion
from its situation on the hill of this name. Near
the Damascus Gate are the remains of towers, sup-
posed by Robinson to have been the guard-houses of a
gate which stood there as early as the age of Herod.
The Ydfa Gate forms the main entrance, and on
that account is kept open half an hour later than
the other gates. The custom of shutting the gates
by night (see Rev. xxi. 23-25) is common in eastern
cities at the present day. ‘Three or four smaller
gates occur in the walls, but have been closed up,
and are now seldom or never used. The most
remarkable of these is the Golden Gate in the east-
ern wall which overlooks the Valley of the Kedron.
“Tt is in the centre of a projection 55 feet long
and standing out 6 feet. Its portal is double,
with semicircular arches profusely ornamented. The
Corinthian capitals which sustain the entablature
spring like corbels from the wall, and the whole
entablature is bent round the arch. The exterior
appearance, independently of its architecture, bears
no mark of high antiquity . . . . for it bears no
resemblance to the massive stones along the lower
part of the wall on each side, and indeed the new
masonry around is sufficiently apparent’’ (Porter,
Handbook, i. 115 f.). The style of architecture,
whether the structure occupies its original place or
not, must be referred to an early Roman period.
[ Wood-cut, p. 1325.] It is a saying of the Franks
that the Mohammedans have walled up this gate
because they believe that a king is to enter by it
who will take possession of the city and become
Lord of the whole earth (Rob. Bibl. Res. i. 323).
It may be stated that the largest stones in the
exterior walls, bearing incontestable marks of a
Hebrew origin, and occupying their original places,
are found near the southeast angle of the city and
in the substructions of the Castle of David so called,
not tar from the YAfa Gate, near the centre of the
western wall of the city. Some of the alternate
courses at the former point measure from 17 to 19
feet in length by 3 or 4 feet in height. One of the
stones there is 24 feet in length by 3 feet in height
and 6 in breadth. This part of the wall is common
both to the city and the Temple area. One of the
stones in the foundations of the Castle is 123 feet
long and 38 feet 5 inches broad; though most of
them are smaller than those at the southeast angle.
The upper part of this Castle or Tower, one of the
most imposing structures at Jerusalem, is com-
paratively modern; but the lower part exhibits a
different style of workmanship and is unquestionably
ancient, though whether a remnant of Herod’s
Hippic tower (as Robinson supposes) or not, is still
disputed. [PRarortum.] The Saviour’s language
that “not one stone should be left on another ”’
(Matt. xxiv. 2) is not contradicted by such facts.
In the first place the expression may be a proverbial
one for characterizing the overthrow as signal, the
destruction as desolating, irresistible. In the next
place this was spoken in reality not of the city and
its walls, but of “the buildings of the temple,’’ and
in that application was fulfilled in the strictest
manner.
Area, Streets, etc. — The present circumference
of the city includes 209.5 acres, or one third of a
square mile. Its longest line extends from N. E.
to S. W., somewhat less than a mile in length.
[See Plate III.] But this space is not all bnilt
upon; for the inclosure of the Haram esh-Sherif
(Moriah or the site of the Temple) contains 35
° 1838 - JERUSALEM
acres (almost one sixth of the whole), and large| exhibits the different classes of this po
spaces, especially on Mount Zion and the hill
Bezetha at the north end, are unoccupied. Just
within the Gate of St. Stephen is an open tract
where two or three Arab tents may often be seen,
spread out and occupied after the manner of the
desert. To what extent the territory of the ancient
_ city coincided with the modern city is not altogether
certain. The ancient city embraced the whole of
Zion beyond question, the southern projection of
Moriah or Ophel, and possibly a small tract on the
north, though the remains of the cisterns there are
too modern to be alleged as proof of this last addi-
tion. On the other hand, those who maintain the
genuineness of the Holy Sepulchre must’ leave that
section of the city out of the Jerusalem of the
Saviour’s day.
‘The city is intersected from north to south by
its principal street, which is three fifths of a mile
long, and runs from the Damascus Gate to Zion
Gate. rom this principal street, the others, with
the exception of that from the Damascus Gate to
the Tyropceon Valley, generally run east and west,
at right angles to it; amongst these is the ‘ Via
Dolorosa’ along the north of the Haram, in which
is the Roman archway, called Ecce Homo. The
city is divided into quarters, which are occupied by
the different religious sects. The boundaries of
these quarters are defined by the intersection of the
principal street, and that which crosses it at right
angles from the Jaffa Gate to the Gate of the Ha-
ram, called Bab as-Silsilé, or Gate of the Chain.
The Christians occupy the western half of the city,
the northern portion of which is called the Chris-
tian quarter, and contains the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre; the southern portion is the Armenian
quarter, having the Citadel at its northwest angle.
The Mohammedan quarter occupies the northeast
portion of the city, and includes the Haram esh-
Sherif. The Jewish quarter is on the south, be-
tween the Armenian quarter and the Haram.”
(Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, p. 9, Lond. 1865.)
It has been stated that the streets are not known
by any particular names. A detailed report of
_ inquiries on this subject (appended to the Ordnance
Survey) shows that most of them are thus known:
being distinguished by the names of persons or
families, from trades carried on in them, or from
the places to which the streets or alleys lead. The
streets are narrow, uneven, and badly paved, for
_the most part with a gutter or channel in the
middle for beasts of burden. Some of them, those
- most frequented, are darkened with mats or stone
arches for the purpose of excluding the heat. The
‘houses are built of limestone, many of them mere
hovels, others more substantial, but seldom with
any pretension to elegance. The low windows
guarded with iron grates give to many of them a
dreary, prison-like appearance. Some of them have
lattice windows toward the street; but generally,
these open toward the inner courts on which the
houses stand.
__ Population. —In proportion to the extent of the
place, the population of Jerusalem is very dense.
The houses in general are closely tenanted, and in
_ Some quarters they are piled upon one another, so
as to extend across the streets, and make them
appear almost like subterranean passages. It is
difficult (as no proper. system of registration exists)
to fix the precise number of the inhabitants. Dr.
Schultz, formerly Prussian Consul at Jerusalem,
placed it in 1845 at 17,000. The following table
_ JERUSALEM
according to their nationalities and religi
fessions : —
I. Mohammedans 2-2 4 4) eee
Il. Christians
(a) Greeks : 2,000
(6) Roman Catholics . 900
(c) Armenians . 350
(d) Copts 100
(6), Syrians Gein feos 20
(7) Abyssinians 20 |
Ill. Jews
(a) Turkish subjects (Seph-
ardim) . .... 6.0t™
(b) Foreigners (Ashkenazim)
Poles, Russians, Ger-
mans, ete. - 1,100
(c) Caraites » te)
‘lo the foregoing we are to add the 6)
persons, European Protestants or Catholi|
nected with consulates or ecclesiastical e:
ments, and the Turkish garrison of 800 ¢
men; and we have then the aggregate (a)
above) of about 17,000. The number of p
greatest at Easter, varies from time to til
maximum may be 10,000. It was about!
1843, and about 3,000 in 1844 (Schultz, 4
Eine Vorlesung, pp. 88, 34). The estimat
Ordnance Survey (1865) — 16,000 — sho!
hardly any change has taken place in the |
tion during the last twenty years. The st;
(in this latter work) that the travellers and i
at Easter swell the sum to 30,000, seems
incredible, unless it be understood of some ali
exceptional year. Tobler complains (Den
aus Jerusalem, p. 353) that the Turkish si
are extremely uncertain. It is gence |
that the Christian inhabitants slowly ine
the expense of the Mohammedans.
Waiter Supply. — Most of the houses :
nished with cisterns in which the rain-ve
collected by means of gutters during the rai}
December to March. ‘The better houses oft)
two or three such cisterns, so arranged thi)
one is full the water flows into another.
water which runs through the filthy street:
collected in some of these cisterns, it can |!
drunk with safety after it is filtered and fre'!
the numerous worms and insects which a)
in it.”” Some water is obtained from Joab!’
[ENn-RoGE], whence it is brought in goat-s
donkeys and sold to the inhabitants. The |¢
city was supplied with an abundance of pur
from the three Pools of Solomon near Bet!
The works constructed for this purpose, ‘}
ness of design and skill in execution, riv\‘
the most approved system of modern engié
(Ordnance Survey, p. 10). The Pacha 0):
salem has recently repaired the conduit fr
omon’s Pools to Jerusalem, which is now §}}
from Ain Etan, and “the sealed fountain ’™
the upper pool.
Jews. — The Jews constitute an interestii)¢
of the inhabitants. Very many of them {
grims who have come to Jerusalem to fulfill)
and then return to the countries where th)’
born, or aged persons who desire to spen t
JERUSALEM
ys in the holy city, and be buried in the
of Jehoshaphat, which according to their
ms is to be the scene of the last judgment.
e privilege of being buried there they are
to pay a large sum; but if any one is too
incur this expense, the body is taken to the
n Mount Zion where the Tomb of David is
1. Among them are representatives from
every land, though the Spanish, Polish, and
n Jews compose the greater number. Like
rethren in other parts of Palestine, with the
on of a few in commercial places, they are
sadly poor, and live chiefly on alms contrib-
‘their countrymen in Europe and America.
evote most of their time to holy employ-
as they are called. They frequent the syn-
3, roam over the country to visit places mem-
in their ancient history, and read assiduously
| Testament and the Talmudic and Rabbinic
s. Those of them who make any pretension
ning understand the Hebrew and Rabbinic,
ak as their vernacular tongue the language
ountry where they formerly lived, or whence
ushers emigrated. As would be expected,
e character of the motive which brings them
Holy Land, they are distinguished, as a class,
r bigoted attachment to Judaism. The Jews
salem have several synagogues which they
not promiscuously, but according to their
l or geographical affinities. The particular
fhich unites them in this religious associ-
s that of their birth or sojourn in the same
land, and their speaking the same language
Acts vi. 9 ff.). Vor information respecting
ms in Palestine, the reader may see especially
’s Land of the Bible (2 vols. Edinb. 1847)
nar and M'’Cheyne’s Narrative of a Mis-
Inquiry to the Jews, in 1839 (29th thousand,
1852). ‘The statements in these works re-
ibstantially correct for the present time.
jal Places. — Modern burial places surround
yon all sides. Thus, on our right as we go
st. Stephen's Gate is a Mohammedan cem-
rhich covers a great part of the eastern slope
iah, extending to near the southeast angle
Haram. This cemetery, from its proximity
sacred area, is regarded as specially sacred.
rgest cemetery of the’ Mohammedans is on
t side of the city, near the Birket .Mamilla,
er Gihon, a reservoir so named still in use.
Moslem Sheikhs or ‘ Saints’ are buried in
parts of the city and neighborhood, especially
he western wall of the Haram. ‘he Moslems
ied without coffins, being simply wrapped in
, and are carried to the grave in a sort of
box, borne on the shoulders of six men.
dy is preceded by a man bearing a palm
and followed by the mourners. Prayers are
up in the mosque whilst the body is there,
the grave the Koran is recited, and the
of the deceased extolled.” The outside
of Mount Zion is occupied chiefly as a place
ll for the Christian communities, i. e., Cath-
weeks, Armenians, and Protestants. Not
n David’s Tomb there is a little cemetery
contains the remains of several Americans
ve died at Jerusalem. One of the graves is
the Iate Prof. Fiske of Amherst College,
memory is still cherished among us by so
upils and friends. The great Jewish cem-
8 already mentioned, lies along the base and
Sides of Olivet. The white slabs which cover |
JERUSALEM 1389
the graves are slightly elevated and marked with
Hebrew inscriptions. It should be stated that the
Caraite Jews have a separate place of burial on the
southwest side of Elinnom, near the intersection
of the road which crosses the valley to the tombs of
Aceldama.
Churches. —It is impossible to do more than
glance at this branch of the subject. The Church
of the Holy Sepulchre, in the northwest part of
the city, stands over the reputed place of the Sa-
viour’s tomb, mentioned in the history of the Pas.
sion. It is the most imposing edifice in Jerusalem,
after the Mosque of Omar. It was built in 1808,
on the site of a more ancient one destroyed by fire.
Some monument of this kind has marked the spot
ever since the time of the Empress Helena, about
A. D. 326, and perhaps earlier still. It does not
belong to this place to discuss the question of the
genuineness of the site. or a convenient resumé
of the arguments on both sides, Stanley refers to
the Musewn of Classical Antiquities, April, 1853.
Nothing decisive has more recently been brought to
light. This church is in reality not so much a single
church as acluster of churches or chapels. The chureh
is entered by a door leading out of an open court on
the south, never opened except by a member of the
Moslem family. It is always open for a few hours
in the morning and again in the afternoon. The
open court is paved with limestone and worn as
smooth as glass by the feet of pilgrims. Here the
venders of souvenirs of the Holy Land from Beth-
lehem expose their wares and drive a thriving trade.
On the east side are the Greek convent of Abraham,
the Armenian church of St. John, and the Coptic
church of the Angel; on the west side are three
Greek chapels, that of St. James, that of the Forty
Martyrs, in which is a very beautiful font, and that
of St. John; at the eastern end of the south side
of the court is a Greek chapel, dedicated to the
Egyptian Mary, and east of the entrance a flight
of steps leads to the small Latin Chapel of the Ag-
ony. The Chapel of the Holy Sepulchre is in the
centre of the Rotunda, built principally of the
limestone known as “‘ Santa Croce marble.’’ What
is shown as the Tomb of our Lord is a raised
bench, 2 feet high, 6 feet 4 inches long, covered on
the top by a marble slab. No rock is visible at
present,” says Capt. Wilson, “ but may exist below
the marble slab, as in forming the level floor of the
Rotunda a great quantity of rock must have been
cut away, and the portion containing the tomb
would naturally be left intact.”” The church is at
present undergoing important repairs.
Near St. Stephen’s Gate is the Church of St.
Anne, built over a grotto, which looks like an
ancient cistern. The church belongs to France,
and is being almost rebuilt at great expense. It
shows the scarcity of wood that the timber required
in these repairs has to be imported at Ydfa, and
then transported over the heavy roads to Jerusaiem.
The Church of St. James in the Armenian con-
vent is one of the richest in yiding, decorations,
and pictures in the city. Nearly opposite the Pool
of Hezekiah is the Greek church and convent of
“the Forerunner,’ comparatively modern and
dressed out with gilding and paintings in the nsual
Greek style.¢ The church of the Anglo-Prussian
a * We have taken these brief statements (to some
extent, verbally), from the Ordnance Survey of Jeru-
salem, our best recent authority (1865). It may be in
place to say here that Col. James, the Director of the
1340 JERUSALEM
ppiscopate on Mount Zion, though not large, is a
neat edifice, built of limestone, in the form of a
cross. The preaching in this church on the Sab-
bath and at other times is in German and in Eng-
lish. See an interesting sketch of the origin and
objects of this episcopate by Giider in Herzog’s
Tteal-Encykl. vi. 503-505. The London Jews’
Society expends large sums of money for the benefit
of the Palestine Jews, through the agency of this
Jerusalem bishopric. On the rising ground west of
the city stands “the immense Russian pile, a new
building, which completely overshadows every other
architectural feature. It combines in some degree
the appearance and the uses of cathedral close,
public offices, barracks, and hostelry; the flag of
the Russian consulate floats over one part, while
the tall cupola of the church commands the centre.
There are many Russian priests and monks, and
shelter is provided for the crowds of Muscovite
pilgrims” (Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 174, 2d
ed.). All recent travellers testify that the distinc-
tive oriental character of Jerusalem is rapidly fad-
ing away and a European coloring taking its place.
Subterranean Quarry. —It is ascertained that
a labyrinth of great extent and of complicated in-
tricacy exists under the present Jerusalem. It is
unquestionably very ancient, but having been so
recently discovered or rediscovered, belongs in that
point of view to our own times, quite as much as to
its own proper antiquity. Dr. Barclay has the
merit of bringing this wonderful excavation to the
knowledge of European and American travellers.
We insert an abridged account of this discovery in
the words of Dr. R. G. Barclay (in the City of the
Great King, pp. 460-463, Ist ed.) : —
‘‘ Having provided ourselves with all the requisites
for such a furtive adventure — matches, candles,
zompass, tape-line, paper, and pencils —a. little
previous to the time of closing the gates of the city,
we sallied out at different points, the better to avoid
exciting suspicion, and rendezvoused at Jeremiah’s
Pool, near to which we secreted ourselves within a
white enclosure surrounding the tomb of a departed
Arab Sheik, until the shades of darkness enabled
us to approach unperceived, when we issued from
our hiding-place, amid the screeching of owls,
screaming of hawks, howling of jackals, and the
chirping of nocturnal insects. The mouth of the
cavern being immediately below the city wall, and
the houses on Bezetha, we proceeded cautiously in
the work of removing the dirt, mortar, and stones;
and, after undermining and picking awhile, a hole
(commenced a day or two previous by our dog) was
made, though scarcely large enough for us to worm
gur way serpentinely through the ten foot wall.
' «Qn scrambling through and descending the
inner side of the wall, we found our way apparently
obstructed by an immense mound of soft dirt, which
had been thrown in, the more effectually to close
up the entrance; but, after examining awhile, dis-
covered. that it had settled down in some places
sufficiently to allow us to crawl over it on hand
and knee; which having accomplished, we found
survey, avows his belief “ that the traditional sites are
the true sites of Mount Zion, and the Holy Sepulchre,
and Mount Moriah and the Temple ” (Preface, p. 16).
He says that an examination of the ground confirms
the report that Constantine ‘ caused the rock all round
the Sepulchre to be cut away to form a spacious in-
clorure round it, leaving the Sepulchre itself standing
in the midst” (p. 11). For the traditions, sacred lo-
=
JERUSALEM
ourselves enveloped in thick darkness, th:
be felt, but not penetrated by all our lights
is the hall. ee
‘For some time we were almost overec
feelings of awe and admiration (and I 1
apprehension, too, from the immense in
vaulted roof), and felt quite at a loss to «
which direction to wend our way. ‘There.
stant and in many places very rapid dese
the entrance to the termination, the dist
tween which two points, in a nearly direct
750 feet; and the cave is upwards of 3,00
circumference, supported by great numbers
natural pillars. At the southern extrem
is a very deep and precipitous pit, in w
received a very salutary warning of cauti|
the dead —a human skeleton! supposed t
of a person who, not being sufficiently f 4
lights, was precipitated headlong and bi
neck.
“We noticed bats clinging to the |
several places, in patches varying from f
hundred and fifty, hanging together, wh
away at our too near approach, and for so
continued to flit and scream round and a;
heads in rather disagreeable propinquity. N
crosses marked on the wall indicated that,
unknown to Christendom of the present
devout Pilgrim or Crusader had been ther«:
few Arabic and Hebrew inscriptions 2
much effaced to be deciphered) proved 1
place was not unknown to the Jew an
Indeed, the manner in which the beautif}
solid limestone rock was everywhere carve
mason’s rough chisel into regular pillars)
that this extensive cavern, though in part)
was formerly used as the grand quarry |
salem. . . . There are many intricate me:
passages leading to immense halls, as whit:
driven snow, and supported by colossal p}
irregular shape — some of them placed the
hand of nature, to support the roof of the
grottos, others evidently left by the stone’
in quarrying the rock to prevent the int)
of the city. Such reverberations I neve!
before. :
«¢ What untold toil was represented by §
piles of blocks and chippings, over which
to clamber, in making our exploration! — :
choly grandeur —at once exciting and depre¢)
pervaded these vast saloons. This, withoul
is the very magazine from which muchi
Temple rock was hewn —the pit from wil
taken the material for the silent growtl)
Temple. How often, too, had it probably 2
last place of retreat to the wretched inhabia
this guilty city in the agonizing extremitie?
various overthrows! It will probably yet ‘
grave of many that are living over it! fort
of disintegration and undermining 1s g}
surely, though slowly.” .
More recent explorers confirm this rep)
supply other information. “ The roof 0”
‘ s j
calities, and ecclesiastical establishments, 4”
relates to Jerusalem, Dr. Sepp’s Jerusalem a
Heil. Land (1868), deserves to be consultec
Tobler’s Denkblatter aus Jerusalem (1853) ')
much respecting the religious cultus, empl
and domestic life of the inhabitants. See als
Handbook, i. 75 ff. .
JERUSALEM
omson, “is about 30 feet high, even above
e heaps of rubbish, and is sustained by
apeless columns of the original rock, left
purpose by the quarriers, I suppose. . . . In
aces we climbed with difficulty over large
f rock, which appear to have been shaken
mm the roof, and suggest to the nervous the
ty of being ground to powder by similar
vhich hang overhead. . . . . The general
1 of these excavations is southeast, and about
with the valley which descends from the
us Gate. I suspect that they extend down
‘emple area, and also that it was into these
that many of the Jews retired when Titus
e Temple, as we read in Josephus. The
ity might be stowed away in them; and it
inion that a great part of the very white
f the Temple must have been taken from
ibterranean quarries”’ (Land and Book, ii.
Wilson says further: “In places the stones
on left half cut out, and the marks of the
JERUSALEM 1341
confidence. Even conclusions once admitted as
facts into our manuals of geography and archeology,
have been from time to time drawn into question
or disproved by the results of further study and
research.
But this state of our knowledge should not dis-
appoint or surprise the reader. It admits of a
ready and satisfactory explanation. “No ancient
city,’ says Raumer, “not excepting Rome itself,
has undergone (since the time of Christ) so many
changes as Jerusalem. Not only houses, palaces
temples, have been demolished, rebuilt, and de-
stroyed anew, but entire hills on which the city
stood have been dug down, and valleys filled up’’
(Paldstina, p. 253, 3te Aufl.). When, a few years
ago, the Episcopal Church was erected on Mount
Zion, it was found necessary to dig through the
accumulated rubbish to the depth of 50 feet or
more, in order to obtain a proper support for the
foundations. In some more recent excavations the
workmen struck on a church embedded 40 feet
below the present surface. Capt. Wilson makes
ad pick are as fresh as if the workmen had | some statements on this subject so instructive that
, and even’the black patches made by the
f the lamps remain. The tools employed
they deserve to be mentioned. ‘ We learn from
history, and from actual exploration under ground,
have been much the same as those now in}that the Tyropceon Valley has been nearly filled
| the quarrymen to have worked in gangs
6, each man carrying in a vertical cut 4
road till he had reached the required depth.
ght of the course would determine the dis-
f the workmen from each other; in these
:it was found to be about 1 foot 7 inches.
he cuts had all obtained the required depth,
nes were got out by working in from the
Che cuts were apparently made with a two-
pick, and worked down from above... .
part of the quarry is the so-called well,
3nothing more than the leakage from the
above, and the constant dripping has worn
e rock into the form of a basin. .. . The
‘t by the quarrymen for getting about can
y traced. On the opposite side of the road
ter old quarry, worked in a similar manner,
‘to the same extent, to which the name of
l’s Grotto has been given”? (Ordnance
p. 63 6). “In many places,” says Mr.
nu (Land of’ Israel, p. 191, 2d ed.), “the
shes remained out of which the great blocks
n hewn which form the Temple wall. There
‘he ground in one corner a broken monolith,
sad evidently split in the process of removal,
1 been left where it fell. The stone here is
‘t, and must easily have been sawn, while,
‘ne other limestones, it hardens almost to
“on exposure.”’
[uities in and around the City. — Some ac-
as been given of these in previous sections
‘article. The only point on which we pro-
‘remark here, is that of the obscurity still
on some of these questions connected with
lent topography of the city and the im-
‘ity of identifying the precise scene of many
events of the Old and the New Testament
_ Traditions, it is true, are current among
‘ntal Christians, which profess to give us
information on this subject that one could
| But, in general, such traditions are nothing
han vague conjectures; they are incapable
g traced hack far enough to give them the
f historical testimony, and often are con-
id by facts known to us from the Bible, or
ith other traditions maintained with equal
up, and that there is a vast accumulation of ruins
in most parts of the city. Thus, for example, it
has been found, by descending a well to the south
of the central entrance to the Haram, that there is
an accumulation of ruins and rubbish to the extent
of 84 feet; and that originally there was a spring
there, with steps down to it cut in the solid rock.”
. . . The stairs cut in the rock on the northern
slope of Mount Zion “ were covered up by about
40 feet of rubbish.” ¢ .. . “There was not less
than 40 feet of rubbish in the branch of the Val-
ley of the Cheesemongers (Tyropceon) near the
citadel. . . . In fact, we know that it was part
of the settled policy of the conquerors of the city
to obliterate, as far as possible, those features upon
the strength of which the upper city and the Tem-
ple mainly depended. The natural accumulation
of rubbish for the last 3,000 years has further con-
tributed to obliterate, to a great extent, the natural
features of the ground within the city ’’ (Ordnance
Survey of Jerusalem, p. 7 f.). The latest excava-
tions by Lieut. Warren near “ Robinson’s Arch ”
have gone to a depth of 55 feet below the surface
before coming to the bottom of the valley between
Zion and Moriah (The Quiver, p. 619, June, 1868,
Lond.). In many places the present level of the
“Via Dolorosa”? is not less than 30 or 40 feet
above its original level; disproving, by the way,
the claim set up for the antiquity of its sites. In
digging for the foundations of the house of the
Prussian Deaconesses, a subterranean street of
houses was found several feet below the street
above it. (Survey, p. 56.)
Views of Jerusalem.— The summit of Olivet
furnishes, on the whole, the best look-out in the
vicinity of Jerusalem. Yet the view of the city
from this point is too distinct to be very imposing;
for, having few edifices that will bear inspection, it
must be seen, like Damascus, at a distance and in
the mass, in order to produce the best effect. The
vaulted domes surmounting the roofs of the better
houses, and giving to them solidity and support,
serve also as ornaments, and are striking objects as
| ieee si wies Hb fl St Soke gs Se
a *For an account of these stairs see vol. ii. p. 971.
note a, Amer. ed.
1342. JERUSALEM
seen from this direction. Such domes are said to
be peculiar to a few towns in the south of Palestine.
The want of foliage and verdure is a very noticeable
defect. A few cypresses and dwarfish palms are the
only trees to be discovered within the city itself.
The minarets, only 8 or 10 in number, which often
display elsewhere a graceful figure, are here very
ordinary, and add little or nothing to the scene.
On the other hand, the buildings which compose
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, arrest attention
at once, on account of their comparative size and
elegance. But more conspicuous than all is the
Mosque of Omar, which being so near at hand, on
the east side of the city, can be surveyed here with
great advantage. It stands near the centre of an
inclosure which coincides very nearly with the
court of the ancient Temple. It is built on a plat-
form, 450 feet from east to west, and 550 from
north to south, elevated about 15 feet, and paved
in part with marble. It is approached on the west
side by three flights of stairs, on the north by two,
on the south by two, and on the east by one. The
building itself is an octagon of 67 feet on a side,
the walls of which are ornamented externally with
variegated marbles, arranged in elegant and intri-
eate patterns. The lower story of this structure is
46 feet high. From the roof of this story, at the
distance of about one half of its diameter from the
outer edge, rises a wall 70 feet higher, perforated,
towards the top, with a series of low windows.
Above this wall rises a dome of great beauty, 40
feet high, surmounted by a gilt crescent. The en-
tire altitude, therefore, including the platform, is
170 feet. The dome is covered with lead, and the
roof of the first story with tiles of glazed porcelain
The Mosque has four doors, which face the cardi-
nal points, guarded by handsome porches. The
Mohammedans regard it as their holiest sanctuary
after that of Mecca. (For these and other details
see Williams’s Holy City, ii. 301 ff.) The ample
court which surrounds the Mosque, as seen from
Olivet, appears as a grass-plot, shaded with a few
trees, and intersected with walks.2
When about half way up this mount, the trav-
eller finds himself, apparently, off against the level
of Jerusalem. In accordance with this, the Evan-
gelist represents the Saviour as being “ over against
the Temple” as he sat on the Mount of Olives, and
foretold the doom of the devoted city (Mark xiii.
3). Hence the disciples, as they listened to him at
that moment, had the massive “buildings of the
Temple’? in full view before them across the valley
of the Kedron, to which they had just called his
attention with so much pride, and of which they
were told that soon “not one stone would be left
on another.”’
Visitors to Jerusalem by the way of Ydfa (Joppa)
and Wady Aly, usually obtain their first sight of the
city from the northwest. Even from this side the
view is not unimpressive. The walls with their
battlements, — the entire circuit of which lies at
once beneath the eye; —the bold form of Olivet:
the distant hills of Moab in dim perspective; the
turrets of the Church of the Sepulchre; the lofty
cupola of the Mosque of Omar; the Castle of Da-
a * The Ordnance Survey (Lond. 1865) furnishes an
elaborate description of the Haram with its mosques
and yarious appurtenances, founded on careful inspec-
tion (pp. 29-46). On the premises were found 20
vaulés or cisterns, varying in depth from 28 to 624
feet ; some containing water, others dry. They are
ip
JESHAIAH
vid, so autique and massive; — all come sy
into view, and produce a startling effect.
Yet, as Dr. Robinson remarks, the trayell
do better to “ take the camel-road from Ran
Jerusalem; or, rather, the road lying still ;
north by the way of Beth-horon. In this
will pass near to Lydda, Gimzo, Lower and
Beth-horon, and Gibeon; he will see Rama
Gibeah near at hand on his left; and he may
on Scopus to gaze on the city from one of the
points of view” (Later Res. iii. 160). §
prefers the approach from the Jericho road.
human being could be disappointed who firs
Jerusalem from the east. The beauty cons
this, that you thus burst at once on the two
ravines which cut the city off from the sur
ing table-land, and that then only you h
complete view of the Mosque of Omar” (8,
p- 167, Amer. ed.). Mr. Tristram coincides i
impression. ‘Let the pilgrim endeayor to
from the east, the favorite approach of our
the path of his last and triumphal entry. |]
glorious burst, as the traveller rounds the ;
der of Mount Olivet, and the Haram wall .
up before him from the deep gorge of the Ke
with its domes and crescents sparkling in the
light — a royal city. On that very spot He
paused and gazed on the same bold cliffs suppc
a far more glorious pile, and when He behel
city He wept over it’? (Land of Israel, p. :
2d ed.). ‘The writer was so fortunate as to
this view of Jerusalem, and would add that n
has seen Jerusalem who has not had this view
JERU’SHA (NEN [ possessed or p
sion]: ‘Iepoved; [Vat. Epous;] Alex. lepous
rust), daughter of Zadok, queen of Uzziah,
mother of Jotham king of Judah (2 K. xv.
In Chronicles the name is given under the al
form of —
JERU’SHAH (79% [as above]:!
povod; [Vat. -cca?] Jerusi), 2 Chr. xxv)
See the preceding article.
JESAVAH [8 syl.] (Tye [Jehovah s:
or his salvation]: leclas; ‘[Vat. IoaBa;. §
Ieceia:] Jeseias). 1. Son of Hananiah, a
of Pelatiah, and grandson of Zerubbabel (1
iii. 21). But according to the LXX. and the)
gate, he was the son of Pelatiah. For an ot
tion of this genealogy, and the difficulties conn
with it, see Lord A. Hervey's Genealogies 9)
Lord, ch. iv. § v.
2. (TPES, 2, €. Jeshaiah: *Jegfa; Alex.
cea; [FA leoota:] Isaia.) A Benjamite, "
descendants were among those chosen by lot i
side in Jerusalem after the return from Bak
(Neh. xi. 7).
JESHAVAH [8syl.]. 1. (MYT)
tion of Jehovah]: "Ioéas [Vat. Sara] in 1
xxv. 3, and "Iwala [ Vat. -ceia} in ver. 15; is
former the Alex. MS. has Ieeia kal Seuel, 2
the latter Ios; [Comp. "Igata:] the Vulgi
now supplied by surface drainage. Some are of
ern date, but in others the mouths of old cort!
can be seen. The splendid photographic views of
ous sections of the Haram wall and other objects!
greatly to the value of this publication.
JESHANAH
sand Jesaias.) One of the six sons of Jed-
set apart for the musical service of the
, under the leadership of their father, the
Be ostrel: he was the chief of the eighth
1 of the singers. The Hebrew name is iden-
ith that of the prophet Isaiah.
Mwolas; [Vat-] Alex. Noaas: Jsatias.) A
in the reign of David, eldest son of Reha-
, descendant of Amram through Moses (1
cvi. 25). He is called IssH1aAnH in 1 Chr.
1, in A. V., though the Hebrew is merely
rtened form of the name. Shebuel, one of
estors, appears among the Hemanites in 1
cy. 4, and is said in Targ. on 1 Chr. xxvi.
e the same with Jonathan the son of Ger-
the priest of the idols of the Danites, who
rds returned to the fear of Jehovah.
myw: Ioatas; [Vat. Iocewa;] Alex.
Isatas.) The son of Athaliah and chief
house of the Bene [sons of | Elam who re-
with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 7). In 1 Esdr. viii.
s called Josras.
‘Ioata; [Vat. Qcaas:] Ssaias.)
10, returned with Ezra (Ezr. viii. 19).
1 OsArAs in 1 Esdr. viii. 48.
sH’ANAH (7TIws [ancient]: 4 "lecvvd;
Kava; ] Alex. Ava; Joseph. q Iodvas: Je-
a town which, with its dependent villages
ud Alex. LXX. “ daughters ’’), was one of
ee taken from Jeroboam by Abijah (2 Chr.
). The other two were Bethel and Ephraim,
shanah is named between them. A _ place
same name was the scene of an encounter
1 Herod and Pappus, the general of Antig-
army, related by Josephus with curious
(Ant. xiv. 15, § 12), which however convey
cation of its position. It is not mentioned
Dnomasticon, unless we accept the conjecture
nd (Palestina, p. 861) that “ Jethaba, urbs
» Judee,” is at once a corruption and a
‘jon of the name Jeshana, which signifies
’ Nor has it been identified in modern
save by Schwarz (p. 158), who places it at
nim, a village two miles W. of Bethel,”
discoverable in any map which the writer
sulted. G.
‘HARE/LAH (Toews [upright to-
fod: but see First]: "IoepsfA; [Alex.] Io-
_SIsreela), head of the seventh of the 24
nto which the musicians of the Levites were
(1 Chr. xxv. 14). [HemAn; JEDUTHUN.]
mged to the house of Asaph, and had 12
house under him. At ver. 2 his name is
ae with an initial S instead of 15
/HE’/BEAB (ane [a father’s seat or
TeaBada; [Alex. IoBaaa: Comp. ’IaBa-
sha), head of the 14th course of priests
xxiv. 13). [JEHOIARIB.] A. Cr H.
SHER (7) [uprightness]: lacdp 3
‘Alex. Iwacap: Jaser), one of the sons of
vhe son of Hezron by his wife Azubah (A
18). In two of Kennicott’s MSS. it is
| IM, Jether, from the preceding verse,
| ‘one MS. the two names are combined. The
Syriac has Oshir, the same form in which
‘is represented in 2 Sam. i. 18.
A Mera-
He
JESHISHAI 1848 |
JESH’IMON (awry = the waste: in
Num. # Zpnuos; in [1] Sam. [xxiii.,] 6 leooat-
pds; [xxiv., Rom.] Tetoeuds; Alex. Everoaimos?
desertum, solitutlo: Jesimon), a name which occurs
in Num. xxi. 20 and xxiii. 28, in designating the
position of Pisgah and Peor: both described as
“ facing -9y) the Jeshimon.”” Not knowing
more than the general locality of either Peor or
Pisgah, this gives us no clew to the situation of
Jeshimon. But it is elsewhere used in a similar
manner with reference to the position of two places
very distant from both the above — the hill of Ha-
chilah, ‘on the south of,” or ¢ facing, the Jeshi-
mon’’ (1 Sam. xxiii. 19, xxvi. 1, 3), and the wil-
derness of Maon, also south of it (xxiii. 24). Ziph
(xxiii. 15) and Maon are known at the present day.
They lie a few miles south of Hebron, so that the
district strictly north of them is the hill-country
of Judah. But a line drawn between Maon and
the probable position of Peor — on the ‘high coun-
try opposite Jericho — passes over the dreary,
barren waste of the hills lying immediately on the
west of the Dead Sea. ‘To this district the name,
if interpreted as a Hebrew word, would be not in-
applicable. It would also suit as to position, as it
would be full in view from an elevated point on the
highlands of Moab, and not far from north of Maon
and Ziph. On the other hand, the use of the word
ha-Ardabah, in 1 Sam. xxiii. 24, must not be over-
looked, meaning, as that elsewhere does, the sunk
district of the Jordan and Dead Sea, the modern
Ghor. Beth-Jeshimoth too, which by its name
ought to have some connection with Jeshimon,
would appear to have been on the lower level, some-
where near the mouth of the Jordan. [BrTuH-
JESHIMOTH.] Perhaps it is not safe to lay much
stress on the Hebrew sense of the name. The
passages in which it is first mentioned are indis-
putably of very early date, and it is quite possible
that it is an archaic name found and adopted by
the Israelites. G.
* Mr. Tristram (Land of Israel, p. 540, 2d ed.)
supposes Jeshimon to be used for “the barren plain
of the Ghor,’ about the mouth of the Jordan.
Assuming this, he makes it one of his proofs, that
the brow of the Belka range “ over against Jeri-
cho”’ (Deut. xxxiv. 1), ascended by him, is the
Nebo or Pisgah of Moses. [NEBo, Amer. ed.]
The article is always prefixed in the Hebrew, with
the exception of a few poetic passages (Deut. xxxii. .
10; Ps. Ixviii. 7, xxviii. 40, evi. 14, evii. 4; and Is.
xliii. 19, 20). It is really questionable whether
the word should not be taken as appellative rather
than a proper name. In the former case the par-
ticular desert meant must be inferred from the con-
text, and may be a different one at different times.
Lieut. Warren reports that after special inquiry
on the ground he was unable to find any trace of
the name of Beth-Jeshimoth (see above) in the
vicinity of the mouth of the Jordan. He speaks,
however, of a ruin at the northeast of the Dead Sea
called Swaimeh, as if possibly the lost site may
have been there (Report, etc., 1867-68, p. 13). H.
JESHI/SHAL [8 syl.] CWW [offspring
of one old]: "leat; (Vat. Ioas;] Alex. leooar:
Jesisi), one of the ancestors of the Gadites who
dwelt in Gilead, and whose genealogies were made
out in the days of Jotham king of Judah (1 Chr.
v. 14). In the Peshito Syriac the latter part of
the verse is omitted.
*
1344"
JESHOHA‘IAH [4 syl.] (TWYTWY [bowed
down by Jehovah]: "lacovla: Isuhaia), a chief of
one of the families of that branch of the Simeon-
ites, which was descended from Shimei, and was
more numerous than the rest of the tribe (1 Chr.
iv. 36). He was concerned in the raid upon the
Hamites in the reign of Hezekiah.
JESH’UA [Heb. Jeshu’a] (YAW) [Jehovah
helps, or saves]: ’Incods: Jesue, [Jesua,] and Jo-
sue), a later Hebrew contraction for Joshua, or
rather Jehoshua. [JEHOSHUA. |
1. [Josue.] Joshua, the son of Nun, is called
Jeshua in one passage (Neh. viii. 17). [JosHua.]
2. [Jesua, Josue.] A priest in the reign of
David, to whom the ninth course fell by lot (1 Chr.
xxiv. 11). He is called Jeshuah in the A. V.
One branch of the house, namely, the children of
Jedaiah, returned from Babylon (Lzr. ii. 86; but
see JEDAIAH).
3. [Jeswe.] One of the Levites in the reign
of Hezekiah, after the reformation of worship,
placed in trust in the cities of the priests in their
classes, to distribute to their brethren of the ofter-
ings of the people (2 Chr. xxxi. 15).
4. [Josue.] Son of Jehozadak, first high-priest
of the third series, namely, of those after the Baby-
lonish Captivity, and ancestor of the fourteen high-
JESHOHAIAH
’ priests his successors down to Joshua or Jason, and
Onias or Menelaus, inclusive. [HIGH-PRIEST.]
Jeshua, like his contemporary Zerubbabel, was
probably born in Babylon, whither his father Jehoz-
adak had been taken captive while young (1 Chr.
vi. 15, A. V.). He came up from Babylon in the
first of Cyrus with Zerubbabel, and took a leading
part with him in the rebuilding of the Temple, and
the restoration of the Jewish commonwealth.
Everything we read of him indicates a man of
earnest piety, patriotism, and courage. One of
less faith and resolution would never have sur-
mounted all the difficulties and opposition he had
to contend with. His first care on arriving at
Jerusalem was to rebuild the altar, and restore the
daily sacrifice, which had been suspended for some
fifty years. He then, in conjunction with Zerub-
babel, hastened to collect materials for rebuilding
the Temple, and was able to lay the foundation of
it as early as the second month of the second year
of their return to Jerusalem. The services on this
occasion were conducted by the priests in. their
proper apparel, with their trumpets, and by the
sons of Asaph, the Levites, with their cymbals,
according to the ordinance of king David (Ezr. iii.).
However, the progress of the work was hindered
by the enmity of the Samaritans, who bribed the
counsellors of the kings of Persia so effectually to
obstruct it that. the Jews were unable to proceed
with it till the second year of Darius Hystaspis —
an interval of about fourteen years. In that year,
B. C. 520, at the prophesying of Haggai and Zech-
ariah (Kzr. y. 1, vi. 14; Hagg. i. 1, 12, 14, ii. 1-9;
Zech. i.—-viii.), the work was resumed by Jeshua
and Zerubbabel with redoubled vigor, and was hap-
pily completed on the third day of the month Adar
(= March), in the sixth of Darius.¢ The dedica-
tion of the Temple, and the celebration of the Pass-
over, in the next month, were kept with great sol-
emnity and rejoicing (Ezr. vi. 15-22), and especially
a The 7th, after the Babylonian reckoning, accord-
Ing to Prideaux.
6 The connection with Bani, Hashabiah (or Hash-
7
JESHURUN
“ twelve he-goats, according to the number.
tribes of Israel,’’ were offered as a sin-offeri
all Israel. Jeshua’s zeal in the work is comm
by the Son of Sirach (Ecclus. xlix. 12). F
the great importance of Jeshua as a historical
acter, from the critical times in which he
and the great work which he accomplishe
name Jesus, his restoration of the Temp
office as high-priest, and especially the two pr
cies concerning him in Zech. iii. and yi.
point him out as an eminent type of (
[Hicu-priest.] Nothing is known of J
later than the seventh year of Darius, with \
the narrative of Ezr. i—vi. closes. Josephus
says the Temple was seven years in building
places the dedication of it in the ninth of D:
contributes no information whatever conce
him: his history here, with the exception o
9th sect. of b. xi. ch. iv., being merely a parap
of .Ezra and 1 Esdras, especially the latter. [
UBBABEL.] Jeshua had probably conversed
with Daniel and Ezekiel, and may or may not
known Jehoiachin at Babylon in his youth.
probably died at Jerusalem. It is written Jehi
or Joshua in Zech. iii. 1, 3, &e.; Hagg.
12, &e. |
5. [In Ezr. ii. 40, Vat. Incove; Neh. x
Alex. Incov: Josue, Jesua, once.] Head |
Levitical house, one of those which returned
the Babylonish Captivity, and took an active
under Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. —
name is used to designate either the whole fi
or the successive chiefs of it (Ezr. ii. 40,i
Neh. iii. 19, viii. 7, ix. 4, 5, xii. 8, &e.). Je:
and Kadmiel, with whom he is frequently asi
ted, were both ‘+ sons of Hodaviah”’ (called Jij
Ezr. iii. 9), but Jeshua’s more immediate anc!
was Azaniah (Neh. x. 9). In Neh. xii. 24 “Ji
the son of Kadmiel’’ is a manifest corruptic
the text. The LXX. read nal viol Kaduifa:
is more likely that 73 is an accidental error f
6. [Joswe.] A branch of the family of Pal)
Moab, one of the chief families, probably, o!
tribe of Judah (Neh. x. 14, vii. 11, &.;
30). His descendants were the most numeroi|
all the families which returned with Zerubt'
The verse is obscure, and might be trans)
“‘ The children of Pahath-Moab, for (@. e. 1°
senting) the children of Jeshua and Joab;}
that Pahath-Moab would be the head of 3 a
Ave. |
j
JESH/UA [Heb, Jeshu’a] (DAW? [see abi
"Incov: Jesue), one of the towns re-inhabitel
the people of Judah after the return from eapiit
(Neh. xi. 26). Being mentioned with Molt!
Beer-sheba, etc., it was apparently in the ext
south. It does not, however, occur in the orl}
lists of Judah and Simeon (Josh. xv., xix.), 1
there any name in those lists of which this vil
be probably a corruption. It is not menti¢
elsewhere. |
JESH’U AH [Heb. Jeshu’ah] (YIWY, "Ines
Jesua), a priest in the reign of David (1:
xxiv. 11), the same as Jesuua, No. 2. |
JESHU’RUN, and once by mistake in iV
abniah), Henadad, and the Levites (17-19), ind™
that Jeshua, the father of Ezer, is the same pers|®
in the other passages cited. |
ve
JESHURUN JESSE 1845
go when not regulated by any definite principles.
The first of these, which is due to Forster (quoted
by Glassius, Phil, Sacr, lib. iv. tr. 2), connects it
SU’RUN, Is. xliv. 2 (JANW [see infra]:
‘amnuevos, once with the addition of "Iopana,
h the Arabic of the Lond. Polyglot adopts to
xclusion of the former: dilectus, rectissimus),
mbolical name for Israel in Deut. xxxii. 15,
i. 5, 26; Is. xliv. 2, for which various etymol-
ihave been suggested. Of its application to
| there seems to be no division of opinion.
Targum and Peshito Syriac uniformly render
urun by “Israel.” Kimchi (on Is. xliv. 2)
with WW, shér, “an ox,” in consequence of the
allusion in the context of Deut. xxxii. 15; the other
with “AW, shir, “to behold,” because Israel be-
held the presence of God. WAL OW.
JESVAH (ATW, 7. ec. Yisshiya’hu [whom
Jehovah lends]: "Incovvit [Vat. FA. -yer]; Alex.
Ieoia: Jesia). 1. A Korhite, one of the mighty
men, “helpers of the battle,’ who joined David's
standard at Ziklag during his flight from Saul (1
Chr. xii. 6).
2. (TW: "Iowd; [Vat. Ioera;] Alex. lecoua.)
The second son of Uzziel, the son of Kohath (1
Chr. xxiii. 20). He is the same as JESHIAH, whose
representative was Zechariah (1 Chr. xxiv. 25); but
our translators in the present instance followed the
Vulg., as they have too often done in the case of
proper names.
JESIWIEL (Omriny [whom God sets up
or places]: "Touana 3 [Vat. omits :] Jsmiel), a
Simeonite, descended from the prolific family of
Sbimei, and a prince of his own branch of the tribe,
whom he led against the peaceful Hamites in the
reign of Hezekiah (1 Chr. iv. 36).
JES’SE (OW, «. e. Ishai [perh. strong, Ges.,
or gift, i.e. of God, Dietr.J:% "lecoat; Joseph.
"Ieooaios: /sat: in the margin of 1 Chr. x. 14,
our translators have given the Vulgate form), the
father of David, and thus the immediate progenitor
of the whole line of the kings of Judah, and ulti-
mately of Christ. He is the only one of his name
who appears in the sacred records. Jesse was the
son of OBED, who again was the fruit of the union
of Boaz and the Moabitess Ruth. Nor was Ruth's
the only foreign ‘blood that ran in his veins; for his
great-grandmother was no less a person than Rahab
the Canaanite, of Jericho (Matt. i. 5). Jesse's
genealogy © is twice given in full in the Old Testa-
ment, namely, Ruth iv. 18-22, and 1 Chr. ii. 5-12.
We there see that, long before David had rendered
his family illustrious, it belonged to the greatest
house of Judah, that of Pharez, through Hezron
his eldest son. One of the links in the descent was
Nahshon (N. T. Naasson), chief man of the tribe
at the critical time of the Exodus. In the N. T.
the genealogy is also twice given (Matt. i. 3-5;
Luke iti. 32-34),
He is commonly designated as ‘“ Jesse the Beth-
lehemite’’ (1 Sam. xvi. 1, 18). So he is called by
his son David, then fresh from home (xvii. 58);
but his full title is “ the Ephrathite of Bethlehem
Judah ” (xvii. 12). The double expression and the
use of the antique word [phrathite perhaps imply
that he was one of the oldest families in the place.
He is an “old man” when we first meet with him
(1 Sam. xvii. 12), with eight sons (xvi. 10, xvii. 12),
residing at Bethlehem (xvi. 4, 5). It would appear,
however, from the terms of xvi. 4, 5, and of J osephus
(Ant. vi. 8,§ 1), that Jesse was not one of the
“elders” of the town. The few slight glimpses we
can catch of him are soon recalled. According to
es it from the root ai; yashar, * to be right
pright,” because Israel was “ upright among
nations;” as OVW, yeshdrim, “the up-
” (Num. xxiii. 10; Ps. cxi. 1) is a poetical
lation of the chosen people, who did that
a was right (7977, hay-ydshdr) in the eyes
hovah, in contradistinction from the idolatrous
1en who did that which was preéminently the
OW, ha-r’a), and worshipped false gods.
seems to have been the view adopted by Aquila,
nachus, and Theodotion — who, according to
iecount of their version given by Jerome (on
iy. 2), must have had ed6ds or edObraTos —
vy the Vulgate in three passages. Malvenda
ed in Poole’s Synopsis, Deut. xxxii. 15), tak-
he same root, applies it ironically to Israel.
he like reason, on the authority of the above-
oned Father, the book of Genesis was called
book of the just’ (ed@éwy), as relating to
istories of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. ‘The
nation 71" is either intensive, as the Vulgate
‘it, or an affectionate diminutive («“ Frémm-
” Hitzig, and Fiirst; “ Liebling,’ Hendewerk,
Bunsen). Simonis (Lex. Hebr. s. y., and
Form. Nom. p. 582) connects Jeshurun with
rabic root ye yasara, which in the second
‘signifies “to prosper,’’ and in the 4th “to be
ay,” and is thus cognate with the Hebrew
', dshar, which in Paul signifies “to be
1” With the intensive termination Jeshu-
lould then denote Israel as supremely happy
/sperous, and to this signification it must be
d_ the context in Deut. xxxii. 15 points.
-elis (Suppl. ad Lex. Heb.) considers it as a
ative of Israel, and would read ]37WY%, yis-
‘ontracted from PSTD, yisreclin. Such
1s the opinion of Grotius and Vitringa, and
author of the Veneto-Gk. version, who ren-
t IopaeAloxos. For this theory, though
‘ted by the weight of Gesenius’ authority, it
cely necessary to say there is not the smallest
ition, either in analogy or probability. In
plication of the name Jeshurun to Israel, we
‘seover that fondness for a play upon words
ich there are so many examples, and which
be allowed to have some influence in the
on of the appellation. But to derive the one
he other is a fancy unworthy of a scholar.
) other etymologies of the name may be
las showing to what lengths conjecture may
ee See ee
Tome (Liber de Nominibus) gives the strange
etation of insule libamen.
tis genealogy is embodied in the " Jesse tree,”
‘Kequently to be found in the reredos and east
85
windows of English churches. One ot the finest is at
Dorchester, Oxon. The tree springs frem Jesse, who
is recumbent at the bottom of the window, and con-
tains 25 members of the line, culminating in our Lord.
1346 JESSE
an ancient Jewish tradition, recorded in the Targum
on 2 Sam. xxi. 19, he was a weaver of the vails of
the sanctuary, but as there is no contradiction,
so there is no corroboration of this in the Bible,
and it is possible that it was suggested by the
occurrence of the word orgim, “ weavers,” in con-
nection with a member of his family. [JAARE-
OREGIM.] Jesse’s wealth seems to have consisted
of a flock of sheep and goats (NZ, A.V. “sheep’’),
which were under the care of David (xvi. 11, xvii.
34, 85). Of the produce of this flock we find him
on two occasions sending the simple presents which
in those days the highest persons were wont to
accept — slices of milk cheese to the captain of the
division of the army in which his sons were serving
(xvii. 18), and a kid to Saul (xvi. 20); with the
accompaniment in each case of parched corn from
the fields of Boaz, loaves of the bread from which
Bethlehem took its very name, and wine from the
vineyards which still enrich the terraces of the hill
below the village.
When David’s rupture with Saul had finally
driven him from the court, and he was in the cave
of Adullam, “his brethren and all his father’s
house”? joined him (xxii. 1). His brother” (prob-
ably Eliab) is mentioned on a former occasion (xx.
29) as.taking the lead in the family. This is no
more than we should expect from Jesse’s great age.
David’s anxiety at the same period to find a safe
refuge for his parents from the probable vengeance
of Saul is also quite in accordance with their help-
less condition. He took his father and his mother
into the country of Moab, and deposited them with
the king, and there they disappear from our view
in the records of Scripture. But another old Jewish
tradition (Rabboth Seder, SW}, 256, col. 2) states
that after David had quitted the hold, his parents
and brothers were put to death by the king of Moab,
so that there remained, besides David, but one
brother, who took refuge with Nahash, king of the
Bene-Ammon.
Who the wife of Jesse was we are not told. His
eight sons will be found displayed under Davin,
i. 552. The family contained in addition two
female members, Zeruiah and Abigail, but it is
uncertain whether these were Jesse’s daughters, for
though they are called the sisters of his sons (1 Chr.
ii. 16), yet Abigail is said to have been the daugh-
ter of Nahash (2 Sam. xvii. 25). Of this two
explanations have been proposed. (1.) The Jewish
— that NanasH was another name for Jesse
(Jerome, Q. Hebr. on 2 Sam. xvii. 254). (2.) Pro-
fessor Stanley’s—that Jesse’s wife had been formerly
wife or concubine to Nahash, possibly the king of
the Ammonites (DAVID, i. 552).
An English reader can hardly fail to remark
how often Jesse is mentioned long after the name
of David had become famous enough to supersede
a ee
@ This is given also in the Targum to Ruth iy. 22.
** And Obed begat Ishai (Jesse), whose name is Nachash,
because there were not found in him iniquity and cor-
ruption, that he should be delivered into the hand of
the Angel of Death that he should take away his soul
from him ; and he lived many days until was fulfilled
before Jehovah the counsel which the Serpent gave to
Chavvah the wife of Adam, to eat of the tree, of the
fruit of which when they did eat they were able to
discern between good and evil; and by reason of this
counsel all the inhabiters of the earth became guilty
=
JESUS THE SON OF SIRAC
that of his obscure and humble parent,
David was a struggling outlaw, it was nator,
to friend and foe—to Saul, Doeg, and Nal
less than to the captains of Judah and Benja
he should be merely the “son of Jesse” (
xxil. 9, 13; comp. xxiv. 16, xxv. 10; 1 Chr. xi
but that Jesse’s name should be brought fe
in records of so late a date as 1 Chr. xxix. 2
Ps. Ixxii. 20, long after the establishment of D
own house, is certainly worthy of notice.
cially is it to be observed that it is in his na
the “shoot out of the stump of Jesse . . ,
root of Jesse which should stand as an ens
the people” (Is. xi. 1, 10), that Isaiah annc
the most splendid of his promises, intended to
and cheer the heart of the nation at the time
deepest despondency.
JES’SUE (‘Incois: Alex. 'Incové; [Ald
cové:] Jesu), a Levite, the same as Jeshua (1
v. 26; comp. Ezr. ii. 40). fl
JESU (Ingois: Jesu), the same as J
the Levite, the father of Jozabad (1 Esdr. yij
see zr. viii. 33), also called Jessux, and Jz
JESUL (YW [even, level] : "lecod;
Iecou: Jessut), the son of Asher, whose descer
THE JESUITES were numbered in the plai
Moab at the Jordan of Jericho (Num. xxv
He is elsewhere called [sur (Gen. xlvi. 17
IsHUAI (1 Chr. vii. 80).
JES UITES, THE (02977: 8 "tecout
-e1]: Jessuitw). A family of the tribe of |
(Num. xxvi. 44).
JESU’RUN. [Jesuurun.]
JESUS (Inaois: Jesu, Jesus, Josue’
Greek form of the name Joshua or Jeshua, Fr
traction of Jehoshua (YW), that is, « hi
Jehovah” or “ Saviour’ (Num. xiii. 16). )
HOSHUA. ]
1. Joshua the priest, the son of Jehozad
Esdr. v. 5, 8, 24, 48, 56, 68, 70, vi. 2, isi
Keclus. xlix. 12). Also called Jeshua. [Jes
No. 4.]
2. (Jesus.) Jeshua the Levite (1 Esdr. |
ix. 48).
3. Joshua the son of Nun (2 Esdr. vii
Ecclus. xlvi. 1; 1 Mace. ii. 55; Acts vii. 45;
iv. 8). [JosHuA.]
JE/SUS THE FATHER OF SIR4!
[Jesus THE Son or Siracu.]
JE’SUS THE SON OF SIRACH (‘lo
vids Sewpdx [Alex. Sipax]: Jesus jfilius Sve
is described in the text of Ecclesiasticus (1. :
the author of that book, which in the LXX
generally, except in the Western Church, is
by his name the Wisdom of Jesus the Si
aes.
of death, and in that iniquity only died Ishil
righteous.” |
6 * In the phraseology here referred to, the id
will recognize the taste of the oriental mind, 1
delights in a sort of poetic paraphrase. Heni!
frequent phrase, ‘Son of David,’ * Seed of Did
etc., as applied to Christ. The son is often desig't
by the father’s name, as above, where the lat)
known only through such association of his na §
in the address to Barak: “Thou son of Abin®
(Judg. v. 12), and the Saviour’s appeal to 1]#
** Simon, son of Jonas * (John xxi. 15). 8.
JESUS JESUS CHRIST 1347
, or simply the Wisdom of Sirach (Eo-
asTicus, § 1). The same passage speaks
as a native of Jerusalem (Ecclus. /. c.); and
ternal character of the book confirms its
nian origin. The name JEsus was of fre-
occurrence, and was often represented by the
Jason. In the apocryphal list of the Lxx11
ssioners sent by Kleazar to Ptolemy it occurs
Arist. Hist. ap. Hody, De text. p. vii.); but
s not the slightest ground for connecting the
of Ecclesiasticus with either of the persons
mentioned. The various conjectures which
een made as to the position of the son of
from the contents of his book; as, for
e, that he was a priest (from vii. 29 ff., xlv.,
), or a physician (from xxxviii. 1 ff.), are
unfounded.
mg the later Jews the “ Son of Sirach ’’ was
ted under the name of Ben Sira as a writer
verbs, and some of those which have been
ed offer a close resemblance to passages in
asticus [ECCLEsIAsTIcus, § 4, vol. i. p. 651,
; but in the course of time a later com-
| was substituted for the original work of
ra (Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. d. Juden, p. 100
| tradition has preserved no authentic details
erson or his life.
chronological difficulties which have been
s to the date of the Son of Sirach have been
noticed [EccLesrAsticus, § 4], and do
for further discussion.
rding to the first prologue to the book of
sticus, taken from the Synopsis of the
Athanasius (iv. p. 377, ed. Migne), the
or of the book bore the same name as the
fit. If this conjecture were true, a gene-
the following form would result: 1. Sirach.
's, son (father) of Sirach (author of the
8. Sirach. 4. Jesus, son of Sirach (trans-
| the book). It is, however, most likely
» last chapter, “ The prayer of Jesus the
Sirach,” gave occasion to this conjecture.
yer was attributed to the translator, and
@ table of succession followed necessarily
} title attached to it. B. F. W.
{US ['Inoods], called JUSTUS [just],
‘an who was with St. Paul at Rome, and
ie, in sending salutations to the Colossians.
me of the fellow-workers who were a com-
the Apostle (Col. iv. 11). In the Acta
un. iv. 67, he is commemorated as bishop
‘ieropolis. We 10223.
Is Jesus or Justus cannot be identical with
t at Corinth (Acts xviii. 7). The one
anoint) signifies Anointed. Priests were anointed
amongst the Jews, as their inauguration to their
office (L Chr. xvi. 22; Ps. ev. 15), and kings also
(2 Mace. i, 24; Ecclus. xlvi. 19). In the New
Testament the name Christ is used as equivalent
to Messiah (Greek Meooias; Hebrew rw:
John i. 41), the name given ‘to the long promised
Prophet and King whom the Jews had been taught
by their prophets to expect; and therefore = 6
epxduevos (Acts xix. 4; Matt. xi. 3). The use
of this name as applied to the Lord has always a
reference to the promises of the Prophets. In Matt.
ii. 4, xi. 2, it is assumed that the Christ when He
should come would live and act in a certain way,
described by the Prophets. So Matt. xxii. 42, xxiii.
10, xxiv. 5, 23; Mark xii. 35, xiii. 21; Luke iii. 15,
xx. 41; John vii. 27, 31, 41, 42, xii. 34, in all which
places there is a reference to the Messiah as de-
lineated by the Prophets. That they had foretold
that Christ should suffer appears Luke xxiv. 26, 46.
The name of Jesus is the proper name of our Lord,
and that of Christ is added to identify Him with
the promised Messiah. Other names are sometimes
added to the names Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus:
thus “ Lord’’ (frequently), “a King’ (added as a
kind of explanation of the word Christ, Luke xxiii.
2), “ King of Israel”’ (Mark xv. 32), Son of David
(Mark xii. 85; Luke xx. 41), chosen of God (Luke
xxiii. 35).
Remarkable are such expressions as “the Christ
of God”? (Luke ii. 26, ix. 20; Rev. xi. 15, xii. 10);
and the phrase * in Christ,’ which occurs about
78 times in the Epistles of St. Paul, and is almost
peculiar to them. But the germ of it is to be found
in the words of our Lord Himself, “ Abide in me,
and Tin you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of
itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye,
except ye abide in me” (John xv. 4, also 5, 6,
7, 9,10). The idea that all Christian life is not
merely an imitation and following of the Lord, but
a living and constant union with Him, causes the
Apostle to use such expressions as “ fallen asleep
in Christ’? (1 Cor. xv. 18), “I knew a man in
Christ’? (2 Cor. xii. 2), “I speak the truth in
Christ” (1 Tim. ii. 7), and many others. (See
Schleusner’s Lexicon ; Wahl’s Clavis ; Fritzsche on
St. Matthew ; De Wette’s Commentary ; Schmidt's
Greek Concordance, etc.)
The Life, the Person, and the Work of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ occupy the whole of the
New Testament. Of this threefold subject the
present article includes the first part, namely, the
Life and Teaching; the Person of our Lord will he
treated under the article Son of Gop; and His
Work will naturally fall under the word SAviour.
Towards the close of the reign of Herod the
Great, arrived that “fullness of time’? which God
in His inscrutable wisdom had appointed for the
sending of His Son; and Jesus was born at Beth-
lehem, to redeem a sinful and ruined world. Ac-
cording to the received chronology, which is in fact
that of Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, this
event occurred in the year of Rome 754. But
modern writers, with hardly an exception, believe
that this calculation places the nativity some years
too late; although they differ as to the amount of
error. Herod the Great died, according to Josephus,
in the thirty-seventh year after he was appointed
king (Ant. xvii. 8, § 1; B../J. i. 33, § 8). His
elevation coincides with the consulship of Cn.
Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio, and this
tioned was a Jewish Christian (one “of the
jon,” Col. iv. 11), but the other a Gentile
| been a Jewish proselyte (ceBduevos roy
ore he embraced the Gospel. [J USTUS. |
1JS CHRIST. The name Jesus (Incods)
“Saviour. Its origin is explained above,
ms to have been not an uncommon name
e Jews. It is assigned in the New Testa-
to our Lord Jesus Christ, who “saves
Te from their sins” (Matt. i. 21); also
‘hua the successor of Moses, who brought
‘Ites into the land of promise (Num. xxvii.
MS vii. 45; Heb. iv. 8); and (3) to Jesus
Justus, a converted Jew, associated with
M Col. iv. 11),
° me of Christ (Xpiords from xplw, I
d
(
1348 JESUS CHRIST
determines the date A. U. c. 714 (Joseph. Ant. xiv.
14, § 5). There is reason to think that in such
calculations Josephus reckons the years from the
month Nisan to the same month; and also that
the death of Herod took place in the beginning of
the thirty-seventh year, or just before the Passover
(Joseph. Ant. xvii. 9, § 3); if then thirty-six com-
plete years are added they give the year of Herod’s
death A. u. C. 750 (see Note on Chronology at the
end of this article). As Jesus was born during
the life of Herod, it follows from these data that
the Nativity took place some time before the month
of April 750, and if it took place only a few months
before Herod’s death, then its date would be
four years earlier than the Dionysian reckoning
(Wieseler).
Three other chronological data occur in the
Gospels, but the arguments founded on them are
not conclusive. 1. The Baptism of Jesus was fol-
lowed by a Passover (John ii. 13), at which certain
Jews mention that the restoration of their Temple
had been in progress for forty-six years (ii. 20),
Jesus himself being at this time ‘about: thirty
years of age’’ (Luke iii. 23). As the date of the
Temple-restoration can be ascertained, it has been
argued from these facts also that the nativity took
place at the beginning of a. uv. c. 750. But it is
sometimes argued that the words that determine
our Lord’s age are not exact enough to serve as the
basis for such a calculation. 2. The appearance
of the star to the wise men has been thought likely,
by the aid of astronomy, to determine the date.
But the opinion that the star in the East was a
remarkable conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in
the sign Pisces, is now rejected. Besides the dif-
ficulty of reconciling it with the sacred narrative
(Matt. ii. 9) it would throw back the birth of our
Lord to A. vu. C. 747, which is too early. 3.
Zacharias was ‘a priest of the course of Abia”
(Luke i. 5), and he was engaged in the duties of
his course when the birth of John the Baptist was
foretold to him; and it has been thought possible
to calculate, from the place which the course of
Abia held in the cycle, the precise time of the
Saviour’s birth. All these data are discussed below
(p. 1381).
In treating of the Life of Jesus, a perfect record
of the events would be no more than a reproduction
of the four Gospels, and a discussion of those events
would swell to the compass of a voluminous com-
mentary. Neither of these would be appropriate
here, and in the present article a brief sketch only
of the Life can be attempted, drawn up with a view
to the two remaining articles, on the Son oF Gop
and SAVIOUR.
The Man who was to redeem all men and do
- for the human race what no one could do for his
brother, was not born into the world as others are.
The salutation addressed by the Angel to Mary His
mother, “ Hail! Thou that art highly favored,”
was the prelude to a new act of divine creation; the
first Adam, that sinned, was not born but created;
the second Adam, that restored, was born indeed,
but in supernatural fashion. ‘The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest
shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy
thing which shall be born of thee shall be called
the Son of God”? (Luke i. 35). Mary received the
announcement of a miracle, the full import of which
she could not have understood, with the submis-
sion of one who knew that the message came from
God; and the Angel departed from her. At first,
JESUS CHRIST
her betrothed husband, when he heard f
what had taken place, doubted her, but <
natural communication convinced him of her
and he took her to be his wife. Not only
approaching birth of Jesus made the sul
supernatural communications, but that of J
Baptist the forerunner also. Thus before t
of either had actually taken place, a small
persons had been prepared to expect the ful
of the divine promises in the Holy One that
be born of Mary (uke i.).
The prophet Micah had foretold (y. 2) 1
future king should be born in Bethlehem of
the place where the house of David had its
but Mary dwelt in Nazareth. Augustus, }
had ordered a general census of the Roman
and although Judéea, not being a province
empire, would not necessarily come under
order, it was included, probably because th
tion was already conceived of reducing it
time to the condition of a province (see |
Chronology). That such a census was n
know from Cassiodorus ( Vas. iii. 52). The
application to Palestine it should be mac
reference to Jewish feelings and prejudice:
carried out no doubt by Herod the Jewis
was quite natural; and so Joseph and Ma
to Bethlehem, the city of David, to be taxed.
the well-known and much-canvassed passag
Luke (ii. 2) it appears that the taxing 1
completed till the time of Quirinus (Cyreniu:
years later; and how far it was carried now,
be determined; all that we learn is that it |
Joseph, who was of the house of David, f
home to Bethlehem, where the Lord was bo
there was no room in the inn, a manger '
cradle in which Christ the Lord was laic
signs were not wanting of the greatness of tl
that seemed so unimportant. Lowly sh
were the witnesses of the wonder that accor
the lowly Saviour’s birth; an angel procla
them “good tidings of great joy;” and t
exceeding joy that was in heaven amongst th
about this mystery of love broke through th’
of night with the words — “ Glory to God
highest, and on earth peace, good will
men’? (Luke ii. 8-20). We need not supp’
these simple men were cherishing in thei)
the expectation of the Messiah which oth
relinquished; they were chosen from the |
as were our Lord’s companions afterwards, |
to show that God “hath chosen the weal)
of the world to confound the things wl
mighty” (1 Cor. i. 26-31), and that the 1’
meek could apprehend the message of salt!
which kings and priests could turn a deaf i
The subject of the Genealogy of our !
given by St. Matthew and St. Luke, is ¢?
fully in another article. [See GENEAL'
JESUS CHRIST. |
The child Jesus is circumcised in due!
brought to the Temple, and the mother m
offering for her purification. That offerine’
its peculiar meaning in this case, which w‘
of new creation, and not a birth after the
order of our fallen nature. But the see
new kingdom was to grow undiscernibly as
exemption was claimed by the ‘highly 1?
mother, and no portent intervened. She 1
humble offering like any other Judzan mo?"
would have gone her way unnoticed; but ©
God suffered not His beloved Son to be ¥™
JESUS CHRIST
ess, and Simeon and Anna, taught from God
the object of their earnest longings was before
1, prophesied of His divine work: the one re-
ng that his eyes had seen the salvation of God,
the other speaking of Him “ to all that looked
edemption in Jerusalem ’’ (Luke ii. 28-38).
hus recognized amongst His own people, the
our was not without witness amongst the
hen. “Wise men from the East’? — that is,
ian magi of the Zend religion, in which the idea
_ Zoziosh or Redeemer was clearly known —
ed miraculously by a star or meteor created for
purpose, came and sought out the Saviour to
him homage. We have said that in the year
occurred a remarkable combination of the
ats Jupiter and Saturn, and this is supposed
» the sign by which the wise men knew that
virth of some great one had taken place. But,
is been said, the date does not agree with this
, and the account of the Evangelist. describes a
e star moving before them and guiding their
. We must suppose that God saw good to
x to the magi in their own way: they were
ng light from the study of the stars, whence
physical light could be found, and He guided
1 to the Source of spiritual light, to the cradle
is Son, by a star miraculously made to appear
iem, and to speak intelligibly to them through
’ preconceptions. The offerings which they
ght have been regarded as symbolical: the gold
tribute to a king, the frankincense was for the
fa priest, and the myrrh for a body preparing
he tomb —
{urea nascenti fuderunt munera regi, .
‘hura dedere Deo, myrrham tribuere sepulto,”
‘Sedulius: but in a more general view these
_at any rate the offerings made by worshippers,
in that light must the magi be regarded. The
ts connected with the birth of our Lord are
gnificant, and here some of the wisest of the
en kneel before the Redeemer as the first-fruits
te Gentiles, and as a sign that his dominion
ito be not merely Jewish, but as wide as the
e world. (See Matt. ii. 1-12; Miinter, Der
n der Weisen, Copenhagen, 1827; the Com-
varies of Alford, Williams, Olshausen, and
oner, where the opinions as to the nature of
tar are discussed. )
little child made the great Herod quake upon
hrone. When he knew that the magi were
+ to hail their King and Lord, and did not
at his palace, but passed on to a humbler roof,
when he found that they would not return to
'y this child to him, he put, to death all the
Yen in Bethlehem that were under two years
| The crime was great; but the number of the
‘ns, in a little place like Bethlehem, was small
gh to escape special record amongst the wicked
‘of Herod from Josephus and other historians,
‘had no political interest. A confused indica-
of it, however, is found in Macrobius (Saturn.
i}
»seph, warned by a dream, flees to Egypt with
oung child, beyond the reach of Herod’s arm.
‘flight of our Lord from his own land to the
of darkness and idolatry — a land associated
‘toa proverb with all that was hostile to God
his people, impresses on us the reality of his
iliation. Herod’s cup was well nigh full; and
00m that soon overtook him could have arrested
‘then in his bloody attempt; but Jesus, in
JESUS CHRIST 1349
accepting humanity, accepted all its incidents. He
was saved, not by the intervention of God, but by
the obedience of Joseph; and from the storms of
persecution He had to use the common means of
escape (Matt. ii. 13-23; Thomas 4 Kempis, iii. 15,
and Commentaries). After the death of Herod, in
less than a year, Jesus returned with his parents to
their own land, and went to Nazareth, where they
abode.
Except as to one event the Evangelists are silent
upon the succeeding years of our Lord’s life down
to the commencement of his ministry. When He
was twelve years old He was found in the temple,
hearing the doctors and asking them questions
(Luke ii. 40-52). We are shown this one fact that
we may know that at the time when the Jews con-
sidered childhood to be passing into youth, Jesus
was already aware of his mission, and consciously
preparing for it, although years elapsed before its
actual commencement. This fact at once confirms
and illustrates such a general expression as “ Jesus
increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with
God and man”’ (Luke ii. 52). His public ministry
did not begin with a sudden impulse, but was pre-
pared for by his whole life. The consciousness of
his divine nature and power grew and ripened and
strengthened until the time of his showing unto
Israel.
Thirty years had elapsed from the birth of our
Lord to the opening of his ministry. In that time
great changes had come over the chosen people.
Herod the Great had united under him almost all
the original kingdom of David; after the death of
that prince it was dismembered for ever. Archelaus
succeeded to the kingdom of Judzea, under the title
of Ethnarch; Herod Antipas became tetrarch of
Galilee and Perzea, and Philip tetrarch of Tracho-
nitis, Gaulonitis, Batanzea, and Paneas. The Em-
peror Augustus promised Archelaus the title of
king, if he should prove worthy; but in the tenth
year of his reign (U. C. 759) he was deposed in
deference to the hostile feelings of the Jews, was
banished to Vienne in Gaul, and from that time ~
his dominions passed under the direct power of
Rome, being annexed to Syria, and governed by a
procurator. No king nor ethnarch held Judea
afterwards, if we except the three years when it was
under Agrippa I. Marks are not wanting of the
irritation kept up in the minds of the Jews by the
sight of a foreigner exercising acts of power over
the people whom David once ruled. The publicans
(portitores) who collected tribute for the Roman
empire were everywhere detested; and as a marked
class is likely to be a degraded one, the Jews saw
everywhere the most despised among the people
exacting from them all, and more than all (Luke
ili, 13), that the foreign tyrant required. Constant
changes were made by the same power in the office
of high-priest, perhaps from a necessary policy.
Josephus says that there were twenty-eight high-
priests from the time of Herod to the burning of
the Temple (Ant. xx. 10). The sect of Judas the
Gaulonite, which protested against paying tribute
to Cesar, and against bowing the neck to an alien
yoke, expressed a conviction which all Jews shared.
The sense of oppression and wrong would tend to
shape all the hopes of a Messiah, so far as they still
existed, to the conception of a warrior who should
deliver them from a hateful political bondage.
It was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius the Em-
peror, reckoning from his joint rule with Augustus
(Jan. U. Cc. 765), and not from his sole rule (Aug.
1850 JESUS CHRIST
U. C. 767), that John the Baptist began to teach.
In this year (U. c. 779) Pontius Pilate was pro-
curator of Judea, the worldly and time-serving
representative of a cruel and imperious master ;
Herod Antipas and Philip still held the tetrarchies
left them by their father. Annas and Caiaphas are
both described as holding the office of high-priest ;
Annas was deposed by Valerius Gratus in this very
year, and his son-in-law Joseph, called also Caiaphas,
was appointed, after some changes, in his room;
but Annas seems to have retained after this time
(John xviii. 13) much of the authority of the office,
which the two administered together. John the
Baptist, of whom a full account is given below
under his own name, came to preach in the wilder-
ness. He was the last representative of the prophets
of the old covenant; and his work was twofold —
to enforce repentance and the terrors of the old law,
and to revive the almost forgotten expectation of
the Messiah (Matt. iii. 1-10; Mark i. 1-8; Luke
lii. 1-18). Both these objects, which are very
apparent in his preaching, were connected equally
with the coming of Jesus, since the need of a
Saviour from sin is not felt but when sin itself is
felt to be a bondage and a terror. The career of
John seems to have been very short; and it has
heen asked how such great influence could have
Leen attained in a short time (Matt. iii. 5). But
his was a powerful nature which soon took posses-
sion of those who came within its reach; and his
success becomes less surprising if we assume with
Wieseler that the preaching took place in a sab-
batical year (Baumgarten, Geschichte Jesu, 40).
It is an old controversy whether the baptism of
John was a new institution, or an imitation of the
baptism of proselytes as practiced by the Jews.
But at all events there is no record of such a rite,
conducted in the name of and with reference to a
particular person (Acts xix. 4), before the ministry
of John. Jesus came to Jordan with the rest to
receive this rite at John’s hands; first, in order
that the sacrament by which all were hereafter to
be admitted into his kingdom might not want his
example to justify its use (Matt. iii. 15); next, that
John might have an assurance that his course as
the herald of Christ was now completed by his ap-
pearance (John i. 83); and last, that some public
token might be given that He was indeed the
Anointed of God (Heb. v. 5). A supposed dis-
crepancy between Matt. iii. 14 and John i. 31, 33,
disappears when we remember that from the rela-
tionship between the families of John and our Lord
(Luke i.), John must have known already some-
thing of the power, goodness, and wisdom of Jesus;
what he did not know was, that this same Jesus
was the very Messiah for whom he had come to
prepare the world. Our Lord received the rite of
baptism at his seryant’s hands, and the Father
attested Him by the voice of the Spirit, which also
was seen descending on Him in a visible shape:
“This is my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased ” (Matt. iii. 13-17; Mark i. 9-11; Luke
iii. 21, 22).
Immediately after this inauguration of his min-
istry Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilder-
ness to be tempted of the Devil (Matt. iv. 1-11;
Mark i. 12,13; Luke iy. 1-13). As the baptism
of our Lord cannot have been for Him the token
of repentance and intended reformation which it
was for sinful men, so dues our Lord’s sinlessness
affect the nature of his temptation; for it was the
trial of one who could not possibly have fallen.
¢
’
JESUS CHRIST
This makes a complete conception of the tem
impossible for minds wherein temptation jg
associated with the possibility of sin. But
we must be content with an incomplete cone
we must avoid the wrong conceptions that a1
substituted for it. Some suppose the aceo:
fore us to describe what takes place in a yi
ecstasy of our Lord; so that both the tem
and its answer arise from within. Others
that the temptation was suggested from with
in a state, not of sleep or ecstasy, but of e
consciousness. Others consider this narraj
have been a parable of our Lord, of which |
made Himself the subject. All these suppc
set aside the historical testimony of the G
the temptation as there described arose no
the sinless mind of the Son of God, where
thoughts of evil could not have harbored, bu
Satan, the enemy of the human race. Nor
be supposed that this account is a mere P
unless we assume that Matthew and Luke
wholly misunderstood their Master’s meaning
story is that of a fact, hard indeed to be
stood, but not to be made easier by explar
such as would invalidate the only testimo
which it rests (Heubner’s Practical Comm
on Matthew).
The three temptations are addressed to the
forms in which the disease of sin makes its a
ance on the soul — to the solace of sense, a1
love of praise, and the desire of gain (1 Jo
16). But there is one element common to
all — they are attempts to call up a willft
wayward spirit in contrast to a patient self-de
one. ‘
In the first temptation the Redeemer
hungered, and when the Devil bids Him, if 1
the Son of God, command that the stones n
made bread, there would seem to be no gre:
in this use of divine power to overcome the pr
human want. Our Lord’s answer is requir
show us where the essence of the temptatior
He takes the words of Moses to the childr
Israel (Deut. viii. 3), which mean, not that
must dispense with bread and feed only o
study of the divine word, but that our meat
drink, our food and raiment, are all the work
creating hand of God; and that, a sense of de
ence on God is the duty of man. He tell
tempter that as the sons of Israel standing i
wilderness were forced to humble themselves
to wait upon the hand of God for the bread
heaven which He gave them, so the Son of -
fainting in the wilderness from hunger, wi
humble and will wait upon his Father in he
for the word that shall bring Him food, anc
not be hasty to deliver Himself from that deper
state, but will wait patiently for the gifts o
goodness. In the second temptation, it is not |
able that they left the wilderness, but that
was allowed to suggest to our Lord’s mind
place, and the marvel that could be wrought t
They stood, as has been suggested, on the
porch that overhung the Valley of Kedron, ¥
the steep side of the valley was added to the hi
of the Temple (Joseph. Ant. xv. 11, § 5), and
a depth that the eye could scarcely haye bor!
look down upon. “ Cast thyself down ”’ — per
in the Holy City, in a public place, a wonder '
will at once make all men confess that non
the Son of God could perform it. A pas
from the 91st Psalm is quoted to give a col)
JESUS: CHRIST JESUS CHRIST 1351
ment. Our Lord replies by an allusion
other text that carries us back again to the
lites wandering in the wilderness: “ Ye shali
empt the Lord your God, as ye tempted Him
assah ” (Deut. vi. 16). Their conduct is more
described by the Psalmist as a tempting of
, “ They tempted God in their heart by asking
for their lust; yea, they spake against God:
said, Can God furnish a table in the wilder-
» Behold he smote the rock that the waters
ed out, and the streams overflowed. Can He
pread also? Can He provide flesh for his
e?” (Ps. lxxviii.) Just parallel was the
tation here. God has protected Thee so far,
zht Thee up, put his seal upon Thee by man-
proofs of his favor. Can He do this also?
He send the angels to buoy Thee up in Thy
nt? Can He make the air thick to sustain,
the earth soft to receive Thee? The appro-
2 answer is, ‘* Thou shalt not tempt the Lord
zod.”” In the third temptation it is not
ed that there is any mountain from which the
of common men can see the world and its
loms at once displayed; it was with the mental
1 of One who knew all things that these king-
and their glory were seen. And Satan has
yegun to discover, if he knew not from the
ning, that One is here who can become the
over them all. He says, “ All these things
give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship
In St. Luke the words are fuller: “ All this
‘will I give Thee, and the glory of them, for
$ delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will
2 it:”” but these words are the lie of the
er, which he uses to mislead. “ Thou art
to be great — to be a King on the earth; but
‘strong, and will resist Thee. Thy followers
de imprisoned and slain; some of them shall
way through fear; others shall forsake Thy
\loving this present world. Cast in Thy lot
ne; let Thy kingdom be an earthly kingdom,
he greatest of all—a kingdom such as the
jeek to see established on the throne of David.
iip me by living as the children of this world
‘nd so honoring me in Thy life: then all shall
‘ne.’ The Lord knows that the tempter is
yn foretelling such trials to Him; but though
(and darkness hang over the path of his min-
Je must work the work of Him that sent
and not another work: He must worship
fad none other. ‘Get thee hence, Satan; for
vitten, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
im only shalt thou serve.” As regards the
of the temptations, there are internal marks
‘e account of St. Matthew assigns them their
al order: St. Luke transposes the two last,
‘ich various reasons are suggested by com-
by. (Matt. iv. 1-11; Mark i. 12, 13; Luke
} ).
Moses (Ex. iii. 20, vii.-xi.) delivered the people of
Israel from Egypt by means of them; and Joshua,
following in his steps, enjoyed the same power for
the completion of his work (Josh. iii. 13-16). Sam-
son (Judg. xv. 19), Elijah (1 K. xvii. 10, &.), and
Elisha (2 K. ii.-vi.) possessed the same gift. The
prophets foretold that the Messiah, of whom Moses
was the type, would show signs and wonders as he
had done. Isaiah, in describing his kingdom, says
— Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. ‘Then
shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue
of the dumb sing” (xxxv. 5, 6). According to
the same prophet, the Christ was called “to open
the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the
prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the
prison-house”’ (xlii. 7). And all who looked for
the coming of the Messiah expected that the power
of miracles would be one of the tokens of his com-
mission. When John the Baptist, in his prison,
heard of the works of Jesus, he sent his disciples
to inquire, “Art Thou He that should come (6
€pxduevos =the Messiah), or do we look for an-
other?’ Our Lord, in answer to this, only points
to his miracles, leaving to John the inference from
them, that no one could do such works except the
promised One. When our Lord cured a blind and
dumb demoniac, the people, struck with the mira-
cle, said, * Is not this the Son of David? ”? (Matt.
xii. 23). On another like occasion it was asked,
“When Christ cometh will He do more miracles
than these which this man hath done?” (John vii.
31). So that the expectation that Messiah would
work miracles existed amongst the people, and was
founded on the language of prophecy. Our Lord’s
miracles are described in the New Testament by
several names: they are signs (oneta), wonders
(répara), works (%pya, most frequently in St.
John), and mighty works (Suvduers), according to
the point of view from which they are regarded.
They are indeed astonishing works, wrought as
signs of the might and presence of God; and they
are powers or mighty works because they are such
as no power short of the divine could have effected.
But if the object had been merely to work wonders,
without any other aim than to astonish the minds
of the witnesses, the miracles of our Lord would
not have been the best means of producing the
effect, since many of them were wrought for the
good of obscure people, before witnesses chiefly of
the humble and uneducated class, and in the course
of the ordinary life of our Lord, which lay not
amongst those who made it their special business
to inquire into the claims of a prophet. When
requests were made for a more striking sign than
those which He had wrought, for “a sign from
heaven ’’ (Luke xi. 16), it was refused. When
the tempter suggested that He should cast Himsell
down from the pinnacle of the Temple before all
men, the temptation was rejected.’ The miracles of
our Lord were to be, not wonders merely, but signs;
and not merely signs of preternatural power, but of
the scope and character of his ministry, and of the
divine nature of his Person. This will be evident
from an examination of those which are more par-
ticularly described in the Gospels. Nearly forty
cases of this kind appear; but that they are only
examples taken out of a very great number, the
Evangelists frequently remind us (John ii. 23;
Matt. viii. 16 and parall.; iv. 23; xii. 15 and par-
all.; Luke vi. 19; Matt. xi. 5; xiii. 58; ix. 35,
xiv. 14, 36; xv. 30; xix. 2; xxi, 14). These cases
wting for a time the historical order, we
ad that the records of this first portion of
istry, from the temptation to the transfig-
, consist mainly — (1) of miracles, which
is divine commission; (2) of discourses and
§ on the doctrine of “the kingdom of
3” (8) of incidents showing the behavior
pus persons when brought into contact with
The two former may require some gen-
‘marks, the last will unfold themselves with
‘ative.
he Miracles. — The power of working mir-
|
‘8 granted to many under the Old Covenant:
1852 JESUS CHRIST
might be classified. There are three instances of
restoration to life, each under peculiar conditions:
the daughter of Jairus was lately dead; the wid-
ow’s son at Nain was being carried out to the
grave; and Lazarus had been four days dead, and
was returning to corruption (Matt. ix. 18; Luke
vii. 11, 12; John xi. 1, &.). There are about six
cases of demoniac possession, each with its own
circumstances: one in the synagogue at Caper-
naum, where the unclean spirit bore witness to
Jesus as “the holy one of God’’ (Mark i. 24); a
second, that of the man who dwelt among the
tombs in the’ country of the Gadarenes, whose
state is so forcibly described by St. Mark (v. 2),
and who also bore witness to Him as “the Son of
the Most High God; ’”’ a third, the case of a dumb
man (Matt. ix. 82); a fourth, that of a youth who
was brought to Him as He came down from the
Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 15), and
whom the disciples had vainly tried to heal; a
fifth, that of another dumb man, whom the Jews
thought he had healed “through Beelzebub the
prince of the devils ”’ (Luke xi. 15); and a sixth,
that of the Syro-Phenician girl whose mother’s
faith was so tenacious (Matt. xv. 22). There are
about seventeen recorded cases of the cure of bodily
sickness, including fever, leprosy, palsy, inveterate
weakness, the maimed limb, the issue of blood of
twelve years’ standing, dropsy, blindness, deafness,
and dumbness (John iv. 47; Matt. viii. 2, 14, ix.
2; John v. 5; Matt. xii. 10, viii. 5, ix. 20, 27;
Mark viii. 22; John ix. 1; Luke xiii. 10, xvii. 11,
xviii. 85, xxii. 51). These three groups of mira-
cles all pertain to one class; they all brought help
to the suffering or sorrowing, and proclaimed what
love the Man that did them bore towards the chil-
dren of men. ‘There is another class, showing a
complete control over the powers of nature; first by
acts of creative power, as when in the beginning
of his ministry He made the water wine; and when
He fed at one time five thousand, and at another
four, with bread miraculously provided (John ii. 7,
vi. 10; Matt. xv. 82); secondly, by setting aside
natural laws and conditions — now in passing un-
seen through a hostile crowd (Luke iv. 30); now
in procuring miraculous draughts of fishes, when
the fisher’s skill had failed (Luke v. 4; John xxi.
6); now in stilling a tempest (Matt. viii. 26); now
in walking to his disciples on the sea (Matt. xiv.
25); now in the transformation of his countenance
by a heavenly light and glory (Matt. xvii. 1); and
again in seeking and finding the shekel for the cus-
tomary tribute to the Temple in the fish’s mouth
(Matt. xvii. 27). In a third class of these mira-
cles we find our Lord overawing the wills of men;
as when He twice cleared the Temple of the traders
(John ii. 18; Matt. xxi. 12); and when his look
staggered the officers that came to take Him (John
xviii. 6). And in a fourth subdivision will stand
one miracle only, where his power was used for
destruction — the case of the barren fig-tree (Matt.
xxi. 18). The destruction of the herd of swine
does not properly rank here; it was a permitted act
of the devils which he cast out, and is no more to
be laid to the account of the Redeemer than are all
the sicknesses and sufferings in the land of the
@ The Saviour’s miracles are —
In raising the dead.
In curing mental disease.
In healing the body.
I, Of love
JESUS CHRIST
Jews which He permitted to waste and de
having, as He showed by his miracles, abu
power to prevent them. All the miracles ¢
latter class show our Lord to be one who wiel
power of God. No one can suspend the la
nature save Him who made them: when br
wonderfully multiplied, and the fickle sea be
a firm floor to walk on, the God of the unive
working the change, directly or through his d
Very remarkable, as a claim to divine power,
mode in which Jesus justified acts of heali)
the Sabbath — “* My Father worketh hithert
I work’? (John y. 17): which means, “ As
the Father, even on the Sabbath-day, keeps :
laws of the universe at work, making the p
roll, and the grass grow, and the animal
beat, so do I my work; I stand above the
the Sabbath, as He does.” « ;
On reviewing all the recorded miracles, we
once that they are signs of the nature of Cl
Person and mission. None of them are
merely to astonish; and hardly any of them
of those which prove his power more than hi
but tend directly towards the good of m
some way or other. They show how activ
unwearied was his love; they also show the
sity of its operation. Every degree of h
need —from Lazarus now returning to d.
through the palsy that has seized on brai
nerves, and is almost death — through the |
which, appearing on the skin, was really a
poison that had tainted every drop of blood
veins — up to the injury to the particular hi
received succor from the powerful word of (€
and to wrest his buried friend from. corruptic
the worm was neither more nor less difficul)
to heal a withered hand or restore to its pli
ear that had been cut off. And this intimat
nection of the miracles with the work of Chri
explain the fact that faith was in many
required as a condition for their perforr
According to the common definition of a 4
any one would seem to be a capable witness |
performance: yet Jesus sometimes refrained)
working wonders before the unbelieving (Mi
5, 6), and sometimes did the work that was |
of him because of the faith of them that as!
(Mark vii. 29). The miracles were inten¢
attract. the witnesses of them to become fo
of Jesus and members of the kingdom of ,
Where faith was already so far fixed on Hin‘
believe that He could do miracles, there was |
preparation for a faith in higher and he:
things. If they knew that He could a
they only required teaching to enlarge thei)
of him into that of a healer of the ee
and a giver of true life to those that are d
trespasses and sins. On the other hand, |
men’s minds were in a state of bitterness 4
tagonism against Him, to display miracles }
them would but increase their condemnation.’
I had not done among them the works whic!)
other man did, they had not had sin; bul
have they both seen and hated both Me 4
PORTER
In creating.
In destroying. ;
In setting aside the ordinary Ii
being.
In overawing the opposing wills (2
In the account in the text, the miracles that
place after the Transfiguration have been in
for the sake of completeness, ae |:
Il, Of powers
JESUS CHRIST
r” (John xv. 24). This result was inevita-
n order to offer salvation to those who are to
ved, the offer must be heard by some of those
vill reject it. Miracles then have two pur-
—the proximate and subordinate purpose of
a work of love to them that need it, and the
r purpose of revealing Christ in his own Per-
nd nature as the Son of God and Saviour of
Hence the rejection of the demand for a
from heaven — for some great celestial phe-
non which all should see and none could
te. He refused to give such a sign to the
sration’’? that asked it: and once He offered
instead the fact that Jonah was a type of
as to his burial and resurrection: thus refus-
hem the kind of sign which they required.
rain, in answer to a similar demand, He said,
troy this temple and in three days [ will raise
alluding to his death and resurrection.
as though He had said, “ All the miracles
have been working are only intended to call
ion to the one great miracle of My presence
rth in the form of a servant. No other kind
racle will I work. If you wish for a greater
I refer you to the great miracle about to be
tht in Me — that of My resurrection.” The
3 words do not mean that there shall be no
‘He is working wonders daily: but that He
ot travel out of the plan He has proposed for
aif. A sign in the sun and moon and stars
| prove that the power of God was there; but it
not teach men to understand the mission of
nearnate, of the loving and suffering friend and
of men. The miracles which He wrought
nose best suited to this purpose; and those
ad faith, though but in small measure, were
ttest to behold them. They knew Him but
2; but even to think of Him as a Prophet
‘vas able to heal their infirmity was a germ of
sufficient to make them fit hearers of his doc-
‘and spectators of His deeds. But those
(nothing from the Divine work who, unable
‘hy the evidence of their eyes and ears, took
‘in the last argument of malice, ‘‘ He casteth
evils through Beelzebub the prince of the
”
jat is a miracle? A miracle must be either
‘aing done in contravention of all law, or it is
isgression of all the laws known to us, but
* some law which further research may dis-
for us, or it is a transgression of all natural
'vhether known now or to be known hereafter,
sount of some higher law whose operation
(res with them. Only the last of these def-
‘scould apply to the Christian miracles. God
‘chosen to govern the world by laws, having
sed on the face of nature in characters not
mistaken the great truth that He rules the
se by law and order, would not adopt in the
1m of grace a different plan from that which
{ kingdom of nature He has pursued. If the
Tniverse requires a scheme of order, and the
tal world is governed without a scheme (so to
by caprice, then the God of Nature appears
\tradiet the God of Grace. Spinoza has not
\ to make the most of this argument; but he
; hot the true Christian idea of a miracle, but
hich he substitutes for it (Tract. Theol.
"6). Nor can the Christian miracles be re-
a8 cases in which the wonder depends on
® ticipation only of some law that is not now
€ tood, but shall be so hereafter. In the first
|
Sennen Eee
ED
JESUS CHRIST 1353
place many of them go beyond, in the amount of
their operation, all the wildest hopes of the scientific
discoverer. In the second place, the very concep-
tion of a miracle is vitiated by such an explanation.
All distinction in kind between the man who is
somewhat in advance of his age in physical knowl-
edge, and the worker of miracles, would be taken
away; and the miracles of one age, as the steam-
engine, the telegraph-wire, become the tools and
toys of the next. It remains then that a miracle
is to be regarded as the overruling of some physical
law by some higher law that is brought in. We
are invited in the Gospels to regard the miracles
not as wonders, but as the wonderful acts of Jesus
of Nazareth. They are identified with the work of
redemption. There are even cautions against teach-
ing them separately — against severing them from
their connection with his work. Eye-witnesses of
his miracles were strictly charged to make no report
of them to others (Matt. ix. 830; Mark v. 43, vii.
36). And yet when John the Baptist sent his dis-
ciples to ascertain whether the Messiah were indeed
come or not, the answer they took back was the
very thing which was forbidden to others — a report
of miracles. The explanation of this seeming con.
tradiction is that wherever a report of the signs and
wonders was likely to be conveyed without a right
conception of the Person of Christ and the kind
of doctrine which He taught, there He suffered not
the report to be carried. Now had the purpose
been to reveal his divine nature only, this caution
would not have been needed, nor would faith have
been a needful preliminary for the apprehension of
miracles, nor would the temptations of Satan in
the wilderness have been the cunning snares they
were intended to be, nor would it have been neces-
sary to refuse the convincing sign from heaven to
the Jews that asked it. But the part of his work
to which attention was to be directed in connection
with the miracles, was the mystery of our redemp-
tion by One “who being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but
made Himself of no reputation, ana took upon Him
the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness
of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He
humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death,
even the death of the Cross” (Phil. ii. 5-8). Very
few are the miracles in which divine power is exer-
cised without a manifest reference to the purpose
of assisting men. He works for the most part as
the Power of God in a state of humiliation for the
good of men. Not insignificant here are the cases
in which He condescends to use means, wholly
inadequate indeed in any other hands than his;
but still they are a token that He has descended
into the region where means are employed, from
that in which even the spoken word can control
the subservient agents of nature. He laid his hand
upon the patient (Matt. viii. 3, 15, ix. 29, xx. 34;
Luke vii. 14; xxii. 51). He anointed the eyes of
the blind with clay (John ix. 6). He put his finger
into the ear and touched the tongue of the deaf and
dumb sufferer in Decapolis (Mark vii. 33, 34). He
treated the blind man at Bethsaida in like fashion
(Mark viii. 23). Even where He fed the five
thousand and the four, He did not create bread
out of nothing, which would have been as easy for
Him, but much bread out of little; and He looked
up to heaven and blessed the meat as a thankful
man would do (Matt. xiv. 19; John vi. 11; Matt.
xv. 36). At the grave of Lazarus He lifted up his
eyes and gave thanks that the Father had heard
1354 JESUS CHRIST
Him (John xi. 41, 42), and this great miracle is
accompanied by tears and groanings, that show how
One so mighty to save has truly become a man
with human soul and sympathies. The worker of
the miracles is God become Man; and as signs of
his Person and work are they to be measured.
Hence, when the question. of the credibility of
miracles is discussed, it ought to be preceded by
the question, Is redemption from the sin of Adam
a probable thing? Is it probable that there are
spiritual laws as well as natural, regulating the
relations between us and the Father of our spirits ?
Is it probable that, such laws existing, the needs
of men and the goodness of God would lead to an
expression of them, complete or partial, by means
of revelation? If these questions are all decided
in the affirmative, then Hume’s argument against
miracles is already half overthrown. “No testi-
mony,” says Hume, “is sufficient to establish a
miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind
that its falsehood would be more miraculous than
the fact which it endeavors to establish; and even
in that case there is a mutual destruction of argu-
ments, and the superior only gives us an assurance
suitable to that dugzee of force which remains after
deducting the inferior’? (Zssays, vol. ii. p. 130).
If the Christian miracles are parts of a scheme
which bears other marks of a divine origin, they
point to the existence of a set of spiritual laws with
which Christianity is connected, and of which it is
the expression; and then the difficulty of believing
them disappears. They are not “ against nature,”
but above it; they are not the few caprices of Prov-
idence breaking in upon ages of order, but they are
glimpses of the divine spiritual cosmos permitted to
be seen amidst the laws of the natural world, of
which they take precedence, just as in the physical
world one law can supersede another. And as to
the testimony for them let Paley speak: “If
twelve men, whose probity and good sense I had
long known, should seriously and circumstantially
relate to me an account of a miracle wrought before
their eyes, and ‘in which it was impossible they
should be deceived; if the governor of the country,
hearing a rumor of this account, should call those
men into his presence, and offer them a short pro-
posal, either to confess the imposture or submit to
be tied up to a gibbet; if they should refuse with
one voice to acknowledge that there existed any
falsehood or imposture in the case; if this threat
were communicated to them separately, yet with
no different effect; if it was at last executed, if I
myself saw them one after another consenting to
be racked, burnt, or strangled, rather than give up
the truth of their account; . . . there exists not
a skeptic in the world who would not believe them,
or who would defend such incredulity ” (Zvidences,
Introduction, p. 6). In the theory of a “ mutual
destruction ’’ of arguments so that the belief in
miracles would represent exactly the balance be-
tween the evidence for and against them, Hume
contradicts the commonest religious, and indeed
worldly, experience; he confounds the state of de-
liberation and examination with that of conviction.
When Thomas the Apostle, who had doubted the
great central miracle of the resurrection, was allowed
to touch the Saviour’s wounded side, and in an
access of undoubting faith exclaimed, “ My Lord,
and my God!’’ who does not see that at that
moment all the former doubts were wiped out, and
were as though they had never been? How could
he carry about those doubts or any recollection of
JESUS CHRIST
them, to be a set-off against the complete
tion that had succeeded them? It is so y
Christian life in every case; faith, which |
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
not seen,’’ could not continue to weigh and
evidence for and against the truth; the eo
either rises to-a perfect moral certainty, or
tinues tainted and worthless as a principle
tion.
The lapse of time may somewhat alter the
of the evidence for miracles, but it does not
it. It is more difficult (so to speak) to
examine witnesses who delivered their tes
ages ago; but another kind of evidence h:
gathering strength in successive ages. The n
are all consequences and incidents of one
miracle, the Incarnation; and if the Incarne
found true, the rest become highly probable
this very doctrine has been thoroughly
through all these ages. Nations haye ado,
and they are the greatest nations of the
Men have lived and died in it, have given u
lives to preach it; have found that it did x
appoint them, but held true under them
last. The existence of Christianity itself |
come an evidence. It is a phenomenon ¢
understand if we grant the miracle of the h
tion, but is an effect without an adequate ¢
that be denied.
Miracles then are offered us in the Gosp
as startling violations of the order of nature,
consequences of the revelation of Himself x
Jesus Christ for men’s salvation, and as sui
are not violations of order. at all, but interf
of the spiritual order with the natural. T,
abundantly witnessed by earnest and con
men, who did not aim at any earthly rewi
their teaching; and they are proofs, togeth)
his pure life and holy doctrine, that Jesus :
Son of God. (See Dean Trench On the Mi
an important work; [Mozley, Bampton Le
1865;] Baumgarten, Leben Jesu; Paley’)
dences; Butler’s Analogy; Hase, Leben Jes)
the various Commentaries on the New Test
2. The Parables. — In considering the
teaching we turn first to the parables. In:
the aid of the imagination has been sought t}
in the teaching of abstract truth, and that in 1
ways: in the parable, where some story of 0!
doings is made to convey a spiritual meani),
yond what the narrative itself contains, and
any assertion that the narrative does or d
present an actual occurrence: in the fable/
a story, for the most part an impossible ¢
talking beast and reasoning bird, is made the!
of some shrewd and prudent lesson of ih
dom: in the allegory, which is a story with ‘0
or spiritual meaning, in which the lesson tal
so prominent as almost wholly to superst’
story that clothes it, and the names and
are so chosen that no interpreter shall be rl!
for the application: and lastly, in the
which is often only a parable or a fable cor?
into a few pithy words [PARABLE] (Ernes
Tech. Graecum, under rapaBoAh, Adyos,
pla; Trench, On the Parables ; Alford on
xiii. 1, and other Commentators; Hase, Lebe |
§ 67, 4th ed.; Neander, Leben Jesu, p. 568°
Nearly fifty parables are preserved in the (P
and they are only selected from a larger }
(Mark iv. 33). Each Evangelist, even Sti
has preserved some that are peculiar to a
|
.
|
JESUS CHRIST
ihn never uses the word parable, but that of
rb (wapoiuia), which the other Evangelists
re employ. In reference to this mode of
ng, our Lord tells the disciples, «‘ Unto you
riven to know the mysteries of the kingdom
1; but to others in parables, that seeing they
not see, and hearing they might not under-
” (Luke viii. 10); and some have hastily con-
. from this that the parable — the clearest of
ndes of teaching — was employed to conceal
adge from those who were not susceptible of
| that this was its chief purpose. But it was
, not for this negative object, but for its
e advantages in the instruction of the dis-
The nature of the kingdom of heaven was
derstood even by disciples; hard even to them
he sayings that described it, and the hearing
n caused many to go back and walk no more
lim (John vi. 66). If there was any mode
hing better suited than another to the pur-
? preserving truths for the memory that were
accepted by the heart—for keeping the
ife till the time should arrive for the quicken-
‘irit to come down and give it growth — that
would be the best suited to the peculiar posi-
the disciples. And any means of translating
jtract thought into sensuous language has
een the object of poet and teacher in all
jes. He who can best employ the symbols
visible world for the deeper acts of thought
en the clearest and most successful expositor.
irable affords just such an instrument as was
id. Who could banish from his mind, when
aderstood, the image of the house built on
id, as the symbol of the faithless soul unable
d by the truth in the day of temptation ?
mm does not the parable of the prodigal son
wack the thought of God’s merciful kindness
3 the erring? But without such striking
‘it would have been impossible (to use mere
language) to make known to the disciples
\ halfenlightened state the mysteries of faith
Son of God as a principle of life, of repent-
om sin, and of an assurance of peace and
¢ from the God of mercy. Eastern teachers
ade this mode of instruction familiar; the
lity of the parables lay not in the method
ing by stories, but in the profound and new
which the stories taught so aptly. And
jad another purpose in selecting this form
“uction: He foresaw that many would reject
ad on them He would not lay a heavier
than they needs must bear. He did not
2m daily and hourly, in their plainest form,
id truths of sin and atonement, of judgment
javen and hell, and in so doing multiply
18 of blaspheming. « Those that were with-
yard the parable; but it was an aimless story
"if they sought no moral purpose under it,
ark saying, passing comprehension, if they
eek. When the Lord gathered round Him
‘ab were willing to be his, and explained to
‘ length the parable and its application
‘dil. 10-18), then the light thus thrown on
‘not easy to extinguish in their memory.
longst those without there was no doubt a
*e; some listened with indifferent, and some
believing and resisting minds; and of both
ome remained in their aversion, more or
ve, from the Son of God unto the end, and
Te converted after He was risen. To these
‘Suppose that the parables which had rested
|
JESUS CHRIST 1355
in their memories as vivid pictures, yet still a dead
letter, so far as moral import is concerned, became
by the Holy Spirit, whose business it was to teach
men all things and to bring all things to their
remembrance (John xiv. 26), a quick and powerful
light of truth, lighting up the dark places with a
brightness never again to fade from their eyes.
The parable unapplied is a dark saying; the parable
explained is the clearest of all teaching. When
language is used in Holy Scripture which ’would
seem to treat the parables as means of ‘concealment
rather than of instruction, it must be taken to refer
to the unexplained parable—to the cypher with-
out the key — the symbol without the interpreta-
tion.
Bes:des the parables, the more direct teaching of
our Lord is conveyed in many discourses, dispersed
through the Gospels; of which three may be here
selected as examples, the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. v.-vii.), the discourse after the feeding of
the five thousand (John vi. 22-65), and the final
discourse and prayer which preceded the Passion
(John xiv.—xvii.). These are selected principally
because they mark three distinct periods in the
ministry of Jesus, the opening of it, the principal
change in the tone of its teaching, and the solemn
close.
Notwithstanding the endeavor to establish that
the Sermon on the Mount of St. Matthew is dif-
ferent from the Sermon on the Plain of St. Luke,
the evidence for their being one and the same dis-
course greatly preponderates. If so, then its his-
torical position must be fixed from St. Luke; and
its earlier place in St. Matthew's Gospel must be
owing to the Evangelist’s wish to commence the
account of the ministry of Jesus with a summary
of his teaching; an intention further illustrated by
the mode in which the Evangelist has wrought in
with his report of the discourse several sayings
which St. Luke connects with the various facts
which on different occasions drew them forth (comp.
Luke xiv. 34, xi. 33, xvi. 17, xii. 58, 59, xvi. 18,
with places in Matt. v.; also Luke xi. 1-4, xii. 33,
34, xi. 34-36, xvi. 13, xii. 22-31; with places in
Matt. vi.; also Luke xi. 9-13, xiii. 24, 25-27, with
places in Matt. vii.). Yet this is done without
violence to the connection and structure of the
whole discourse. Matthew, to whom Jesus is ever
present as the Messiah, the Anointed Prophet of
the chosen people, the successor of Moses, sets at
the head of his ministry the giving of the Christian
law with its bearing on the Jewish. From Luke
we learn that Jesus had gone up into a mountain
to pray, that on the morning following He made
up the number of his twelve Apostles, and solemnly
appointed them, and then descending He stood
upon a level place (karaBas wer’ abrayv torn én)
témou medivod, Luke vi. 17), not necessarily at the
bottom of the mountain, but where the multitude
could stand round and hear; and t*ere he taught
them in a solemn address the laws and constitution
of his new kingdom, the kingdom of Heaven. He
tells them who are meet to be citizens of that
heavenly polity, and in so doing rebukes almost
every quality on which the world sets a value. The
poor in spirit, that is the lowly-minded, the mourn-
ers and the meek, those who hunger and thirst for
righteousness, the merciful, the pure, and the peace-
makers, are all “blessed,” are all possessed of the
temper which will assort well with that heavenly
kingdom, in eontrast to the proud, the confident,
the great and sue-essful, whom the world honors.
1856 JESUS CHRIST
(St. Luke adds denunciations of woe to the tempers
which are opposed to the Gospel, which St. Matthew
omits.) This novel exordium startles all the hearers,
for it seems to proclaim a new world, new hopes, and
new virtues; and our Lord then proceeds to meet the
question that rises up in their minds — “ If these
dispositions and not a literal obedience to minute
precepts constitute a Christian, what then becomes
of the law?’ Answering this tacit objection, the
Lord bids them ‘think not that I am come to de-
stroy (karaAvoa, «bolish) the law and the prophets,
I am not come to destroy but to fulfill” (rAnpacar,
complete, Matt. v.17). He goes on to tell them
that not one point or letter of the Law was written
in vain; that what was temporary in it does not
fall away till its purpose is answered, what was of
permanent obligation shall never be lost. He then
shows how far more deep and searching a moral
lawgiver He is than was Moses his prototype, who
like Him spoke the mind of God. The eternal
principles which Moses wrote in broad lines, such
as a dull and unspiritual people must read, He
applies to deeper seated sins and to all the finer
shades of evil. Murder was denounced by the Law;
but anger and provoking speech are of the same
stock. It is not only murder, but hate, that is the
root of that poisonous fruit which God abhors.
Hate defiles the very offering that a man makes to
God; let him leave his gift unoffered, and get the
hate cast out, and not waste his time in an unac-
ceptable sacrifice. Hate will affect the soul forever,
if it goes out of the world to meet its Judge in
that defiling garment; “agree with thine adversary
quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him”’
(ver. 25). The act of adultery is deadly, and Moses
forbade it. But to permit the thought of lust to
rest in the heart, to suffer the desire to linger there
without combating it (BAérew mpds Td émibupA-
oa.) is of the same nature, and shares the condem-
nation. The breach of an oath (Lev. xix. 12) was
forbidden by the Law; and the rabbinical writers
had woven a distinction between oaths that were
and oaths that were not binding (Maimonides in
Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. ii. p. 127). Jesus shows that
all oaths, whether they name the Creator or not,
are an appeal to Him, and all are on that account
equally binding. But the need of an oath ‘+ cometh
of evil; ”’? the bare asseveration of a Christian should
be as solemn and sacred to him as the most binding
oath. That this in its simple literal application
would go to abolish all swearing is beyond a ques-
tion; but the Lord is sketching out a perfect Law
for a perfect kingdom; and this is not the only
part of the sermon on the Mount which in the
present state of the world cannot be carried out
‘completely. Men there are on whom a word is less
binding than an oath; and in judicial proceedings
the highest test must be applied to them to elicit
the truth; therefore an oath must still form part
of a legal process, and a good man may take what
is really kept up to control the wicked. Jesus Him-
self did not refuse the oath administered to Him
in the Sanhedrim (Matt. xxvi. 68). And yet the
need of an oath “cometh of evil,’ for among men
who respect the truth it would add nothing to the
weight of their evidence. Almost the same would
apply to the precepts with which our Lord replaces
the much-abused law of retaliation, “‘ An eye for
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (Ex. xxi. 24).
To conquer an enemy by submission where he
expected resistance is of the very essence of the
Gospel; it is an exact imitation of our Lord’s own
JESUS CHRIST
example, who, when He might have gu
more than twelve legions of Angels to
allowed the Jews to revile and slay Him.
it is not possible at once to wipe out f
social arrangements the principle of ret,
The robber who takes a coat must not be enc
to seize the cloak also; to give to every
asks all that he asks would be an encour
to sloth and shameless importunity. But
‘awakened conscience will find out a hund
in which the spirit of this precept may be
out, even in our imperfect social state;
power of this loving policy will be felt by tl
attempt it. Finally, our Lord sums up this
of his divine law by words full of sublime
To the cramped and confined love of the
“Thou shalt love thy neighbor and ha
enemy,’’ He opposes this nobler rule — « [
enemies, bless them that curse you, do
them that hate you, and pray for then
despitefully use you, and persecute you,
may be the children of your Father whic
heaven; for He maketh his sun to rise on
and on the good, and sendeth rain on the |
on the unjust. . . . Be ye therefore perfect
your Father which is in heaven is perfect’
v. 44, 45, 48). To this part of the sermor
St. Luke has not preserved, but which St.
writing as it were with his face turned tov
Jewish countrymen, could not pretermit,
precepts on almsgiving, on prayer, on for;
on fasting, on trust in God’s providence,
tolerance; all of them tuned to one of tw
that a man’s whole nature must be offered’
and that it is man’s duty to do to othe
would have them do to him. An earnest a
the difficulty of a godly life, and the wort’
of mere profession, cast in the form of a_
concludes this wonderful discourse. The di
between the reports of the two Evange
many. In the former Gospel the sermon '
one hundred and seven verses; in the latte!
The longer report includes the expositio)
relation of the Gospel to the Law: it al
together, as we have seen, some passages
Luke reports elsewhere and in another P|
and where the two contain the same mat
of Luke is somewhat more compressed.
taking account of this, the purpose of St.
is to be borne in mind: the morality of tk
is to be fully set forth at the beginnin;
Lord’s ministry, and especially in its be}
the Law as usually received by the Jews,
use especially this Gospel was designed. 4
this discourse is compared with the later
to which we shall presently refer, the fact ¢!
more distinctly, that we have here the Co/
Christian Lawgiver, rather than the whol
that the standard of Christian duty is HN
but the means for raising men to the le’
the observance of such a law is at all po
not yet pointed out. The hearers lear
Christians would act and think, and to a
of moral purity they would aspire, in the#
salvation; but how that state was to ite
for them, and conveyed over to them, 1s
pointed out.
The next example of the teaching of Jes
be taken from a later epoch in his ministt,
probable that the great discourse in Johr!
place about the time of the Transfigural):
before which He began to reveal to the di
a
|
"i
JESUS CHRIST
f his sufferings (Matt. xvi. and parallels),
yas the special and frequent theme of his
g until the end. The effect of his personal
n the disciples now becomes the prominent
He had taught them that He was the
and had given them his law, wider and
far than that of Moses. But the objection
y law applies more strongly the purer and
the law is; and «‘ how to perform that which
‘js a question that grows more difficult to
as the standard of obedience is raised. It
question which our Lord proceeds to answer
The feeding of the five thousand had lately
lace; and from this miracle He preaches yet
er, namely, that all spiritual life is imparted
disciples from Him, and that they must feed
n that their souls may live. He can feed
ith something more than manna, even with
f; “for the bread of God is He which cometh
rom heaven and giveth life unto the world”
vi. 26-40). The Jews murmur at this hard
e, and He warns them that it is a kind of
those who have been with Him: “ No man
ne to Me except the Father which hath sent
whim.” He repeats that He is the bread
and they murmur yet more (vers. 41-52).
sses it on them still more strongly: ‘“ Verily,
Isay unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of
n of Man and drink his blood, ye have no
rou. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my
yath eternal life; and I will raise him up at
t day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and
od is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh,
inketh my blood, dwelleth in me and [| in
As the living Father hath sent me, and I
the Father, so he that eateth me, even he
ive by me” (vv. 53-57). After this dis-
many of the disciples went back and walked
vewith Him. They could not conceive how
m could depend on a condition so strange,
yen so revolting. However we may blame
br their want of confidence in their Teacher,
ot to be imputed to them as a fault that they
a doctrine, which in itself is difficult, and
as clothed in dark and obscure expressions,
| the grasp of their understanding at that
For that doctrine was, that Christ had taken
shly nature, to suffer in it, and to shed his
nit; and that those to whom the benefits
atoning death are imparted find it to be
piritual food and life, and the condition of
esurrection to life everlasting.
ether this passage refers, and in what degree,
sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, is a ques-
li which commentators have been much di-
but two observations should in some degree
(ur interpretation: the one, that if the pri-
iveference of the discourse had been to the
Supper, it would have been uttered at the
tion of that rite, and not before, at a time
he disciples could not possibly make applica-
| it to a sacrament of which they had never
leard; the other, that the form of speech in
‘Scourse comes so near that which is used in
{ting the Lord’s Supper, that it is impossible
lude all reference to that Sacrament. The
ner here alludes to his death, to the body
1 shall suffer on the Cross, and to the blood
shall be poured out. This great, sacrifice is
bly to be looked on, but to be believed; and
ly believed, but appropriated to the believer,
me part of his very heart and life. Faith,
JESUS CHRIST 1357
here as elsewhere, is the means of apprehending it,
but when it is once laid hold of, it will be as much
a part of the believer as the food that nourishes the
body becomes incorporated with the body. In three
passages in the other Evangelists, in which our
Lord about this very time prepares them for his
sufferings, He connects with the announcement a
warning to the disciples that all who would come
after Him must show the fruit of his death in their
lives (Matt. xvi., Mark viii., Luke ix.). And this
new principle, infused into them by the life and
death of the Redeemer, by his taking our flesh and
then suffering in it (for neither of these is excluded),
is to believers the seed of eternal life. The be-
liever “‘ hath eternal life; and [ will raise him up
at the last day’’ (John vi. 54). Now the words
of Jesus in instituting the Lord’s Supper come very
near to the expressions in this discourse: ‘“ This is
my kody which is given for you (jrép bu@y) - + -
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which
is shed for you’? (Luke xxii. 19, 20). That the
Lord’s Supper is a means of applying to us through
faith the fruits of the incarnation and the atone-
ment of Christ, is generally admitted; and if so,
the discourse before us will apply to that sacrament,
not certainly to the exclusion of other means of
appropriating the saving death of Christ, but still
with great force, inasmuch as the Lord’s Supper is
the most striking symbol of the application to us
of the Lord’s body. Here in a bold figure the dis-
ciples are told that they must eat the flesh of Christ
and drink his blood; whilst in the sacrament the
same figure becomes an act. Here the language is
meant to be general; and there it finds its most
striking special application, but not its only one.
And the uttering of these words at an epoch that
preceded by some months the first celebration of
the Lord’s Supper was probably intended to pre-
clude that special and limited application of it
which would narrow it down to the sacrament only,
and out of which much false and even idolatrous
teaching has grown. (Compare Commentaries of
Alford, Liicke, Meyer, Stier, Heubner, Williams,
Tholuck, and others, on this passage.) It will still
be asked how we are to account for the startling
form in which this most profound Gospel-truth was
put before persons to whom it was likely to prove
an offense. The answer is not difficult. Many
had companied with the Lord during the early part
of his ministry, to see his miracles, perhaps to de-
rive some fruit from them, to talk about Him, and
to repeat his sayings, who were quite unfit to go
on as his followers to the end. There was a wide
difference between the two doctrines, that Jesus was
the Christ, and that the Christ must hang upon
the tree, as to their effects on unregenerate and
worldly minds. For the latter they were not pre-
pared: though many of them could possibly accept
the former. Now this discourse belongs to the
time of transition from the easier to the harder
doctrine. And we may suppose that it was meant
to sift the disciples, that the good grain might re-
main in the garner and the chaff be scattered to
the wind. Hence the hard and startling form in
which it was cast; not indeed that this figure of
eating and drinking in reference to spiritual things
was wholly unknown to Jewish teachers, for Light-
foot, Schéttgen, and Wetstein, have shown the
contrary. But hard it doubtless was; and if the
condition of discipleship had been that they should
then and there understand what they heard, their
turning back at this time would haye been inevit-
1358 JESUS CHRIST
able. But even on the twelve Jesus imposes no
such condition. He only asks them, ‘ Will ye also
go away?’ If a beloved teacher says something
which overturns the previous notions of the taught,
and shocks their prejudices, then whether they will
continue by his side to hear him explain further
what they find difficult, or desert him at once,
will depend on the amount of their confidence in
him. Many of the disciples went back and walked
no more with Jesus, because their conviction that
He was the Messiah had no real foundation. The
rest remained with Him .for the reason so beauti-
fully expressed by Peter: “Lord, to whom shall
we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And
we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ,
the Son of the living God” (John vi. 68, 69).
The sin of the faint-hearted followers who now
deserted Him’was not that they found this diffi-
cult; but that finding it difficult they had -not
confidence enough to wait for light.
The third example of our Lord’s discourses
which may be selected is that which closes his
ministry — ‘¢ Now is the Son of Man glorified, and
God is glorified in Him. If God be glorified in
Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and
shall straightway glorify Him ’”’ (John xiii. 31, 32).
This great discourse, recorded only by St. John,
extends from the thirteenth to the end of the seven-
teenth chapter. It hardly admits of analysis. It
announces the Saviour’s departure in the fulfillment
of his mission ; it imposes the “‘ new commandment ”’
on the disciples of a special love towards each other
which should be the outward token to the world of
their Christian profession; it consoles them with
the promise of the Comforter who should be to
them instead of the Saviour; it tells them all that
He should do for them, teaching them, reminding
them, reproving the world and guiding the disciples
into all truth. It offers them, instead of the bodily
presence of their beloved Master, free access to the
throne of his Father, and spiritual blessings such
as they had not known before. Finally, it cul-
minates in that sublime prayer (ch. xvii.) by which
the High-priest as it were consecrates Himself the
victim; and so doing, prays for those who shall
hold fast and keep the benefits of that sacrifice,
offered for the whole world, whether his disciples
already, or to be brought to Him thereafter by the
ministry of Apostles. He wills that they shall be
with Him and behold his glory. He recognizes
the righteousness of the Father in the plan of sal-
vation, and in the result produced to the disciples;
. in whom that highest and purest love wherewith
the Father loved the Son shall be present, and with
and in that love the Son Himself shall be present
with them. ‘ With this elevated thought,” says
Olshausen, ‘‘the Redeemer concludes his prayer
for the disciples, and in them for the Church
through all ages. He has compressed into the last
moments given Him for intercourse with his own
the most sublime and glorious sentiments ever
uttered by human lips. Hardly has the sound of
the last word died away when Jesus passes with
his disciples over the brook Kedron to Gethsemane;
and the bitter conflict draws on. The seed of the
new world must be sown in death that thence life
may spring up.”
These three discourses are examples of the Sav-
iour’s teaching — of its progressive character from
the opening of his ministry to the close. The first
exhibits his practical precepts as Lawgiver of his
people; the second, an exposition of the need of his |
JESUS CHRIST
sacrifice, but addressed to the world withor
intended to try them rather than to attrac
the third, where Christ, the Lawgiver and the
priest, stands before God as the Son of Ge
speaks to Him of his inmost counsels, as o1
had known them from the beginning. Th
serve as illustrations of the course of his do
whilst others will be mentioned in the narra
it proceeds.
The Scene of the Lord’s Ministry. — As
scene of the ministry of Christ, no less thai
its duration, the three Evangelists seem a
sight to be at variance with the fourth. Ma
Mark, and Luke record only our Lord’s doi
Galilee; if we put aside a few days before th
sion, we find that they never mention his y
Jerusalem. John, on the other hand, wh
records some acts in Galilee, devotes the chix
of his Gospel to the transactions in Judea.
when the supplemental character of John’s
is borne in mind there is little difficulty in e:
ing this. The three Evangelists do not pre
give a chronology of the ministry, but ra
picture of it: notes of time are not frequ
their narrative. And as they chiefly confined
selves to Galilee, where the Redeemer’s chi
were done, they might naturally omit to m
the feasts, which being passed by our Lord a
salem, added nothing to the materials for h|
ilean ministry. John,.on the other hand, 1
later, and giving an account of the Redé
life which is still less complete as a histo!
more than one half of the fourth Gospel is o¢
with the last three months of the mipisti
seven chapters out of twenty-one are fille)
the account of the few days of the Passion),|
cates his historical claim by supplying sever)
cise notes of time: in the occurrences afi
baptism of Jesus, days and even hours are|
fied (i. 29, 35, 39, 43, ii. 1); the first mit!
mentioned, and the time at which it was wi
(ii. 1-11). He mentions not only the Pa’
(ii. 18, 23; vi. 4; xiii. 1, and perhaps v. |
also the feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2) and of
cation (x. 22); and thus it is ordered tl
Evangelist who goes over the least part
ground of our Lord’s ministry is yet the sar)
fixes for us its duration, and enables us to:
the facts of the rest more exactly in their hi)
piaces. It is true that the three Gospels»
chiefly the occurrences in Galilee: but there
dence in them that labors were wrought in |
Frequent teaching in Jerusalem is implied |
Lord's lamentation over the lost city (Matix
37). The appearance in Galilee of scrit
Pharisees and others from Jerusalem (Matt.)-
xv. 1) would be best explained on the supy!
that their enmity had been excited agains]!
during visits to Jerusalem. The intimac''
the family of Lazarus (Luke. x. 38 ff), 2
attachment of Joseph of Arimathea to th!
(Matt. xxvii. 57), would imply, most pra
frequent visits to Jerusalem. But why was :
chosen as the principal scene of the mist
The question is not easy to answer. The })}
would resort to the Temple of God; the I
the Jews would go to his own royal cit
Teacher of the chosen people would preacl
midst of them. But their hostility prever
The Saviour, who, accepting all the infirm
“the form of a servant,” which He had tak),
in his childhood to Egypt, hetakes Himself |
=
JESUS CHRIST
avoid Jewish hatred and machinations, and
he foundations of his church amid a people
pure and despised race. To Jerusalem He
occasionally, to teach and suffer persecution,
nally to die: “ for it cannot be that a prophet
out of Jerusalem” (Luke xiii. 33). It was
she first outbreak of persecution against Him
le left Judea: ‘* When Jesus had heard that
was cast into prison, He departed into Gal-
(Matt. iv. 12). And that this persecution
at Him also we gather from St. John:
mn therefore the Lord knew how that the
es had heard that Jesus made and baptized
lisciples than John . . . He left Judea and
ed into Galilee” (iv. 1, 3). If the light of
in of Righteousness shone on the Jews hence-
‘d from the far-off shores of the Galilean lake,
‘because they had refused and abhorred that
ration of the Ministry. —It is impossible to
yine exactly from the Gospels the number of
‘during which the Redeemer exercised his
ty before the Passion; but the doubt lies
‘n two and three; for the opinion, adopted
'n interpretation of Isaiah Ixi. 2 by more than
the ancients, that it lasted only one year,
, be borne out (Euseb. iii. 24; Clem. Alex.
. lib. i.e. 21; Origen, Prine. iv. 5). The data
be drawn from St. John. This Evangelist
ms six feasts, at five of which Jesus was pres-
1e Passover that followed his baptism (ii. 13) ;
‘st of the Jews”’ (opr without the article,
'y Passover during which Jesus remained in
\ (vi. 4); the feast of Tabernacles to which
wd went up privately (vii. 2); the feast of
ition (x. 22); and lastly the feast of Pass-
‘t which He suffered (xii., xiii.). There are
ly three Passovers, and it is possible that
ist” (vy. 1) may be a fourth. Upon this
lity the question turns. Liicke in his Com-
ry (vol. ii. p. 1), in collecting with great
th the various opinions on this place, is un-
9 arrive at any definite conclusion upon it,
aes it unsolved. But if this feast is not a
‘n the first (ii. 13), and that which is spoken
‘the sixth chapter; and the time between
two must be assumed to be a single year
) Now, although the record of John of this
i contains but few facts, yet when all the
alists are compared, the amount of labor
»ssed into this single year would be too much
compass. The time during which Jesus
‘aptizing (by his disciples) near the Jordan
vobably considerable, and lasted till John’s
onment (John iii. 22-36, and see below).
€ reuit round Galilee, mentioned in Matt. iv.
was a missionary journey through a country
isiderable population, and containing two
tied towns; and this would occupy some time.
it other such journey, of the most comprehen-
€ nd, is undertaken in the same year (Luke
11, in which He “went throughout every city
llage.’” And a third circuit of the same
Mind equally general (Matt. ix. 35-38), would
She same year. Is it at all probable that
S| after spending a considerable time in Judea,
be able to make three circuits of (ralilee in
® mainder of the year, preaching and doing
* Th article is inserted in many manuscripts, in-
is the Sinaitic, and this reading is adopted by
|
|
er, then no Passover is mentioned by John’
JESUS CHRIST 1859
wonders in the various places to which He came?
This would be more likely if the journeys were
hurried and partial; but all three are spoken of as
though they were the very opposite. It is, to say the
least, easier to suppose that the “ feast’? (John v.
1) was a Passover, dividing the time into two, and
throwing two of these circuits into the second year
of the ministry; provided there be nothing to make
this interpretation improbable in itself. The words
are, “ After this there was a feast. of the Jews; and
Jesus went up to Jerusalem.” ‘These two facts
are meant as cause and effect; the feast caused the
visit. If so, it was probably one of the three feasts
at which the Jews were expected to appear before
God at Jerusalem. Was it the Passover, the Pen-
tecost, or the Feast of Tabernacles? In the pre-
ceding chapter the Passover has been spoken of as
“the feast’? (ver. 45); and if another feast were
meant here the name of it would have been added,
as in vii. 2, x. 22, The omission of the article is
not decisive,“ for it occurs in other cases where the
Passover is certainly intended (Matt. xxvii. 15;
Mark xv. 6); nor is it clear that the Passover was
called the feast, as the most eminent, although the
Feast of Tabernacles was sometimes so described.
All that the omission could prove would be that
the Evangelist did not think it needful to describe
the feast more precisely. The words in John iv.
35, “There are yet four months and then cometh
harvest,”? would agree with this, for the barley har-
vest began on the 16th Nisan, and reckoning back
four months would bring this conversation to the
beginning of December, 7. e. the middle of Kisleu.
If it be granted that our Lord is here merely quot-
ing a common form of speech (Alford), still it is
more likely that He would use one appropriate to
the time at which He was speaking. And if these
words were uttered in December, the next of the
three great feasts occurring would be the Passover.
The shortness of the interval between v. 1 and vi.
4, would afford an objection, if it were not for the
scantiness of historical details in the early part of
the ministry in St. John: from the other Evan-
gelists it appears that two great journeys might
have to be included between these verses. Upon
the whole, though there is nothing that amounts
to proof, it is probable that there were four Pass-
overs, and consequently that our Lord's ministry
lasted somewhat more than three years, the ‘“ be-
ginning of miracles’ (John ii.) having been wrought
before the first Passover. On data of calculation
that have already been mentioned, the year of the
first of these Passovers was U. Cc. 780, and the
Baptism of our Lord took place either in the begin-
ning of that year or the end of the year preceding.
The ministry of John the Baptist began in v. ©.
779. (See Commentaries on John v. 1, especially
Kuinil and Liicke. Also Winer, Reclwirterbuch,
Art. Jesus Christ ; Greswell, Dissertations, vol. i.
Diss. 4, vol. ii. Diss. 22.)
After this sketch of the means, the scene, and
the duration of the Saviour’s ministry, the his-
torical order of the events may be followed without
interruption.
Our Lord has now passed through the ordeal ot
temptation, and his ministry is begun. At Beth-
abara, to which He returns, disciples begin to be
drawn towards Him; Andrew and another, prob-
ably John, the sole narrator of the fact, see Jesus,
ES
Tischendorf in the 2d ed. of his Synopsis Evangelica
(1864). A.
1360 JESUS CHRIST
and hear the Baptist’s testimony concerning Him.
Andrew brings Simon Peter to see Him also; and
He receives from the Lord the name of Cephas.
Then Philip and Nathanael are brought into con-
tact with our Lord. All these reappear as Apostles,
if Nathanael be, as has often been supposed, the
same as Bartholomew; but the time of their calling
to that office was not yet. But that their minds,
even at this early time, were wrought upon by the
expectation of the Messiah appears by the confes-
sion of Nathanael: “ Thou art the Son of God;
Thou art the King of Israel’? (John i. 35-51).
The two disciples last named saw Him as He was
about to set out for Galilee, on the third day of his
sojourn at Bethabara. ‘The third day @ after this
interview Jesus is at Cana in Galilee, and works
his first miracle, by making the water wine (John
i. 29, 35, 43; ii. 1). All these particulars are sup-
plied from the fourth Gospel, and come in between
the 11th and 12th verses of the 4th chapter of St.
Matthew. They show that our Lord left Galilee
expressly to be baptized and to suffer temptation,
and returned to his own country when these were
accomplished. He now betakes Himself to Caper-
naum, and after a sojourn there of “not many
days,’’ sets out for Jerusalem to the Passover, which
was to be the beginning of his ministry in Judea
(John ii. 12, 13).
The cleansing of the Temple is associated by St.
John with this first Passover (ii. 12-22), and a
similar cleansing is assigned to the last Passover
by the other Evangelists. These two cannot be
confounded without throwing discredit on the his-
torical character of one narrative or the other; the
notes of time are too precise. But a host of inter-
preters have pointed out the probability that an
action symbolical of the power and authority of
Messiah should be twice performed, at the opening
of the ministry and at its close. The expulsion of
the traders was not likely to produce a permanent
effect, and at the end of three years Jesus found
the tumult and the traffic defiling the court of the
Temple as they had done when He visited it before.
Besides the difference of time, the narrative of St.
John is by no means identical with those of the
others; he mentions that Jesus made a scourge of
small cords (ppayéAAtov ex oxorwlwy, ii. 15) as a
symbol — we need not prove that it could be no
more — of his power to punish; that here He cen-
sured them for making the Temple “a house of
merchandise,’’ whilst at the last cleansing it was
pronounced “a den of thieves,” with a distinct
reference to the two passages of Isaiah and Jeremiah
(Is. lvi. 7; Jer. vii. 11). Writers like Strauss would
persuade us that “tact and good sense” would pre-
vent the Redeemer from attempting such a violent
, measure at the beginning of his ministry, before
his authority was admitted. The aptness and the
greatness of the occasion have no weight with such
critics. The usual sacrifices of the law of Jehovah,
and the usual half-shekel paid for tribute to the
Temple, the very means that were appointed by
God to remind them that they were a consecrated
people, were made an excuse for secularizing even
the Temple; and in its holy precincts all the busi-
ness of the world went on. It was a time when
“the zeal of God's house” might well supersede
the “ tact’ on which the German philosopher lays
stress; and Jesus failed not in the zeal, nor did the
Pe Ss a bs A Oe en 5.0120 ee Se Remi
* a This third day may be reckoned from different
points. [BrTHaBaRA, Amer. ed.] H.
JESUS CHRIST.
accusing consciences of the traders fail to ju
for at the rebuke of one man they retreat,
the scene of their gains. Their hearts tok
even though they had been long immersed i
ening traffic, that the house of God could
to none other but God; and when a }
claimed it for Him, conscience deprived tl
the power to resist. Immediately after 1]
Jews asked of Him a sign or proof of his r
exercise this authority. He answered ther
promise of a sign by which He would h
confirm his mission, “ Destroy this Temple
three days I will raise it up” (John ii. 19),
ing, as the Evangelist explains, to his resun
But why is the name of the building befor
applied by our Lord so darkly to Himself ?
is doubtless a hidden reference to the Temy
type of the Church, which Christ by his dea
resurrection would found and raise up. EF
has cleared of buyers and sellers the court
perishable Temple made with hands, will
hereafter that He is the Founder of an |
Temple made without hands, and your dest
act shall be the cause. The reply was ind
scure; but it was meant as a refusal of
demand, and to the disciples afterwards it |
abundantly clear. At the time of the Passi
saying was brought against Him, in a pe
form — “ At the last came two false witness:
said, This fellow said, I am able to destr
temple of God, and to build it in three
(Matt. xxvi. 61). They hardly knew perha
utterly false a small alteration in the tale hac
it. They wanted to hold him up as one whe
to think of the destruction of the Temple;
change “destroy’’ into “I can destroy,”
seem no great violence to do to the truth.
those words contained not a mere cireumstar
the very essence of the saying, “ you are t|
stroyers of the Temple; you that were pollu!
now by turning it into a market-place shall «
it, and also your city, by staining its stones w
blood.”? Jesus came not to destroy the Tem]
to widen its foundations; not to destroy tl
but to complete it (Matt. v. 17). Two s};
changed their testimony into a lie.
The visit of Nicodemus to Jesus took place
this first Passover. It implies that our Lo
done more at Jerusalem than is recorded 0
even by John; since we have here a Mas
Israel (John iii. 10), a member of the San
(John vii. 50), expressing his belief in Him, alt)
too timid at this time to make an open pro!
The object. of the visit, though not directly t
is still clear: he was one of the better Phi
who were expecting the kingdom of Messia)
having seen the miracles that Jesus did, he:
to inquire more fully about these signs of |
proach. This indicates the connection betwe:
remark of Nicodemus and the Lord’s reply a
recognize these miracles as signs of the ki
of God; verily I say unto you, no one can try
and know the kingdom of God, unless he bi
again (4vwOev, from above; see ior i
Hebr. in loc., vol. iv.). The visitor boast:
blood of Abraham, and expected to stand I»
the new kingdom in virtue of that birthaiepy
did not wish to surrender it, and set his)
upon some other birth (comp. Matt. iii. 9)!
there is something of willfulness in the ques
‘“‘ How can a man be born when he is old? i
4). Our Lord again insists on the necessity;
=
JESUS CHRIST
red heart, in him who would be admitted to
holders more profoundly. {
Second Year of’ the Ministry. — Jesus vit
to Jerusalem to “a feast of the Jews,” W
have shown (p. 1859) to have been proba
Passover. At the pool Bethesda (= ho j
mercy), which was near the Sheep Gate (Nel
1H
JESUS CHRIST
he northeast side of the Temple, Jesus saw
infirm persons waiting their turn for the
ng virtues of the water. (John vy. 1-18. On
nuineness of the fourth verse, see Scholz,
’.; Tischendorf, N. 7. ; and Liicke, tn loc. It
wnting in three out of the four chief MSS. [and
n,]; it is singularly disturbed with variations in
MSS. that insert it, and it abounds in words
h do not oceur again in this Gospel.) Among
1} was a man who had had an infirmity thirty-
; years: Jesus made him whole by a word, bid-
him take up his bed and walk. The miracle
done on the Sabbath; and the Jews, by which
in St. John’s Gospel we are to understand the
sh authorities, who acted against Jesus, re-
d the man for carrying his bed. It was a
, and as such forbidden (Jer. xvii. 21). The
‘er of the man was too logical to be refuted:
that made me whole, the same said unto me,
, up thy bed and walk” (v.11). If He had
wthority for the latter, whence came his power
5 the former? Their anger was now directed
ist Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, even for
doing. They sought to put Him to death. In
Lord’s justification of Himself, “My Father
‘eth hitherto, and I work” (v. 17), there is an
‘uivocal claim to the Divine nature. God the
er never rests: if sleep could visit his eyelids
‘tn instant; if his hand could droop for a
ent’s rest, the universe would collapse in ruin.
‘ested on the seventh day from the creation of
beings; but from the maintenance of those
‘exist He never rests. His love streams forth
ery day alike; as do the impartial beams from
jun that he has placed in the heavens. The
‘rightly understood the saying: none but God
utter it; none could quote God's example, as
‘ig Him over and above God’s law, save One
was God Himself. They sought the more to
‘lim. He expounded to them more fully his
jon to the lather. He works with the strength
ve Father and according to his will. He can
1 that the Father does. He can raise men out
‘dily and out of spiritual death; and He can
‘2all men. John bore witness to Him; the
(3 that He does bear even stronger witness.
'reason that the Jews do not believe is their
of discernment of the meaning of the Scrip-
; and that comes from their worldliness, their
of honor from one another. Unbelief shall
' condemnation; even out of their Law they
Ube condemned, since they believe not even
int ad foretold that Christ should come (John
| 47)
other discussion about the Sabbath arose from
i'isciples plucking the ears of corn as they went
gh the fields (Matt. xii. 1-8). The time of
1's somewhat uncertain: some would place it a
| later, just after the third Passover (Clausen) ;
uts place is much more probably here (New-
| Robinson, ete.). The needy were permitted
Y ¢ Law (Deut. xxiii. 25) to pluck the ears of
» with their hand, even without waiting for the
“’s permission. The disciples must have been
‘a hard and poor life to resort to such means
‘ tenance. But the Pharisees would not allow
‘it was lawful on the Sabbath-day. Jesus
lds them that David, whose example they are
0 kely to challenge, ate the sacred shewbread in
Mibernacle, which it was not lawful to eat. ‘The
“S might partake of it, but not a stranger (Ex.
ae Ley. xxiv. 5,9). David, on the principle
7
JESUS CHRIST 1368
that iercy was. better than sacrifice (Hos. vi. 6),
took it and gave to the young men that were with
him that they might not perish for hunger. In
order further to show that a literal mechanical ob-
servance of the law of the Sabbath would lead to
absurdities, Jesus reminds them that this law is
perpetually set aside on account of another: ‘“ The
priests profane the Sabbath and are blameless’
(Matt. xii. 5). The work of sacrifice, the placing
of the shewbread, go on on the Sabbath, and dabor
even on that day may be done by priests, and may
please God. It was the root of the Pharisees’ fault
that they thought sacrifice better than mercy, ritual
exactness more than love: ‘If ye had known what
this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice,
ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For
the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day ”’
(Matt. xii. 7, 8). These last words are inseparable
from the meaning of our Lord’s answer. In plead-
ing the example of David, the king and prophet,
and of the priests iu the Temple, the Lord tacitly
implies the greatness of his own position. He is
indeed Prophet, Priest, and King; and had he been
none of these, the argument would have been not
merely incomplete, but misleading. It is unde-
niable that the law of the Sabbath was very strict.
Against labors as small as that of winnowing the
corn a severe penalty was set. Our Lord quotes
cases where the law is superseded or set aside, be-
cause He is One who has power to do the same.
And the rise of a new law is implied in those words
which St. Mark alone has recorded: ‘ The Sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”’
The law upon the Sabbath was made in love tc
men, to preserve for them a due measure of rest,
to keep room for the worship of God. The Son
of Man has power to readjust this law, if its work
is done, or if men are fit to receive a higher.
This may have taken place on the way from
Jerusalem after the Passover. On another Sab-
bath, probably at Capernaum, to which Jesus had
returned, the Pharisees gave a far more striking
proof of the way in which their hard and narrow
and unloving interpretation would turn the be-
neficence of the Law into a blighting oppression,
Our Lord entered into the synagogue, and found
there a man with a withered hand — some poor
artisan, perhaps, whose handiwork was his means
of life. Jesus was about to heal him — which
would give back life to the sufferer — which would
give joy to every beholder who had one touch of
pity in his heart. The Pharisees interfere: ‘ Is it
lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day?’’ Their doc-
tors would have allowed them to pull a sheep out
of a pit; but they will not have a man rescued
from the depth of misery. Rarely is that loving
Teacher wroth, but here his anger, mixed with
grief, showed itself: He looked round about upon
them “ with anger, being grieved at the hardness
of their hearts,’ and answered their cavils by heal-
ing the man (Matt. xii. 9-14; Mark iii. 1-6; Luke
vi. 6-11).
In placing the ‘ordination or calling of the Twelve
Apostles just before the Sermon on the Mount, we
are under the guidance of St. Luke (vi. 13, 17).
But this more solemn separation for their work by
no means marks the time of their first approach to
Jesus. Scattered notices prove that some of them
at. least were drawn gradually to the Lord, so that
it would be difficult. to identify the moment when
they earned the name of disciples. In the case of
St. Peter, five degrees or stages might be traced
1364 JESUS CHRIST
(John i. 41-43; Matt. iv. 19, xvi. 17-19; Luke
xxii. 31, 32; John xxi. 15-19), at each of which
he came somewhat nearer to his Master. That
which takes place here is the appointment of twelve
disciples to be a distinct body, under the name of
Apostles. They are not sent forth to preach until
later in the same year. The number twelve must
have reference to the number of the Jewish tribes;
it is a number selected on account of its symboli-
cal meaning, for the work confided to them might
have been wrought by more or fewer. ‘Twelve is
used with the same symbolical reference in many
passages of the O. T. Twelve pillars to the altar
which Moses erected (Ex. xxiv. 4); twelve stones
to commemorate the passing of the ark over Jor-
dan (Josh. iv. 3); twelve precious stones in the
breastplate of the priest (Ex. xxviii. 21); twelve
oxen bearing up the molten sea in the Temple of
Solomon (1 K. vii. 25); twelve officers over Solo-
mon’s hqusehold (1 K. iv. 7): all these are exam-
ples of the perpetual repetition of the Jewish num-
ber. Bahr (Symbolik, vol. i.) has accumulated
passages from various authors to show that twelve,
the multiple of four and three, is the type or sym-
bol of the universe; but it is enough here to say
that the use of the number in the foundation of
the Christian Church has a-reference to the tribes
of the Jewish nation. Hence the number continues
to be used after the addition of Paul and Barnabas
had made it inapplicable. The Lord Himself tells
them that they “shall sit on thrones judging the
twelve tribes of Israel’? (Matt. xix. 27, 28). When
He began his ministry in Galilee, He left his own
home at Nazareth, and separated himself from his
kinsmen after the flesh, in order to devote Himself
more completely to his prophetical office; and these
Twelve were “to be with Him” (Mark), and to
be instead of family and friends. But the enmity
of the Jews separated Him also from his country-
men. Every day the prospect of the Jews receiving
Him as their Messiah, to their own salvation, be-
came more faint; and the privileges of the favored
people passed gradually over to the new Israel, the
new Church, the new Jerusalem, of which the
Apostles were the foundation. The precise day in
which this defection was completed could not be
specified. The Sun of Righteousness rose on the
world, and set for the Jews, through all the shades
of twilight. In the education of the Twelve for
their appointed work, we see the supersedure of the
Jews; in the preservation of the symbolical number
we see preserved a recognition of their original
right.
In the four lists of the names of the Apostles
preserved to us (Matt. x., Mark iii., Luke vi., Acts
i.), there is a certain order preserved, amidst varia-
tions. The two pairs of brothers, Simon and An-
drew, and the sons of Zebedee, are always named
the first; and of these Simon Peter ever holds the
first place. Philip and Bartholomew, ‘Thomas and
Matthew, are always in the next rank; and of
them Philip is always the first. In the third rank
James the son of Alpheus is the first, as Judas
Iscariot is always the last, with Simon the Zealot
and Thaddeus between. The principle that gov-
erns this arrangement cannot be determined very
positively; but as no doubt Simon Peter stands
first. because of his zeal in his Master’s service, and
Judas ranks last because of his treason, it is nat-
ural to suppose that they are all arranged with
some reference at least to their zeal and fitness for
the apostolic office.
Some of the Apostles were!
JESUS CHRIST
certainly poor and unlearned men; it is pro
that the rest were of the same kind. Four of
were fishermen, not indeed the poorest of
class; and a fifth was a ‘publican,’ one 0
portitores, or tax-gatherers, who collected the
farmed by Romans of higher rank. Andrey,
is mentioned with Peter, is less conspicuous i
history than he, but he enjoyed free access t
Master, and seems to have been more intimate
him than the rest (John vi. 8, xii. 22, with ]
xiii. 3). But James and John, who are somet
placed above him in the list, were especially di
guished by Jesus. They were unmarried; and
mother, of whose ambition we have a well-k
instance, seems to have had much influence
them. The zeal and fire of their disposition j
dicated in the name of Boanerges bestowed -
them. One seems hardly to recognize in the |
enthusiasts who would have called down fire
heaven to consume the inhospitable Samar
(Luke ix. 52-56) the Apostle of Love and
brother. It is probable that the Bartholome
the Twelve is the same as Nathanael (John
and the Lebbeeus or Thaddeus the same as J
the brother of James. Simon the Zealot w,
called probably from his belonging to the se
Zealots, who, from Num. xxv. 7, 8, took it ont
selves to punish crimes against the law. I
name Iscariot (~man of Cariot = Kerioth) 1
the birth of the traitor to KERIOTH in Judah (
xy. 25), then it would appear that the traitor |
was of Judean origin, and the eleven faithful
were despised Galileans. :
From henceforth the education of the T
Apostles will be one of the principal featur’
the Lord’s ministry. First He instructs t
then He takes them with Him as companior|
his wayfaring; then He sends them forth to '
and heal for Him. The Sermon on the M)
although it is meant for all the disciples, see1|
have a special reference to the chosen Twelve (I
y. 11 ff.). Its principal features have been ske’
i
f
already; but they will miss their full meaning)
is forgotten that they are the first teaching ¥)
the Apostles were called on to listen to after
appointment. i
About this time it was that John the Ba:
long a prisoner with little hope of release, ser
disciples to Jesus with the question, “ Art tho
that should come, or do we look for anoth
In all the Gospels there is no more touching |
dent. Those who maintain that it was done |
for the sake of the disciples, and that John hii;
needed no answer to support his faith, ahd
little knowledge of the human mind as exa¢
in explaining the words of the account. The?
privilege of John’s life was that he was app¢}
to recognize and bear witness to the Messiah |
i. 31). After languishing a year in a dun
after learning that even yet Jesus had mat!
steps towards the establishment of his kingde ‘
the Jews, and that his following consisted of
twelve poor Galileans, doubts began to cloudy
his spirit. Was the kingdom of Messiah as 1!)
he had thought? Was Jesus not the Messial?
some forerunner of that Deliverer, as he hi?
had been? There is no unbelief; he does no!
pose that Jesus has deceived; when the
arise, it is to Jesus that he submits them.
was not without great depression and pel]
that he put the question, “ Art thou He thats
come?" The scope of the answer given lies
So.
u
JESUS CHRIST
ng John to the grounds of his former confi-
The very miracles are being wrought that
to be the signs of the kingdom of heaven;
nerefore that kingdom is come (Is. xxxv. 9,
6, 7). There is more of grave encourage-
than of rebuke in the words, ‘“ Blessed is he
shall not be offended in me” (Matt. xi. 6).
bid the Forerunner to have a good heart, and
and believe to the end. He has allowed
y, and the apparent triumph of wickedness,
.is a harder trial, to trouble his view of the
» plan; let him remember that it is blessed to
. that state of confidence which these things
t disturb; and let the signs which Jesus now
its suffice him to the end (Matt. xi. 1-6;
vii. 18-23).
e testimony to John which our Lord graciously
is intended to reinstate him in that place in
sinds of his own disciples which he had occu-
before this mission of doubt. John is nota
waverer; not a luxurious courtier, attaching
If to the new dispensation from worldly mo-
- but a prophet, and more than a prophet, for
rophets spoke of Jesus afar off, but John stood
» the Messiah, and with his hand pointed Him
He came in the spirit and power of [Elijah
. iii. 1, iv. 5), to prepare for the kingdom of
m. And yet, great as he was, the least of those
1e kingdom of heaven when it is completely
ed should enjoy a higher degree of religious
jnation than he (Matt. xi. 7-11; Luke vii.
3).
yw commences the second circuit of Galilee
e viii. 1-3), to which belong the parables in
. xiii, the visit of our Lord’s mother and
wen (Luke viii. 19-21), and the account of
eception at Nazareth (Mark vi. 1-6).
wing this time the twelve have journeyed with
, But now a third circuit in Galilee is re-
d, which probably occurred during the last
, months of this year (Matt. ix. 35-38); and
ag this circuit, after reminding them how great
‘2 harvest and how pressing the need of labor-
Ae carries the training of the disciples one step
‘er by sending them forth by themselves to
\ (Matt. x., xi.). Such a mission is not to be
dered as identical in character with the mis-
‘of the Apostles after the Resurrection. It was
ed to the Jews; the Samaritans and heathen
excluded; but this arose, not from any nar-
ess in the limits of the kingdom of heaven
't. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15), but from the
‘ed knowledge and abilities of the Apostles.
were sent to proclaim to the Jews that “the
Jom of heaven,” which their prophets taught
1 to look for, was at hand (Matt. x. 7); but
‘were unfit as yet for the task of explaining to
| the true nature of that kingdom, and still
‘to Gentiles who had received no preparation
nysuch doctrine. The preaching of the Apos-
whilst Jesus was yet on earth was only ancil-
\to his and a preparation of the way for Him.
a» probably of the simplest character. “As ye
reach, saying, The kingdom of Heaven is at
‘.” Power was given them to confirm it by
4 and wonders; and the purpose of it was to
iw the minds of those who heard it into an in-
\ ng state, so that they might seek and find the
Himself. But whilst their instructions as to
'natter of their preaching were thus brief and
i le, the cautions, warnings, and encourage-
“8 as to their own condition were far more full.
JESUS CHRIST 1865
They were to do their work without anxiety for
their welfare. No provision was to be made for
their journey; in the house that first received them
in any city they were to abide, not seeking to find
the best. Dangers would befall them, for they
were sent forth ‘as sheep in the midst of wolves ”’
(Matt. x. 16); but they were not to allow this to
disturb their thoughts. The same God who
wrought their miracles for them would protect
them; and those who confessed the name of Christ
before men would be confessed by Christ before the
Father as his disciples. These precepts for the
Apostles even went somewhat beyond what their
present mission required; it does not appear that
they were at this time delivered up to councils, or
scourged in synagogues. But in training their
feeble wings for their first flight the same rules and
cautions were given which would be needed even
when they soared the highest in their zeal and
devotion to their crucified Master. There is no
difficulty here, if we remember that this sending
forth was rather a training of the Apostles than a
means of converting the Galilean people.
They went forth two and two; and our Lord
continued his own circuit (Matt. xi. 1), with what
companions does not appear. By this time the
leaven of the Lord’s teaching had begun powerfully
to work among the people. Herod, we read, “ was
perplexed, because that it was said of some, that
John was risen from the dead, and of some that
Elijah had appeared; and of others, that one of the
old prophets was risen again’? (Luke ix. 7, 8).
The false apprehensions about the Messiah, that he
should be a temporal ruler, were so deep-rooted,
that whilst all the rumors concurred in assigning
a high place to Jesus as a prophet, none went be-
yond to recognize Him as the King of Israel — the
Saviour of his people and the world.
After a journey of perhaps two months’ duration
the twelve return to Jesus, and give an account of
their ministry. The third Passover was now draw-
ing near; but the Lord did not go up to it, because
his time was not come for submitting to the malice
of the Jews against Him; because his ministry in
Galilee was not completed; and especially, because
He wished to continue the training of the Apostles
for their work, now one of the chief objects of his
ministry. He wished to commune with them pri-
vately upon their work, and, we may suppose, to
add to the instruction they had already received
from Him (Mark vi. 80, 31). He therefore went
with them from the neighborhood of Capernaum
to a mountain on the eastern shore of the Sea of
Tiberias, near Bethsaida Julias, not far from the
head of the sea. Great multitudes pursued them ;
and here the Lord, moved to compassion by the
hunger and weariness of the people, wrought for
them one of his most remarkable miracles. Out
of five barley loaves and two small fishes, He pro-
duced food for five thousand men besides women
and children. The act was one of creation, and
therefore was both an assertion and a proof of divine
power ; and the discourse which followed it, re-
corded by John only, was an important step in the
training of the Apostles, for it hinted to them for
the first time the unexpected truth that the body
and blood of Christ, that is, his Passion, must be-
come the means of man’s salvation. This view of
the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven which they
had been preaching, could not have been undei-
stood; but it would prepare those who still clave to
Jesus to expect the hard /acts that were to follow
1866 JESUS CHRIST JESUS CHRIST
these hard words. The discourse itself has already
been examined (p. 1356). After the miracle, but
before the comment on it was delivered, the dis-
ciples crossed the sea from Bethsaida Julias to
Bethsaida of Galilee, and Jesus retired alone to a
mountain to commune with the Father. They were
toiling at the oar, for the wind was contrary, when,
as the night drew towards morning, they saw Jesus
walking to them on the sea, having passed the
whole night on the mountain. They were amazed
and terrified. He came into the ship and the wind
ceased. ‘They worshipped Him at this new proof
of divine power — “Of a truth thou art the Son
of God’’ (Matt. xiv. 33). The storm had been
another trial of their faith (comp. Matt. viii. 23-
26), not in a present Master, as on a former occa-
sion, but in an absent one. But the words of St.
Mark intimate that even the feeding of the five
thousand had not built up their faith in Him, —
“for they considered not the miracle of the loaves:
for their heart was hardened” (vi. 52). Peter,
however, as St. Matthew relates, with his usual
zeal wishing to show that he really possessed that
faith in Jesus, which perhaps in the height of the
storm had been somewhat forgotten, requests Jesus
to bid him come to Him upon the water. When he
made the effort, his faith began to fail, and he cried
out for succor. Christ’s rebuke, “© thou of little
faith, wherefore didst thou doubt ?”? does not imply
that he had no faith, or that it wholly deserted him
now. All the failings of Peter were of the same
kind; there was a faith full of zeal and eagerness,
but it was not constant. He believed that he could
walk on the waters if Jesus bade him; but the roar
of the waves appalled him, and he sank from the
same cause that made him deny his Lord after-
wards.
When they reached the shore of Gennesaret the
whole people showed thejr faith in Him as a Healer
of disease (Mark vi. 53-56); and he performed very
many miracles on them. Nothing could surpass
the eagerness with which they sought Him. Yet
on the next day the great discourse just alluded to
was uttered, and “from that time many of his dis-
ciples went back and walked no more with Him ”
(John vi. 66).
Third Year of the Ministry. — Hearing perhaps
that Jesus was not coming to the feast, Scribes and
Pharisees from Jerusalem went down to see Him
at Capernaum (Matt. xv. 1). They found fault
with his disciples for breaking the.tradition about
purifying, and eating with unwashen hands. It is
not necessary to suppose that they came to lie in
wait for Jesus. ‘The objection was one which they
would naturally take. Our Lord in his answer
tries to show them how far external rule, claiming
to be religious, may lead men away from the true
spirit of the Gospel. ‘“ Ye say, whosoever shall say
to his father or his mother, it is a gift, by what-
soever thou mightest be profited by me; and honor
not his father or his mother, he shall be free”
(Matt. xv. 5, 6). They admitted the obligation
of the fifth commandment, but had introduced a
means of evading it, by enabling a son to say to
his father and mother who sought his help that he
had made his property “a gift” to the Temple,
which took precedence of his obligation. Well
might He apply to a people where such a miserable
evasion could find place, the words of Isaiah (xxix.
13) — “This people draweth nigh unto me with
their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but
their heart is far from me. But in vain they do
worship me, teaching for doctrines the comn,
ments of men.’
Leaving the neighborhood of Capernaum
Lord now travels to the northwest of Galile
the region of Tyre and Sidon. The time is
strictly determined, but it was probably the ¢
summer of this year. It does not appear that
retired into this heathen country for the pur
of ministering; more probably it was a retreat |
the machinations. of the Jews. A woman of
country, of Greek education (‘EAAn»p)s Supo
vixiooa, Mark), came to entreat Him to heal
daughter, who was tormented with an eyil. sp
The Lord at first repelled her by saying that
was not sent but to the lost sheep of the hous
Israel; but not so was her maternal love to
baffled. She besought Him again and was a
repelled; the bread of the children was not t
given to dogs. Still persisting, she besought
help even as one of the dogs so despised: «
dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from the Mast
table.”’. Faith so sincere was not to be resis
Her daughter was made whole (Matt. xy. 21-
Mark vii. 24-80).
Returning thence He passed round by the nc
of the sea of Galilee to the region of Decapolis
its eastern side (Mark vii. 31-37). In this dist
He performed many miracles, and especially
restoration of a deaf man who had an impedim
in his speech, remarkable for the seeming ef
with which He wrought it. To these succee
the feeding of the four thousand with the se
loaves (Matt. xv. 82). He now crossed the L
to Magdala, where the Pharisees and Saddw
asked and were refused a “sign; ”’ some great w
der wrought expressly for them to prove that.
was the Christ. He answers them as He had |
swered a similar request before: “the sign of
prophet Jonas”’ was all that they should h:
His resurrection after a death of three days sho
be the great sign, and yet in another sense no s
should be given them, for they should neither |
it nor believe it. The unnatural alliance betw:
Pharisee and Sadducee is worthy of remark.
zealots of tradition, and the political partizans
Herod (for ‘Jeaven of the Sadducees,” in Ms
xvi. 6 =“ leaven of Herod,’’ Mark viii. 15) jon
together for once with a common object of hatr
After they had departed, Jesus crossed the lake w
his disciples, and, combining perhaps for the use|
the disciples the remembrance of the feeding of
four thousand with that of the conversation tl
had just heard, warned them to “ beware of |
leaven of the Pharisees and of the leayen
Herod”’ (Mark viii. 15). So little however W’
the disciples prepared for this, that they mist
it for a reproof for having brought only one k
with them! They had forgotten the five thousa)
and the four thousand, or they would haye kno
that where He was, natural bread could not j
them. It was needful to explain to them that 1)
leaven of the Pharisees was the doctrine of thi
who had made the word of God of none effect
traditions which, appearing to promote religi(
really overlaid and destroyed it, and the leaven
the Sadducees was the doctrine of those who, 0
der the show of superior enlightenment, denied #)
foundations of the fear of God by denying a futu
state. At Bethsaida Julias, Jesus restored sight)
a blind man; and here, as in a former ease,
form and preparation which He adopted are to.
remarked. As though the human Saviour has
JESUS CHRIST
with and painfully overcome the sufferings
people, He takes him by the hand, and leads
t of the town, and spits on his eyes and asks
he seesaught. At first the sense is restored
tly; and Jesus lays his hand again upon
d the cure is complete (Mark viii. 22-26).
ministry in Galilee is now drawing to its
Through the length and breadth of that
y Jesus has proclaimed the kingdom of Christ,
as shown by mighty works that He is the
that was to come. He begins to ask the
5 what are the results of all his labor.
m say the people that I am?” (Luke ix. 18).
rue that the answer shows that they took
or a prophet. But we are obliged to admit
he rejection of Jesus by the Galileans had
s complete as his preaching to them had been
sal. Here and there a few may have received
ds that shall afterwards be quickened to their
sion. But the great mass had heard without
ness the preached word, and forgotten it
it regret. ‘+ Whereunto shall I liken this
tion?” says Christ. “It is like unto chil-
itting in the market, and calling unto their
, and saying, We have piped unto you, and
e not danced; we have mourned unto you,
e have not lamented’? (Matt. xi. 16, 17).
is a picture of a wayward people without
sthought. As children, from want of any
urpose, cannot agree in their play, so the
ins quarrel with every form of religious teach-
The message of John and that of Jesus they
t attend to; but they could discuss the ques-
hether one was right in fasting and the other
ng and drinking. He denounces woe to the
vhere He had wrought the most, to Chorazin,
tida, and Capernaum, for their strange insen-
‘, using the strongest expressions. ‘“ Thou,
yaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt
ught down to hell; for if the mighty works
-haye been done in thee had been done in
1, it would have remained until this day.
‘say unto you that it shall be more tolerable
» land of Sodom in the day of judgment than
xe” (Matt. xi. 23, 24). Such awful language
only be used to describe a complete rejection
‘Lord. And in truth nothing was wanting
ravate that rejection. The lengthened jour-
hrough the land, the miracles, far more than
sorded in detail, had brought the Gospel home
the people. Capernaum was the focus of his
ry. Through Chorazin and Bethsaida He had
‘ubt passed with crowds behind Him, drawn
‘er by wonders that they had seen, and by
pe of others to follow them. Many thousands
‘ctually been benefited by the miracles; and
‘all these there were only twelve that really
to Him, and one of them was Judas the
* With this rejection an epoch of the his-
‘connected. He begins to unfold now the
ae of his Passion more fully. First inquiring
ae people said that He was, He then put the
juestion to the Apostles themselves. Simon
\the ready spokesman of the rest, answers,
wart the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
“ht almost seem that such a manifest inference
whe wonders they had witnessed was too ob-
to deserve praise, did not the sight of a whole
ny which had witnessed the same wonders,
‘espised them, prove how thoroughly callous
wish heart was. “ Blessed art thou, Simon
na: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it
JESUS CHRIST 1367
unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And
I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my church; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”
(Matt. xvi. 16-20). We compare the language
applied to Capernaum for its want of faith with
that addressed to Peter and the Apostles, and we
see how wide is the gulf between those who believe
and those who do not. Jesus now in the plainest
language tells them what is to be the mode of his
departure from the world; ‘“ how that He must go
unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the
elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed,
and be raised again the third day” (Matt. xvi. 21).
Peter, who had spoken as the representative of all
the Apostles before, in confessing Jesus as the
Christ, now speaks for the rest in offering to our
Lord the commonplace consolations of the children
of this world to a friend beset by danger. The
danger they think will be averted: such an end can-
not befall one so great. The Lord, “when he had
turned about and looked on his disciples ’’ (Mark),
to show that He connected Peter’s words with
them all, addresses Peter as the tempter — “ Get
thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto
me.’’? These words open up to us the fact that
this period of the ministry was a time of special
trial and temptation to the sinless Son of God.
“« Escape from sufferings and death! Do not drink
the cup prepared of Thy Father; it is too bitter;
it is not deserved.’’ Such was the whisper of the
Prince of this World at that time to our Lord;
and Peter has been unwittingly taking it into his
mouth. The.doctrine of a suffering Messiah, so
plainly exhibited in the prophets, had receded from
sight in the current religign of that time. The
announcement of it to the disciples was at once
new and shocking. By repelling it, even when
offered by the Lord Himself, they fell into a deeper
sin than they could have conceived. The chief
of them was called ‘ Satan,’’ because he was un-
consciously pleading on Satan’s side (Matt. xvi. 21-
23).
Turning now to the whole body of those who
followed Him (Mark, Luke), He -published the
Christian doctrine of self-denial. The Apostles had
just shown that they took the natural view of suf-
fering, that it was an evil to be shunned. They
shrank from conflict, and pain, and death, as it is
natural men should. But Jesus teaches that, in
comparison with the higher life, the life of the soul,
the life of the body is valueless. And as the re-
newed life of the Christian implies his dying to
his old wishes and desires, suffering, which causes
the death of earthly hopes and wishes, may be a
good, ‘If any man will come after Me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me
For whosoeVer will save his life shall lose it, and
whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it.
For what is a man profited, if he should gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall
a man give in exchange for his soul? ’’ (Matt. xvi.).
From this part of the history to the end we shall
not lose sight of the sufferings of the Lord. The
Cross is darkly seen at the end of our path; and
we shall ever draw nearer that mysterious imple-
ment of human salvation (Matt. xvi. 21-28; Mark
viii. 31-38: Luke ix. 22-27).
1368 JESUS CHRIST © JESUS CHRIST
The Transfiguration, which took place just a|had been eye-witnesses of his majesty (2 Pe
week after this conversation, is to be understood in 16-18). ;
connection with it. The minds of the twelve were! As they came down from the mountain
greatly disturbed at what they had heard. The charged them to keep secret what they had
Messiah was to perish by the wrath of men. The | till after the Resurrection; which shows that
Master whom they served was to be taken away | miracle took place for his use and for theirs, ra
from them. Now, if ever, they needed support for|than for the rest of the disciples. This le
their perplexed spirits, and this their loving Master | questions about the meaning of his rising a,
failed not to give them. He takes with Him three | from the dead, and in the course of it, and ari
chosen disciples, Peter, John, and James, who | out of it, occurred the question, ‘‘ Why then (
formed as it were a smaller circle nearer to Jesus | which refers to some preceding conversation)
than that of the rest, into a high mountain apart | the scribes that Elias must first come?” 7
by themselves. There are no means of determining | had been assured by what they had just seen ;
the position of the mountain; although Cesarea | the time of the kingdom of God was now co
Philippi was the scene of the former conversations, | and the objection brought by the Scribes, that
it does not follow that this occurred on the eastern | fore the Messiah Elijah must reappear, seemed |
side of the lake, for the intervening week would | to reconcile with their new conviction. Our]
have given time enough for a long journey thence. | answers them that the Scribes have rightly un
There is no authority for the tradition which iden-| stood the prophecies that Elijah would first ¢
tifies this mountain with Mount Tabor, although it | (Mal. iv. 5,6), but have wanted the discernm:
may be true. [HERMON; TazBor.] The three|to see that this prophecy was already fulfil
disciples were taken up with Him, who should after- | « Elias has come already, and they knew him }
wards be the three witnesses of his agony in the| but have done unto him whatever they liste
garden of Gethsemane: those who saw his glory in} In John the Baptist, who came in the spirit ;
the holy mount would be sustained by the remem- power of Elijah, were the Scriptures fulfilled (M
brance of it when they beheld his lowest humilia- | xvii. 1-13; Mark ix. 2-18; Luke ix. 28-36).
tion. The calmness and exactness of the narrative] Meantime amongst the multitude below a sc
preclude all doubt as to its historical character. It | was taking place which formed the strongest ¢
is no myth, nor vision; but a sober account of a| trast to the glory and the peace which they |
miracle. When Jesus had come up into the moun- witnessed, and which seemed to justify Pet:
tain He was praying, and as He prayed, a great | remark, “It is good for us to be here.” Ap
change came over Him. “His face did shine as youth, lunatic and possessed by a devil —for |
the sun (Matt.); and His raiment became shining, | as elsewhere the possession is superadded to sc
exceeding white as snow: so as no fuller on earth | known form of that bodily and mental eyil wh
can white them” (Mark). Beside Him appeared | came in at first with sin and Satan — was brou
Moses the great lawgiver, and Elijah, great amongst | to the disciples who were not with Jesus, to
the prophets; and they spake of his departure, as | cured. They could not prevail; and when Je
though it was something recognized both by Law | appeared amongst them the agonized and dis
and prophets. ‘The three disciples were at first pointed father appealed to Him, with a kind!
asleep with weariness; and when they woke they | complaint of the impotence of the disciples. |
saw the glorious scene. As Moses and Elijah were | faithless and perverse generation! ’’ said our Le!
departing (Luke), Peter, wishing to arrest them, | “how long shall I be with you? how long shal
uttered those strange words, ‘« Lord, it is good for | suffer you?” The rebuke is not to the discip
“us to be here, and let us make three tabernacles, | but to all, the father included; for the weak:
one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Eli-| of faith that hindered the miracle was in them
jah.” They were the words of one astonished | St. Mark's account, the mot complete, descr:
and somewhat afraid, yet of one who felt a strange | the paroxysm that took place in the lad on 1
peace in this explicit testimony from the Father | Lord’s ordering him to be brought; and also reco:
that Jesus was his. It was good for them to be|the remarkable saying, which well described :
there, he felt, where no Pharisees could set traps | father’s state, “Lord, I believe, help Thou
for them, where neither Pilate nor Herod could | unbelief!’? What the disciples had failed to ,
take Jesus by force. Just as he spoke a cléud came|Jesus did at a word. He _ then explained
over them, and the voice of the Heavenly Father | them that their want of faith in their own po
attested once more his Son — “ This is my beloved | to heal, and in his promises to bestow the po:
Son; hear Him.” There has been much discus- upon them, was the cause of their inability (Mi.
sion on the purport of this great wonder. But | xvii. 14-21; Mark ix. 14-29; Luke ix. esl
thus much seems highly probable. First, as it was} Once more did Jesus foretell his sufferings |
connected with the prayer of Jesus, to which it was | their way back to Capernaum; but “ they gnc
no doubt an answer, it is to be regarded as a kind | stood not that saying, and were afraid to ask Hir
of inauguration of Him in his new office as the (Mark ix. 80-32). !
High-priest who should make atonement for the] But a vague impression seems to have been p
sins of the people with his own blood. The mys-
tery of his trials and temptations lies too deep for
speculation: -but He received strength against hu-
man infirmity — against the prospect. of sufferings
so terrible —in this his glorification. Secondly,
as the witnesses of this scene were the same three
disciples who were with the Master in the garden
of Gethsemane it may be assumed that the one
was intended to prepare them for the other, and
that they were to be borne up under the spectacle
of his humiliation by the remembrance that they
duced on them that his kingdom was now V,
near. It broke forth in the shape of a disp
amongst them as to which should rank the high
in the kingdom when it should come. al
little child, He told them that, in his kingdom, My
ambition, but a childlike humility, would entitle)
the highest place (Matt. xviii. 1-5; Mark ix. «
37; Luke ix. 46-48). The humility of the Chi !
tian is so closely connected with consideration |
the souls of others, that the transition to a wal
ing against causing offense (Matt., Mark), wh)
| 5
|
JESUS CHRIST
appear abrupt at first, is most natural.
this Jesus passes naturally to the subject of
er consideration for ‘the lost sheep; ’’ thence
duty of forgiveness of a brother. Both of
ast points are illustrated by parables. These,
me other discourses belonging to the same
are to be regarded as designed to carry on
lucation of the Apostles, whose views were
ude and unformed, even after all that had
lone for them (Matt. xviii.).
m the Feast of Tabernacles, Third Year. —
‘east of Tabernacles was now approaching.
ighteen months the ministry of Jesus had
confined to Galilee; and his brothers, not
. to Him, yet only half-convinced about his
ne, urged Him to go into Judea that his
-might be known and confessed on a more
cuous field. This kind of request, founded
nan motives, was one which our Lord would
sent to; witness his answer to Mary at Cana
lee when the first miracle was wrought. He
yem that, whilst all times were alike to them,
they could always walk among the Jews
it danger, his appointed time was not come.
set out for the feast without Him, and He
in Galilee for a few days longer (John vii.
Afterwards He set out, taking the more
but less frequented route by Samaria, that
imey might be “in secret.” It was in this
ry that James and John conceived the wish —
ely parallel to facts in the Old Covenant, so
tely at variance with the spirit of the New,
te should be commanded to come down from
. to consume the inhospitable Samaritans
‘ix. 51-62).
Luke alone records, in connection with this
xy, the sending forth of the seventy disciples.
vent is to be regarded in a different light
hat of the twelve. The seventy had received
cial education from our Lord, and their com-
a was of a temporary kind. The number
ference to the Gentiles, as twelve had to the
‘and the scene of the work, Samaria, reminds
t this is a movement directed towards the
cr. It takes place six months after the send-
‘th of the twelve; for the Gospel was to be
ed to the Jew first and afterwards to the
2. In both cases probably the preaching was
simplest kind — “The kingdom of God is
aigh unto you.” The instructions given were
me in spirit; but, on comparing them, we
st now the danger was becoming greater and
le for labor shorter (Luke x. 1-16).
t healing the ten lepers in Samaria, He came
t the midst of the feast” to Jerusalem.
he minds of the people were strongly excited
/awn in different ways concerning him. ‘The
2es and rulers sought to take Him; some of
ple, however, believed in Him, but concealed
pinion for fear of the rulers. To this divis-
‘opinion we may attribute the failure of the
d attempts on the part of the Sanhedrim to
ne who was openly teaching in the Temple
vil. 11-53; see especially vv. 30, 32, 44, 45,
The officers were partly afraid to seize in the
ve of the people the favorite Teacher; and
wemselves were awed and attracted by Him.
ame to seize Him, but could not lift their
against Him. Notwithstanding the ferment
ton, and the fixed hatred of those in power,
‘ms to have taught daily to the end of the
| the Temple before the people.
JESUS CHRIST 1369
The history of the woman taken in adultery be
longs to this time. But it must be premised that
several MSS. of highest authority omit this passage,
and that in those which insert it the text is singu-
larly disturbed (see Liicke, in loc., and Tischendorf,
Gr. Test., ed. vii.). The remark of Augustine is
perhaps not far from the truth, that this story
formed a genuine portion of the apostolic teaching,
but that mistaken people excluded it from their
| copies of the written Gospel, thinking it might be
perverted into a license to women to sin (Ad Pollent.
ii. ch. 7). That it was thus kept apart, without
the safeguards which Christian vigilance exercised
over the rest of the text, and was only admitted
later, would at once account for its absence from
the MSS. and for the various forms assumed by the
text where it is given. But the history gives no
ground for such apprehensions. ‘The law of Moses
gave the power to stone women taken in adultery.
But Jewish morals were sunk very low, like Jewish
faith; and the punishment could not be inflicted
on a sinner by those who had sinned in the same
kind: “‘Etenim non est ferendus accusator is qui
quod in altero vitium reprehendit, in eo ipso depre-
henditur ”’ (Cicero, ec. Verrem, ili.). Thus the pun-
ishment had passed out of use. But they thought,
by proposing this case to our Lord, to induce Him
either to set the Law formally aside, in which case
they might accuse Him of profaneness; or to sen-
tence the guilty wretch to die, and so become ob-
noxious to the charge of cruelty. From such
temptations Jesus was always able to escape. He
threw back the decision upon them; He told them
that the man who was free from that sin might
cast the first stone at her. Conscience told them
that this was unanswerable, and one by one they
stole away, leaving the guilty woman alone before
One who was indeed her Judge. It has been sup-
posed that the words “ Neither do I condemn thee”’
convey an absolute pardon for the sin of which she
had just been guilty. But they refer, as has long
since been pointed out, to the doom of stoning only.
*¢ As they have not punished thee, neither do I;
go, and let this danger warn thee to sin no more”’
(John viii. 1-11).
The conversations (John viii. 12-59) show in a
strong light the perversity of the Jews in misun-
derstanding our Lord’s words. They refuse to see
any spiritual meaning in them, and drag them as
it were by force down to a low and carnal interpre-
tation. Our Lord’s remark explains the cause of
this, “« Why do ye not understand my speech [way
of speaking]? Even because ye cannot hear my
word’’ (ver. 43). His mode of expression was
strange to them, because they were neither able nor
willing to understand the real purport of his teach-
ing. To this place belongs the account, given by
John alone, of the healing of one who was born
blind, and the consequences of it (John ix. 1-41, x.
1-21). The poor patient was excommunicated for
refusing to undervalue the agency of Jesus in re-
storing him. He believed on Jesus; whilst the
Pharisees were only made the worse for what they
had witnessed. Well might Jesus exclaim, ‘“ For
judgment I am come into this world, that they
which see not might see; and that they which see
might be made blind” (ix. 39). The well-known
parable of the good shepherd is an answer to the
calumny of the Pharisees, that He was an impostor
and breaker of the law, “ This man is not of God,
because he keepeth not the Sabbath day ”’ (ix. 16).
We now approach a difficult portion of the sacred
1570 JESUS CHRIST
history. The note of time given us by John im-
mediately afterwards is the Feast of the Dedication,
which was celebrated on the 25th of Kisleu, answer-
ing nearly to December. According to this Evange-
list our Lord does not appear to have returned to
Galilee between the Feast of Tabernacles and that
of Dedication, but to have passed the time m and
near Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark do not allude
to the Feast of Tabernacles. Luke appears to do
so in ix. 51; but the words there used would imply
that this was the last journey to Jerusalem. Now
in St. Luke’s Gospel a large section, from ix. 51 to
xvili. 14, seems to belong to the time preceding the
departure from Galilee; and the question is how is
this to be arranged, so that it shall harmonize with
the narrative of St. John? In most Harmonies a
return of our Lord to Galilee has been assumed, in
order to find a place for this part of Luke’s Gospel.
“‘ But, the manner,’’ says the English editor of
Robinson’s Harmony, “in which it has been ar-
ranged, after all, is exceedingly various. Some, as
Le Clerc, Harm. Lvang. p. 264, insert nearly the
whole during this supposed journey. Others, as
Lightfoot, assign to this journey only what precedes
Luke xiii. 23; and refer the remainder to our Lord’s
sojourn beyond Jordan, John x. 40 (Chron. Temp.
N. T. Opp. Il. pp. 87, 89). Greswell (Dissert. xvi.
vol. ii.) maintains that the transactions in Luke ix.
d1-xviii. 14, all belong to the journey from Ephraim
(through Samaria, Galilee, and Persea) to Jeru-
salem, which he dates in the interval of four months,
between the Feast of Dedication and our Lord’s
last Passover. Wieseler (Chron. Synops. p. 328)
makes a somewhat different arrangement, according
to which Luke ix. 51— xiii. 21 relates to the
period from Christ’s journey from Galilee to the
Feast of the Tabernacles, till after the Feast of
Dedication (parallel to John vii. 10 —x. 42). Luke
xiii. 22 — xvii. 10 relates to the interval between
that time and our Lord’s stay at Ephraim (parallel
to John xi. 1-54); and Luke xvii. 11 — xviii. 14
relates to the journey from Ephraim to Jerusalem,
through Samaria, Galilee, and Persea ’’ (Robinson’s
Harmony, English ed. p. 92). If the table of the
Harmony of the Gospels given above is referred to
{GosPELs], it will be found that this great division
of St. Luke (x. 17 —xviii. 14) is inserted entire
between John x. 21 and 22; not that this appeared
certainly correct, but that there are no points of
contact with the other Gospels to assist us in
breaking it up. That this division contains partly
or chiefly reminiscences of occurrences in Galilee
prior to the Feast of Tabernacles, is untenable. A
journey of some kind is implied in the course of it
(see xili. 22), and beyond this we shall hardly ven-
ture to go. It is quite possible, as Wieseler sup-
poses, that part of it should be placed before, and
part after the Feast of Dedication. Notwithstand-
ing the uncertainty, it is as the history of this
period of the Redeemer’s career that the Gospel of
St. Luke possesses its chief distinctive value for us.
Some of the most striking parables, preserved only
by this Evangelist, belong to this period. The
parables of the good Samaritan, the prodigal son,
the unjust steward, the rich man and Lazarus, and
the Pharisee and publican, all peculiar to this
Gospel, belong to the present section. The in-
strudtive account of Mary and Martha, on which
so many have taken a wrong view of Martha's con-
duct, reminds us that there are two ways of serving
the truth, that of active exertion, and that of con-
templation. The preference is given to Mary’s
JESUS CHRIST
meditation, because Martha‘s labor belonge
household cares, and was only indirectly relic
The miracle of the ten lepers belongs to this po
of the narrative. Besides these, scattered sa:
that occur in St. Matthew are here repeated
new connection. Here too belongs the retw
the seventy disciples, but we know not pre
where they rejoined the Lord (Luke x. 17-20), '
were full of triumph, because they found eye;
devils subject to them through the weight of Ch:
word. In anticipation of the victory which
now begun, against the powers of darkness, .
replies, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall
heaven.’’ He sought, however, to humble
triumphant spirit, so near akin to spiritual p
“‘ Notwithstanding, in this rejoice not, that
spirits are subject unto you; but rather re}
because your names are written in heayen.”
The account of the bringing of young chil
to Jesus unites again the three Evangelists. ]
as often, St. Mark gives the most minute acc
of what occurred. After the announcement
the disposition of little children was the most
for the kingdom of God, “ He took them up i
arms, put his hands upon them and blessed th
The childlike spirit, which in nothing depends |
its own knowledge but seeks to be taught, |
contrast with the haughty pharisaism wit)
boast of learning and wisdom ; and Jesus tells |
that the former is the passport to his kin;
(Matt. xix. 18-15; Mark x. 13-16; Luke |
15-17).
The question of the ruler, « What shall I |
inherit eternal life? ’’? was one conceived who:
the spirit of Judaism. The man asked not
he should be delivered from sin, but how his’
already free to righteousness, might select th«
and most meritorious line of conduct. The vi
«Why callest thou me good? there is none)
but one, that is, God,’ were meant first to ‘
him down to a humbler view of his own state:
title good is easy to give, but hard to justify, |
when applied to the One who is all good.
by no means repudiates the title as appli’
Himself, but only as applied on any other g)
than that of a reference to his true divine ni!
Then the Lord opened out to him all @
law, which in its full and complete sense nc}
has observed; but the ruler answered. perhap!
cerely, that he had observed it all from his
up. Duties however there might be which ha)
come within the range of his thoughts; and i
demand had reference to his own special cas!
Lord gives the special advice to sell all his ps
sions and to give to the poor. Then for th
time did the man discover that his deyotion 4
and his yearning after the eternal life were '
perfect as he had thought; and he went awa‘
rowful, unable to bear this sacrifice. And
told the disciples how hard it was for thos’
had riches to enter the kingdom. Peter, ;
most ready, now contrasts, with somewhat too}
emphasis, the mode in which the disciples hi!
all for Him, with the conduct of this rich !
Our Lord, sparing him the rebuke which he
have expected, tells them that those who have®
any sacrifice shall have it richly repaid even !
life in the shape of a consolation and comfort,
even persecutions cannot take away (Mark )2
shall have eternal life (Matt. xix. 16-30; M
17-31; Luke xviii. 18-30). Words of wi
close the narrative, “ Many that are first sh
JESUS CHRIST
d the last shall be first,” lest the disciples
be thinking too much of the sacrifices, not
great, that they had made. And in St.
w only, the well-known parable of the labor-
the vineyard is added to illustrate the same
Whatever else the parable may contain of
xe to the calling of Jews and Gentiles, the
sson Christ was to give was one of caution
Apostles against thinking too much of their
uling and arduous labors. They would see
who, in comparison with themselves, were as
orers called at the eleventh hour, who should
pted of God as well as they. But not merit,
f-sacrifice, but the pure love of God and his
ounty, conferred salvation on either of them:
not lawful for me to do what I will with my
’ (Matt. xx. 1-16).
she way to Jerusalem through Persea, to the
of Dedication, Jesus again puts before the
of the twelve what they are never now to
the sufferings that await Him. They “ un-
d none of these things’’ (Luke), for they
1ot reconcile this foreboding of suffering with
ns and announcements of the coming of his
m (Matt, xx. 17-19; Mark x. 32-34; Luke
1-34). In consequence of this new, though
ntimation of the coming of the kingdom,
,, with her two sons, James and John, came
bak the two places of highest honor in the
m. Jesus tells them that they know not
hey ask; that the places of honor in the
‘m shall be bestowed, not by Jesus in answer
ance request, but upon those for whom they
pared by the Father. As sin ever provokes
2 ambition of the ten was now aroused, and
‘gan to be much displeased with James and
_ Jesus once more recalls the principle that
Idlike disposition is that which He approves.
now that the princes of the Gentiles exercise
‘on over them, and they that are great exer-
thority upon them. But it shall not be so
you: but whosoever will be great among
thim be your minister; and whosoever will
Son of Man came not to be ministered unto
‘minister, and to give his life a ransom for
? (Matt. xx. 20-28; Mark x. 35-45).
_ healing of the two blind men at Jericho is
remarkable among the miracles from the
ity which has arisen in harmonizing the ac-
Matthew speaks of two blind men, and of
asion as the departure from J ericho; Mark
, whom he names, and of their arrival at
iy; and Luke agrees with him. ‘This point
‘ceived much discussion; but the view of
|oot finds favor with many eminent expositors,
here were two blind men, and both were
under similar circumstances, except that
\eus Was on one side of the city, and was
by Jesus as He entered, and the other was
‘on the other side as they departed (see Gres-
Wiss. xx. ii.; Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p. 332;
i xx. 29-34; Mark x. 46-52; Luke xviii.
} [Bartimzus, Amer. ed.]
‘calling of Zacchzeus has more than a mere
‘al interest. He was a publican, one of a class
and despised by the Jews. But he was one
“ought to serve God; he gave largely to the
ind restored fourfold when he had injured
An. Justice and love were the law of his
Brom such did Jesus wish to call his dis-
7 whether they were putlicans or not. “ This
| |
famong you, let him be your servant: Even |
JESUS CHRIST 137]
day is salvation come to this house, for that he also
is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man is come
to seek and to save that which was lost ’’ (Luke
xix. 1-10).
We have reached now the Feast of Dedication;
but, as has been said, the exact place of the events
in St. Luke about this part of the ministry has not
been conclusively determined. After being present
at the feast, Jesus returned to Bethabara beyond
Jordan, where John had formerly baptized, and
abode there. The place which the beginning of
his ministry had consecrated, was now to be
adorned with his presence as it drew towards its
close, and the scene of John’s activity was now to
witness the presence of the Saviour whom he had
so faithfully proclaimed (John x. 22-42). The Lord
intended by this choice to recall to the minds of
many the good which John had done them, and
also, it may be, to prevent an undue exaltation of
John in the minds of some who had heard him
only. ‘Many,’ we read, “resorted to Him, and
said, John did no miracle, but all things that John
spake of this man were true. And many believed
on Him there”’ (vv. 41, 42).
How long He remained here does not appear.
It was probably for some weeks. The sore need of
a family in Bethany, who were what men call the
intimate friends of our Lord, called Him’ thence.
Lazarus was sick, and his sisters sent word of it to
Jesus, whose power they well knew. Jesus an-
swered that the sickness was not unto death, but
for the glory of God, and of the Son of God. This
had reference to the miracle about to be wrought;
even though he died, not his death but his restora-
tion to life was the purpose of the sickness. But
it was a trial to the faith of the sisters to find the
words of their friend apparently falsified. Jesus
abode for two days where He was, and then pro-
posed to the disciples to return. The rage of the
Jews against him filled the disciples with alarm;
and Thomas, whose mind leant always to the
'desponding side, and saw nothing in the expedition
but certain death to allof them, said, “ Let us also
go that we may die with Him.’’ It was not till
Lazarus had been four days in the grave that the
Saviour appeared on the scene. The practical
energy of Martha, and the retiring character of
Mary, show themselves here, as once before. It was
Martha who met Him, and addressed to Him words
of sorrowful reproach. Jesus probed her faith
‘deeply, and found that even in this extremity of
sorrow it would not fail her. Mary now joined
them, summoned by her sister; and she too re-
proached the Lord for the delay. Jesus does not
resist the contagion of their sorrow, and asa Man
He weeps true human tears by the side of the
grave of a friend. But with the power of God He
breaks the fetters of brass in which Lazarus was
held by death, and at His word the man on whom
corruption had already begun to do its work came
forth alive and whole (John xi. 1-45). It might
seem difficult to account for the omission of this,
perhaps the most signal of the miracles of Jesus,
by the three synoptical Evangelists. No doubt it
was intentional; and the wish not to direct atten-
tion, and perhaps persecution, to Lagarus in his
lifetime may go far to account for it. But it stands
well in the pages of John, whose privilege it has been
to announce the highest truths connected with the
divine nature of Jesus, and who is now also per-
mitted to show Him touched with sympathy for a
| sorrowing family with whom he lived in intimacy.
1372 JESUS CHRIST
A miracle so public, for Bethany was close to
Jerusalem, and the family of Lazarus well known
to many people in the mother-city, could not
escape the notice of the Sanhedrim. A meeting
of this Council was called without loss of time, and
the matter discussed, not without symptoms of
alarm, for the members believed that a popular
outbreak, with Jesus at its head, was impending,
and that it would excite the jealousy of the Romans
and lead to the taking away of their “place and
nation.” Caiaphas the high-priest gave it as his
opinion that it was expedient for them that one
man should die for the people, and that the whole
nation should not perish. The Evangelist adds
that these words bore a prophetic meaning, of
which the speaker was unconscious: “ This spake
he not of himself, but being high-priest that year
he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation.”
That a bad and worldly man may prophesy the
case of Balaam proves (Num. xxii.); and the Jews,
as Schittgen shows, believed that prophecy might
also be unconscious. But the connection of the
gift of prophecy with the office of the high-priest
offers a difficulty. It has been said that, though
this gift is never in Scripture assigned to the high-
priest as such, yet the popular belief at this time
was that he did enjoy it. There is no proof, how-
ever, except this passage, of any such belief; and
the Evangelist would not appeal to it except it
were true, and if it were true, then the O. T.
would contain some allusion to it. The endeavors
to escape from the difficulty by changes of punctua-
tion are not to be thought of. The meaning of
the passage seems to be this: The Jews were about
to commit a crime, the real results of which they
did not know, and God overruled the words of one
of them*to make him declare the reality of the
transaction, but unconsciously; and as Caiaphas
was the high-priest, the highest minister of God,
and therefore the most conspicuous in the sin, it
was natural to expect that he and not another
would be the channel of the prophecy. The con-
nection between his office and the prophecy was not
a necessary one;«but if a prophecy was to be ut-
tered by unwilling lips, it was natural that the
high-priest, who offered for the people, should be
the person compelled to utter it. The death of
Jesus was now resolved on, and He fled to Ephraim
for a few days, because his hour was not yet come
(John xi. 45-57).
We now approach the final stage of the history,
and every word and act tend towards the great act
of suffering. The hatred of the Pharisees, now
converted into a settled purpose of murder, the
JESUS CHRIST
| vile wickedness of Judas, and the utter fickle;
the people are all displayed before us. Fa
is marked by its own events or instructions,
Lord entered into Bethany on Friday the §
Nisan, the eve of the Sabbath, and remaine
the Sabbath.
Saturday the 9th of Nisan (April 1st).
He was at supper in the house of one Simo;
named ‘the leper,’”’ a relation of Lazarus, w
at table with Him,> Mary, full of gratitude {
wonderful raising of her brother from the dea¢
a vessel containing a quantity of pure ointm
spikenard and anointed the feet of Jesus, and
his feet with her hair, and anointed his head lik
She thought not of the cost of the precio
ment, in an emotion of love which was will
part with anything she possessed to do honor
great a Guest, so mighty a Benefactor, Jud
traitor, and some of the disciples (Matt., }
who took their tone from him, began tom
at the waste: “It might have been sold for
than three hundred pence, and have been gi
the poor.” But Judas cared not for the
already he was meditating the sale of his M
life, and all that he thought of was how he |
lay hands on something more, beyond the pr
blood. Jesus, however, who knew how tru
the love which had dictated this sacrifice, si
their censure. He opened out a meanin®
action which they had not sought there: |
come aforehand to anoint my body to the
ing.” |
Passion Week. Sunday the 10th of |
(April 2d).— The question of John the 1
had no doubt often been repeated in the he:
the expectant disciples: “ Art thou He that :
come, or do we look for another?” All hi
versations with them of late had been fille|
with visions of glory, but with forebodin
approaching death. ‘The world thinks the
ceived, and its mockery begins to exercise,
influence even over them. They need son
couraging sign under influences so depressin;
this Jesus affords them in the triumphal ent
Jerusalem. If the narrative is carefully exai
it will be seen how remarkably the assertio)
kingly right is combined with the most serul
care not to excite the political jealousy
Jewish powers. When He arrives at the Mo
Olives He commands two of his disciples to (i
the village near at hand, where they would il
ass, and a colt tied with her. They were 1b
to buy nor hire them, and “if any man shi,
aught unto you, ye shall say the Lord hath of
4
L
a * This arrangement places the supper in the house
of Simon “ six days” before the Passover (John xii. 1 ff.),
whereas, according to Matt. xxvi. 2 and Mark xiv. 1,
the supper appears to have taken place on the evening
before the Passover. It is no doubt correct to under-
stand John xii. 1 of our Lord’s coming from Jericho
to Bethany. This apparent discrepancy between the
writers has been variously explained. The following
is perhaps the best solution of the difficulty. John,
it will be seen, is the only one of the Evangelists vho
speaks of the Saviour’s stopping at Bethany-on the
way between Jericho and Jerusalem. Hence , this feast
being the principal event which John asocjates with
Bethany during these last days, he ne, unnaturally
inserts the account of the feast immediately after
speaking of the arrival at Bethany, But having (so
to speak) discharged his mind ©f that recollection, he
then turns back and resutfies the historical order,
‘namely, that on the next day after coming to Bi
(xii. 12 ff.), Jesus made his publie entry into.
lem, as related by the Synoptists (Matt. xxi.)
Mark xi. 1 ff.; Luke xix. 29 ff.). But the Syn
pass over the night sojourn at Bethany, and th)
resent Christ as making apparently an uninterP
journey frei vericho to Jerusalem. What!
thersfore states, as compared with the other
ists, is that Jesus came to Bethany 6 days bef
Passover, and not that He attended the feast :
days before the Passover; and, further, that®
went to Jerusalem on the following day after,
rival at Bethany, and not on the day after the i
This view, if adopted, requires some tramspos!
the scheme given above. |
b *It is said that Lazarus was one of they
(els r@v dvaxeyuévev, John xii. 2), but not
was a relation.
=
JESUS CHRIST
nd straightway he will send them.” With
easts, impressed as for the service of a King,
; to enter into Jerusalem.4 The disciples
upon the ass their ragged cloaks for Him to
And the multitudes cried aloud before
1 the words of the 118th Psalm, “ Hosanna,
yw! blessed is He that cometh in the name
Lord.” This Messianic psalm they applied
, from a belief, sincere for the moment, that
the Messiah. It was a striking, and to the
es an alarming sight; but it only serves in
ij to show the feeble hearts of the Jewish
The same lips that cried Hosanna will
long be crying, Crucify Him, crucity Him!
me, however, all thoughts were carried back
promises of a Messiah. The very act of
in upon an ass revived.an old prophecy of
iah (ix. 9). Words of prophecy out of a
sprang unconsciously to their lips. All the
as moyed. Blind and lame came to the
, when He arrived there and were healed.
gust conspirators of the Sanhedrim were sore
sed. But all these demonstrations did not
the divine insight of Christ. He wept over
7 that was hailing Him as its King, and said,
ou hadst known, even thou, at least in this
y, the things which belong unto thy peace !
w they are hid from thine eyes” (Luke).
's on to prophesy the destruction of the city,
“it afterwards came to pass. After working
's in the Temple He returned to Bethany.
‘th of Nisan was the day for the separation
paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 3). Jesus, the Lamb
|, entered Jerusalem and the Temple on this
ad although none but He knew that He was
schal Lamb, the coincidence is not unde-
| (Matt. xxi. 1-11, 14-17; Mark xi. 1-11;
ix, 29-44; John xii. 12-19).
day the 11th of Nisan (April 3d).— The
‘ay Jesus returned to Jerusalem, again to
dvantage of the mood of the people to in-
them. On the way He approached one of
any fig-trees which grew in that quarter
hhage = “ house of figs ’’), and found that it
Il of foliage, but without fruit. He said,
man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever!”
ae fig-tree withered away. This was no
,2 work of destruction, and as such was un-
/2 usual tenor of His acts. But it is hard to
tand the mind of those who stumble at the
etion of atree, which seems to have ceased to
iy the word of God the Son, yet are not
‘dat the famine or the pestilence wrought by
je Father. The right of the Son must rest
same ground as that of the Father. And
Jas not a wanton destruction; it was a type
|. warning. The barren fig-tree had already
liade the subject of a parable (Luke xiii. 6),
re it is made a visible type of the destruction
‘Jewish people. He had come to them seek-
lit, and now it was time to pronounce their
as a nation —there should be no fruit on
lor ever (Matt. xxi. 18,19; Mark xi. 12-14).
ding now to the Temple, He cleared its court
‘crowd of traders that gathered there. He
‘formed the same act at the beginning of
'nistry, and now at the close He repeats it,
2 house of prayer was as much a den of
}as ever. With zeal for God’s house his
”
"
s eutry into Jerusalem, in which he points
JESUS CHRIST 1873
ministry began, with the same it ended (see p.
1360; Matt. xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15-19; Luke
xix. 45-48). In the evening He returned again to
Bethany.
Tuesday the 12th of Nisan (April 4th).— On
this the third day of Passion Week Jesus went into
Jerusalem as before, and visited the Temple. The
Sanhedrim came to Him to call Him to account
for the clearing of the Temple. ‘ By what au-
thority doest thou these things?’’? The Lord
answered their question by another, which, when
put to them in their capacity of a judge of spiritual
things, and of the pretensions of prophets and
teachers, was very hard either to answer or to pass
in silence — what was their opinion of the baptism
of John? If they replied that it was from heaven,
their own conduct towards John would accuse
them; if of men, then the people would not listen
to them even when they denounced Jesus, because
none doubted that John was a prophet. They
refused to answer, and Jesus refused in like manner
to answer them. In the parable of the Two Sons,
given by Matthew, the Lord pronounces a strong
condemnation on them for saying to God, “I go,
Sir,’ but not going (Matt. xxi. 23-32; Mark xi.
27-33; Luke xx. 1-8). In the parable of the
wicked husbandmen the history of the Jews is rep-
resented, who had stoned and killed the prophets,
and were about to crown their wickedness by the
death of the Son. In the parable of the wedding
garment, the destruction of the Jews, and the in-
vitation to the Gentiles to the feast in their stead,
are vividly represented (Matt. xxi. 33-46, xxii. 1-
14; Mark xii. 1-2; Luke xx. 9-19).
Not content with their plans for his death, the
different parties try to entangle Him in argument
and to bring Him into contempt. First come the
Pharisees and Herodians, as if to ask Him to settle
a dispute between them. ‘Is it lawful to give
tribute to Cesar, or not?’’ The spirit of the
answer of Christ lies here: that, since they had
accepted Czesar’s money, they had confessed his
rule, and were bound to render to the civil power
what they had confessed to be due to it, as they
were to render to God and to his holy temple the
offerings due to it. Next appeared the Sadducees,
who denied a future state, and put before Him a
contradiction which seemed to them to arise out of
that doctrine. Seven brethren in succession mar-
ried a wife (Deut. xxv. 5): whose wife should she
be in a future state? The answer was easy to find.
The law in question referred obviously to the pres-
ent time: it would pass away in another state, and
so would all such earthly relations, and all jealous-
ies or disputes founded on them. Jesus now retorts
the argument on the Sadducees. Appealing to the
Pentateuch, because his hearers did not acknowl-
edge the authority of the later books of the Bible,
He recites the words, “ I am the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” as
used to Moses, and draws from them the argument
that these men must then have been alive. Al-
though the words would not at first sight suggest
this inference, they really contain it; for the form
of expression implies that He still exists and they
still exist (Matt. xxii. 15-33; Mark xii. 13-27;
Luke xx. 20-40). Fresh questions awaited Him,
but his wisdom never failed to give the appropriate
answer. And then he uttered to all the people
4 Stanley has a graphic passage relating to the |
out the correspondences between the narrative and the
localities (.S. § P. pp. 187-190, Amer. ed.). H
“
1374 JESUS CHRIST
that terrible denunciation of woe to the Pharisees,
with which we are familiar (Matt. xxiii. 1-39).
If we compare it with our Lord's account of his
own position in reference to the Law, in the Ser-
mon on the Mount, we see that the principles there
laid down are everywhere violated by the Pharisees.
Their almsgiving was ostentation; their distinctions
about oaths led to falsehood and profaneness; they
were exact about the small observances and neg-
lected the weightier ones of the Law; they adorned
the tombs of the prophets, saying that if they had
lived in the time of their fathers they would not
have slain them; and yet they were about to fill
up the measure of their fathers’ wickedness by
slaying the greatest of the prophets, and perse-
cuting and slaying his followers. After an indig-
nant denunciation of the hypocrites who, with a
show of religion, had thus contrived to stifle the
true spirit of religion and were in reality its chief
persecutors, He apostrophizes Jerusalem in words
full of compassion, yet carrying with them a sen-
tence of death: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou
that killest the prophets and stonest them which
are sent unto thee, how often would I have gath-
ered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For
I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till
ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name
of the Lord’ (Matt. xxiii.).
Another great discourse belongs to this day,
which, more than any other, presents Jesus as the
great Prophet of His people. On leaving the
Temple his disciples drew attention to the beauty
of its structure, its ‘goodly stones and gifts,”’
their remarks probably arising from the threats of
destruction which had so lately been uttered by
Jesus. Their Master answered that not one stone
of the noble pile should be left upon another.
When they reached the Mount. of Olives the dis-
ciples, or rather the first four (Mark), speaking for
the rest, asked Him when this destruction should
be accomplished. To understand the answer it
must be borne in mind that Jesus warned them
that He was not giving them an historical account
such as would enable them to anticipate the events.
“Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not
the angels of heaven, but my Father only.’ Exact
data of time are to be purposely withheld from
them. Accordingly, two events, analogous in char-
acter but widely sundered by time, are so treated
in the prophecy that it is almost impossible to dis-
entangle them. The destruction of Jerusalem and
the day of judgment — the national and the uni-
versal days of account — are spoken of together or
alternately without hint of the great interval of
time that separates them. Thus it may seem that
a most important fact is omitted; but the highest
work of prophecy is not to fix times and seasons,
but to disclose the divine significance of events.
What was most important to them to know was
that the destruction of Jerusalem followed upon
the probation and rejection of her people, and that
the crucifixion and that destruction were connected
as cause and effect (Matt. xxiv.; Mark xiii.; Luke
'xxi.). The conclusion which Jesus drew from his
own awful warning was, that they were not to at-
tempt to fix the date of his return: “Therefore be
ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not
the Son of Man cometh.” The lesson of the par-
able of the Ten Virgins is the same; the Christian
soul is to be ever in a state of vigilance and prepar-
JESUS CHRIST
ation (Matt. xxiv. 44, xxv. 13). And the ;
of the Talents, here repeated in a modified
teaches how precious to souls are the uses o
(xxv. 14-30). In concluding this momento
course, our Lord puts aside the destruction of
salem, and displays to our eyes the picture.
final judgment. ‘There will He Himself be py
and will separate all the vast family of ma
into two classes, and shall appraise the wor
each class as works done to Himself, present
world though invisible; and men shall see,
with terror and some with joy, that their lif
was spent either for Him or against Him, an
the good which lay before them to do was pre
for them by Him, and not by chance, and tl
ward and punishment shall be apportioned
(Matt. xxv. 31-46).
With these weighty words ends. the third
and whether we consider the importance o
recorded teaching, or the amount of oppositio
of sorrow presented to His mind, it was one c
greatest days of all His earthly ministrations.
general reflections of John (xii. 87-50), whicl
tain a retrospect of His ministry and of the st
reception of Him by his people, may well be
as if they came in here.
Wednesday the 13th of Nisan (April 5t,
This day was passed in retirement with the .
tles. Satan had put it into the mind of o
them to betray Him; and Judas Iscariot m:
covenant ‘to betray Him to the chief priest
thirty pieces of silver. The character of J
and the degrees by which he reached the ab:
guilt in which he was at last destroyed, d
much attention. There is no reason to doub
when he was chosen by Jesus he possessed
the rest, the capacity of being saved, and we
dued with gifts which might have made hi
able minister of the New Testament. Bu
innate worldliness and covetousness were
purged out from him. His practical talents:
him a kind of steward of the slender resour|
that society, and no doubt he conceived the
to use the same gifts on a larger field, whic
realization of “the kingdom of Heaven”
open out before him. ‘These practical gifts)
his ruin. Between him and the rest there:
be no real harmony. His motives were wi
and theirs were not. They loved the Saviout}
as they knew Him better. Judas, living und)
constant tacit rebuke of a most holy example:
to hate the Lord; for nothing, perhaps, |
strongly draws out evil instincts than the en’
contact with goodness. And when he kne\|
his Master did not trust him, was not decei’
him, his hatred grew more intense. But th'
not break out into overt act until Jesus bee
foretell his own crucifixion and death. If)
were to happen, all his hopes that he had bi
following the Lord would be dashed down. !
should crucify the Master they would not spa'
servants; and, in place of a heavenly nt
would find contempt, persecution, and pri
death. It was high time, therefore, to treat
the powers that seemed most likely to pre
the end; and he opened a negotiation wit
high-priests in secret, in order that, if his Ny
were to fall, he might be the instrument, ¢
make friends among the triumphant perse'‘
And yet, strange contradiction, he did not i
cease to believe in Jesus: possibly he tl
that he would so act that he might be safe
a
JESUS CHRIST JESUS CHRIST 1875
If Jesus was the Prophet and Mighty One vice — “Lord, dost thou wash my feet? ’? When
e had once thought, then the attempt to take) he was told that this act was significant of the
might force Him to put forth all his resources! greater act of humiliation by which Jesus saved
y assume the kingdom to which He laid claim, his disciples and united them to Himself, his seru-
hen the agent in the treason, even if discov-| ples vanished. After all had been washed, the
might plead that he foresaw the result: if | Saviour explained to them the meaning of what
ere unable to save Himself and his disciples, | He had done. “If I, your Lord and Master, have
it were well for Judas to betake himself to ‘washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one
who were stronger. The bribe of money, another’s feet. For I have given you an example,
considerable, could not have been the chief | that ye should do as I have done to you.” But
2; but as two vicious appetites could be grat-| this act was only the outward symbol of far greater
instead of one, the thirty pieces of silver be-| sacrifices for them than they could as yet under-
a part of the temptation. ‘The treason was stand. It was a small matter to wash their feet,
ssful, and the money paid; but not one mo- it was a great one to come down from the glories
g pleasure did those silver pieces purchase | of heaven to save them. Later the Apostle Paul
eir wretched possessor, not for a moment did | put this same lesson of humility into another form,
ap any fruit from his detestable guilt. After| and rested it upon deeper grounds. ‘Let this
rucifixion, the avenging belief that Jesus was| mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:
He professed to be rushed back in full force | who, being in the form of God, thought it not rob-
his mind. He went to those who had hired | bery to be equal with God; but made himself of
they derided his remorse. He cast away the| no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
sed silver pieces, defiled with the «innocent | servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and
|” of the Son of God, and went and hanged | being found in fashion as 2 man He humbled Him-
elf (Matt. xxvi. 14-16; Mark xiv. 10-11; Luke| self and became obedient unto death, even the
1-6). death of the cross’ (Phil. ii. 5-8; Matt. xxvi. 17-
hursday the 14th of Nisan (April 6th). — On| 20; Mark xiv. 12-17; Luke xxii. 7-30; John xiii.
: first day of unleavened bread,” when the| 1-20).
“were wont to put away all leaven out of their} From this act of love it does not seem that even
es (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Mark xiv. 12), the traitor Judas was excluded. But his treason
lisciples asked their Master where they were to) was thoroughly known: and now Jesus denounces
he Passover. He directed Peter and John to| it. One of them should betray Him. They were
ito Jerusalem, and to follow a man whom they | all sorrowful at this, and each asked “Is it 1?”
ld see bearing a pitcher of water, and to de-| and even Judas asked and received an affirmative
4 of him, in their Master’s name, the use of |answer (Matt.), but probably in an undertone, for
guestchamber in his house for this purpose.” when Jesus said “That thou doest do quickly,”
aappened as Jesus had told them, and in the| none of the rest understood. The traitor having
ing they assembled to celebrate, for the last | gone straight to his wicked object, the end of the
, the paschal meal. The sequence of the events Saviour’s ministry seemed already at hand. “ Now
t quite clear from a comparison of the Evan-| is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified
ts; but the difficulty arises with St. Luke, and| in Him.’’ He gave them the new commandment,
sis external evidence that he is not following| to love one another, as though it were a last be-
chronological order (Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p.| quest to them. To love was not a new thing, it
. The order seems to be as follows. When | was enjoined in the old Law; but to be distin-
“had taken their places at table and the supper | guished for a special Christian love and mutual
‘begun, Jesus gave them the first eup to divide | devotion was what He would have, and this was
fngst themselves (Luke). It was customary to| the new element in the commandment. Founded
‘at the paschal supper four cups of wine mixed | by a great act of love, the Church was to be marked
water; and this answered to the first of them.| by love (Matt. xxvi. 21-25; Mark xiv. 18-21;
‘e now arose a contention among the disciples] Luke xxii. 21-23; John xiii. 21-35).
hof them should he the greatest; perhaps in| Towards the close of the meal Jesus instituted
section with the places which they had taken | the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. He took bread
vhis feast (Luke). After a solemn warning] and gave thanks and brake it, and gave to his dis-
nst pride and ambition Jesus performed an act ciples, saying, “ This is my body which is given for
th, as one of the last of his life, must ever have| you; this do in remembrance of me.’’ He then
remembered by the witnesses as a great lesson | took the cup, which corresponded to the th ird cup
‘umility. He rose from the table, poured water | in the usual course of the paschal supper, and after
a basin, girded himself with a towel, and pro-| giving thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “ This
(ed to wash the disciples’ feet (John). It was| is my blood of the new testament [covenant] which
office for slaves to perform, and from Him,| is shed for many.” It was a memorial of his pas-
wing as He did, “that the Father had given] sion and of this last. supper that preceded it, and
' shings into his hand, and that He was come} in dwelling on his Passion in this sacrament, in
1 God and went to God,” it was an unspeakable | true faith, all believers draw nearer to the cross of
‘lescension. But his love for them was infinite, | his sufferings and taste more strongly the sweetness
if there were any way to teach them the humility | of his love and the efficacy of his atoning death
+h as yet they had not learned, He would not| (Matt. xxvi. 26-29; Mark xiv. 22-25; Luke xxii.
to adopt it. Peter, with his usual readiness, | 19, 20; 1 Cor. xi. 23-25).
the first to refuse to accept such menial ser-| The denial of Peter is now foretold, and to no
rey Ae TRL Woes ee aes te ae ee eecarens cree sere
ta man bearing a pitcher of water.” As the, host
was to be identified by this circumstance, it seems to
be’implied that the practice was unusual.
@ The task of fetching water for domestic uses is
‘monly performed in the East by women. The
r recalls but two instances during a period of
‘ly three months in Palestine, in which he saw
"
1376 JESUS CHRIST
one would such an announcement be more incredible
than to Peter himself. “ Lord, why cannot I follow
thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.”
The zeal was sincere, and as such did the Lord
regard it; but here, as elsewhere, Peter did not
count the cost. By and by, when the Holy Spirit
has come down to give them a strength not. their
own, Peter and the rest of the disciples will be bold
to resist persecution, even to the death. It needs
strong love and deep insight to view such an act as
this denial with sorrow and not with indignation
(Matt. xxvi. 31-35; Mark xiy. 27-31; Luke xxii.
31-38; John xiii. 36-38).
That great final discourse, which John alone
has recorded, is now delivered. Although in the
middle of it there is a mention of departure (John
xiv. 31), this perhaps only implies that they pre-
pared to go: and then the whole discourse was
delivered in the house before they proceeded to
Gethsemane. Of the contents of this discourse,
which is the voice of the Priest in the holy of
holies, something has been said already (p. 1358;
John xiv.—xvii.).
Friday the 15th of Nisan (April 7), including
part of the eve of it.—“ When they had sung a
hymn,’ @ which perhaps means, when they had
sung the second part of the Hallel, or song of praise,
which consisted of Psalms exv.-cxviii., the former
part (Psalms cxiii—cxiy.) having been sung at an
earlier part of the supper, they went out into the
Mount of Olives. They came to a place called
GETHSEMANE (ot/-press), and it is probable that
the place now pointed out to travellers is the real
scene of that which follows, and even that its huge
olive-trees are the legitimate successors of those
which were there when Jesus visited it. A moment
of terrible agony is approaching, of which all the
Apostles need not be spectators, for He thinks of
them, and wishes to spare them this addition to
their sorrows. So He takes only his three proved
companions, Peter, James, and John, and passes
with them farther into the garden, leaving the rest
seated, probably near the entrance. No pen can
attempt to describe what passed that night in that
secluded spot. He tells them “ my soul is exceed-
ing sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here and
watch with me,’’ and then leaving even the three
He goes further, and in solitude wrestles with an
inconceivable trial. The words of Mark are still
more expressive—““ He began to be sore amazed, and
to be very heavy” (€xOuuBetcda Ka) &dnwovery,
xiv. 33). The former word means that he was
struck with a great dread; not from the fear of
physical suffering, however excruciating, we may
well believe, but from the contact with the sins of
the world, of which, in some inconceivable way, He
here felt the bitterness and the weight. He did
not merely contemplate them, but bear and feel
them. It is impossible to explain this scene in
Gethsemane in any other way. If it were merely
the fear of the terrors of death that overcame Him,
then the martyr Stephen and many another would
surpass Him in constancy. But wher He says,
“Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee;
_ take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what
I will but what thou wilt’ (Mark), the cup was
filled with a far bitterer potion than death; it was
flavored with the poison of the sins of all mankind
a * “ Having sung” is more correct for vuvyncavtes,
Matt. xxvi. 30 and Mark xiv. 26. A group of Psalms
was no doubt sung at that time. The A. V. renders
"4
JESUS CHRIST
against its God. Whilst the sinless Son is
carried two ways by the present horror anc
strong determination to do the Father's wil
disciples have sunk to sleep. It was in sear
consolation that, He came back to them. Th
ciple who had been so ready to ask “ Why e;
I follow thee now?’ must hear another ques
that rebukes his former confidence — « Cor
not thou watch one hour?” A second tim
departs and wrestles in prayer with the Fa
but although the words He utters are almos
same (Mark says “the same’’), He no longer
that the cup may pass away from Him — «& Jj
cup may not pass away from me except I drir
Thy will be done’ (Matt.). A second tim
returns and finds them sleeping. The same
is repeated yet a third time; and then all is
cluded. Henceforth they may sleep and take
rest; never more shall they be asked to watel
hour with Jesus, for his ministry in the flesh
anend. ‘The hour is at hand, and the Sc
Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners” (M:
The prayer of Jesus in this place has always
regarded, and with reason, as of great weight ag
the monothelite heresy. It expresses the nai
shrinking of the human will from a horror ¥
the divine nature has admitted into it, yet wit
sin. Never does He say, “I will flee;” He:
“Tf it be possible; ’’ and leaves that to the dec
of the Father. That horror and dread arose.
the spectacle of human sin; from the bearing
weight and guilt of human sin as about to1
atonement for it; and from a conflict with
powers of darkness. Thus this scene is in com
contrast to the Transfiguration. The same |
panions witnessed both; but there there was p
and glory, and honor, for the sinless Son of (
here fear and conflict: there God bore testin
to Him; here Satan for the last time tempted }
(On the account of the Agony see Krumma
Der Leidende Christus, p. 206; Matt. xxvi. 36)
Mark xiv. 82-42; Luke xxii. 39-46; John xyiii
Judas now appeared to complete his work.
the doubtful light of torches, a kiss from him
the sign to the officers whom they should |
Peter, whose name is first given in John’s Go
drew a sword and smote a servant of the high-pi
and cut out off his ear; but his Lord refused
succor, and healed the wounded man. [MALCH
He treated the seizure as a step in the fulfill
of the prophecies about Him, and resisted it )
All the disciples forsook Him and fled (Matt. 17
47-56; Mark xiv. 43-52; Luke xxii. 47-58; «
Xvlii. 2-12).
There is some difficulty in arranging the ev!
that immediately follow, so as to embrace all
four accounts. — The data will be found in}
Commentary of Olshausen, in Wieseler ( Chron. ’
p- 401 ff), and in Greswell’s Dissertations \
200 ff). On the capture of Jesus He was |
taken to the house of Annas, the father-in-la)
Caiaphas (see p. 1350) the high-priest. It has »
argued that as Annas is called, conjointly i)
Caiaphas, the high-priest, he must have held )
actual office in connection with the priesthood,
Lightfoot and others suppose that he was the \#
or deputy of the high-priest, and Selden tha
was president of the Council of. the Sanhedi
i
ag me
the same word “sang praises,” Acts xvi. 25,
will sing praise,” Heb. ii. 12. ]
¥
JESUS CHRIST
‘s js uncertain.¢ It might appear from the
of John’s narrative that the examination of
rd, and the first denial of Peter, took place
house of Annas (John xviii. 13, 14). But
th verse is retrospective — “ Now Annas had
Jim bound unto Caiaphas the high-priest”’
rethe, aorist for pluperfect, see Winer’s
mar); and probably all that occurred after
4 took place not at the house of Annas, but
t of Caiaphas. It is not likely that Peter
admittance to two houses in which two
te judicial examinations took place with which
| nothing ostensibly to do, and this would be
on us if we assumed that John described
took place before Annas, and the other
elists what took place before Caiaphas. The
of the high-priest consisted probably, like
Bastern houses, of an open central court with
ers round it. Into this court a gate admitted
at which a woman stood to open. Peter,
ad fled like the rest from the side of Jesus,
.d afar off with another disciple, probably
and the latter procured him admittance into
art of the high-priest’s house. As he passed
lamp of the portress threw its light on his
ad she took note of him; and afterwards, at
3 which had been lighted, she put the ques-
him, “ Art not thou also one of this man’s
es?” (John.) All the zeal and boldness of
seems to have deserted him. This was indeed
of great spiritual weakness and depression,
e power of darkness had gained an influence
he Apostle’s mind. He had come as in
he is determined so to remain, and he
his Master! Feeling now the danger of his
on, he went out into the porch, and there
‘ne, or, looking at all the accounts, probably
“persons, asked him the question a second
ind he denied more strongly. About an hour
vhen he had returned into the court, the
‘uestion was put to him a third time, with
me result. Then the cock crew; and Jesus,
as within sight, probably in some open room
inicating with the court, “turned and looked
Yeter. And Peter remembered the word of
rd, how He had said unto him, Before the
vow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And Peter
at and wept bitterly ’’ (Luke). Let no man
nnot fathom the utter perplexity and distress
| atime presume to judge the zealous dis-
ardly. He trusted too much to his strength;
‘not enter into the full meaning of the words,
th and pray lest ye enter into temptation.”
-ofidence betrayed him into a great sin; and
‘st merciful Lord restored him after it. ‘ Let
jiat thinketh he standeth take heed lest he
1 Cor. x. 12; Matt. xxvi. 57, 58, 69-75;
ikiy. 53, 54, 66-72; Luke xxii. 54-62; John
3-18, 24-27).
first interrogatory to which our Lord was
| (John xviii. 19-24) was addressed to Him
aphas (Annas?, Olshausen, Wieseler), prob-
fore the Sanhedrim had time to assemble.
) the questioning of an inquisitive person who
Important criminal in his presence, rather
formal examination. The Lord’s refusal to
1s thus explained and justified. When the
“egular proceedings begin He is ready to
if Greswell sees no uncertainty ; and asserts as
that he was the high-priest, vicar, and vice-
‘it of the Sanhedrim (p. 200).
87
¢
JESUS CHRIST Loa
answer. A servant of the high-priest, knowing
that he should thereby please his master, smote the
cheek of the Son of God with the palm of his hand.
But this was only the beginning of horrors. At
the dawn of day the Sanhedrim, summoned by the
high-priest in the course of the night, assembled, ,
and brought their band of false witnesses, whom -
they must haye had ready before. These gave their
testimony (see Psalm xxvii. 12), but even before
this unjust tribunal it could not stand, it was so
full of contradictions. At last two false witnesses
came, and their testimony was very like the truth.
They deposed that He had said, “I will destroy
this temple, that is made with hands, and within
three days I will build another made without
hands”’ (Mark xiv. 58). The perversion is slight
but important; for Jesus did not say that He would
destroy (see John ii. 19), which was just the point
that would irritate the Jews. Even these two fell
into contradictions. The high-priest now with a
solemn adjuration asks Him whether He is the
Christ the Son of God. He answers that He is,
and foretells his return in glory and power at the
last day. ‘This is enough for their purpose. They
pronounce Him guilty of a crime for which death
should be the punishment. It appears that the
Council was now suspended or broken up; for Jesus
is delivered over to the brutal violence of the people,
which could not have occurred whilst the supreme
court of the Jews was sitting. The prophets had
foretold this violence (Is. ]. 6), and also the meek-
ness with which it would be borne (Is. liii. 7). And
yet this “lamb led to the slaughter” knew that it
was He that should judge the world, including
every one of his persecutors. The Sanhedrim had
been within the range of its duties in taking cog-
nizance of all who claimed to be prophets. If the
question put to Jesus had been merely, Art Thou
the Messiah? this body should have gone into the
question of his right to the title, and decided upon
the evidence. But the question was really twofold,
“© Art Thou the Christ, and in that name dost
Thou also call Thyself the Son of God?” There
was no blasphemy in claiming the former name,
but there was in assuming the latter. Hence the
proceedings were cut short. They had closed their
eyes to the evidence, accessible to all, of the miracles
of Jesus, that He was indeed the Son of God, and
without these they were not likely to believe that
He could claim a title belonging to no other among
the children of men (John xviii. 19-24; Luke xxii.
63-71; Matt. xxvi. 59-68; Mark xiv. 55-65).
Although they had pronounced Jesus to be guilty
of death, the Sanhedrim possessed no power to
carry out such a sentence (Josephus, Ant. xx. 6).
So as soon as it was day they took Him to Pilate,
the Roman procurator. The hall of judgment, or
pretorium, was probably a part of the tower of
Antonia near the Temple, where the Roman gar-
rison was. Pilate hearing that Jesus was an offender
under their law, was about to give them leave to
treat him accordingly; and this would have made it
quite safe to execute Him. But the council, wish-
ing to shift the responsibility from themselves, from
a fear of some reaction amongst the people in favor
of the Lord, such as they had seen on the first day
of that week, said that it was not lawful for them
to put any man to death: and having condemned
Jesus for blasphemy, they now strove to have Him
condemned by Pilate for a political crime, for calling
Himself the King of the Jews. But the Jewish
punishment was stoning; whilst crucifixion was a
1878 JESUS CHRIST
Roman punishment, inflicted occasionally on those
who were not Roman citizens; and thus it came
about that the Lord’s saying as to the mode of his
death was fulfilled (Matt. xx. 19, with John xii.
32, 33). From the first Jesus found favor in the
eyes of Pilate; his answer that his kingdom was
not of this world, and therefore could not menace
the Roman rule, was accepted, and Pilate pro-
nounced that he found no fault in Him. Not so
easily were the Jews to be cheated of their prey.
They heaped up accusations against Him as a dis-
turber of the public peace (Luke xxiii. 5). Pilate
was no match for their vehemence. JT inding that
Jesus was a Galilean, he sent Him to Herod to be
dealt with; but Herod, after cruel mockery and
persecution, sent Him back to Pilate. Now com-
menced the fearful struggle betweén the Roman
procurator, a weak as well as cruel man, and the
Jews. Pilate was detested by the Jews as cruel,
treacherous, and oppressive. Other records of his
life do not represent him merely as the weakling
that he appears here. He had violated their na-
tional prejudices, and had used the knives of assas-
sins to avert the consequences. But the Jews knew
the weak point in his breastplate. He was the
merely worldly and professional statesman, to whom
the favor of the Emperor was life itself, and the
only evil of life a downfall from that favor. It was
their policy therefore to threaten to denounce him
to Cesar for lack of zeal in suppressing a rebellion,
the leader of which was aiming at a crown. In his
way Pilate believed in Christ; this the greatest
crime of a stained life was that with which his own
will had the least to do. But he did not believe,
so as to make him risk delation to his Master and
all its possible consequences. He yielded to the
stronger purpose of the Jews, and suffered Jesus to
be put to death. Not many years after, the con-
sequences which he had stained his soul to avert
came upon him. He was accused and banished,
and like Judas, the other great accomplice in this
crime of the Jews, put an end to his own life [see
PLATE]. The well-known incidents of the second
interview are soon recalled. After the examination
by Herod, and the return of Jesus, Pilate proposed
to release Him, as it was usual on the feast-day to
release a prisoner to the Jews out of grace. Pilate
knew well that the priests and rulers would object
to this; but it was a covert appeal to the people,
also present, with whom Jesus had so lately been
in favor. The multitude, persuaded by the priests,
preferred another prisoner, called Barabbas. In
the mean time the wife of Pilate sent a warning to
Pilate to have nothing to do with the death of
“that just man,’’.as she had been troubled in a
dream on account of Him. Obliged, as he thought,
to yield to the clamors of the people, he took
water and washed his hands before them, and
adopting the phrase of his wife, which perhaps rep-
resented the opinion of both of them formed before
this time, he said, “‘ I am innocent of the blood of
this just person; see ye to it.”’ The people im-
precated on their own heads and those of their
children the blood of Him whose doom was thus
sealed.
Pilate released unto them Barabbas “that for
sedition and murder was cast into prison whom
they had desired ’’ (comp. Acts ili. 14). This was
no unimportant element in their crime. The choice
was offered them between one who had broken the
laws of God and man, and One who had given his
whole life up to the doing good and speaking truth
JESUS CHRIST _
amongst them. They condemned the lat/
death, and were eager for the deliverance ,
former. ‘And in fact their demanding t))
quittal of a murderer is but the parallel tc
requiring the death of an innocent person, |
Ambrose observes: for it is but the very ]|
iniquity, that they which hate innocenee ;}
love crime. They rejected therefore the Pri
Heaven, and chose a robber and a murdere)
an insurrectionist, and they received the obj)
their choice; so was it given them, for insurre(
and murders did not fail them till the last,
their city was destroyed in the midst of mj,
and insurrections, which they now demand)
the Roman governor” (Williams on the Pi
p- 215). i
Now came the scourging, and the blows aj;
sults of the soldiers, who, uttering truth whe)h
thought they were only reviling, crowned Hii,
addressed Him as King of the Jews. Aceij
to John, Pilate now made one more effort ;]
release. He thought that the scourging mig):
pease their rage, he saw the frame of Jesus
and withered with all that it had gone thig
and, hoping that this moving sight might jp
them with the same pity that he felt him:,
brought the Saviour forth again to them, ania
‘‘ Behold the man!’ Not even so was their v1
assuaged. He had made Himself the Son oi
and must die. He still sought to release x
but the last argument, which had been in the
of both sides all along, was now openly appi
him: “If thou let this man go, thou art not (a
friend.”’ This saying, which had not been i
till the vehemence of rage overcame their «
respect for Pilate’s position, decided the qui
He delivered Jesus to be crucified (Matt. «
15-80; Mark xv. 6-19; Luke xxiii. od
xviii. 39, 40, xix. 1-16). John mentions thitl
occurred about the sixth hour, whereas the /u
fixion, according to Mark, was accomplished
third hour; but there is every reason to i
{
Greswell and Wieseler, that John reckon:
midnight, and that this took place at six |
morning, whilst in Mark the Jewish reckonin/N
six in the morning is followed, so that the
fixion took place at nine o’clock, the inter
time having been spent in preparations. [)t
Amer. ed.] ;
Difficult, but not insuperable, chronological
tions arise in connection with (a) John xiii. | 4
fore the feast of the Passover; ”” (b) John xv.‘
‘and they themselves went not into the jud)@
hall lest they should be defiled, but that they
eat the Passover;’? and (c) John xix. 14, “ d
was the preparation of the Passover, about tl
hour,” in all of which the account of Johr2e
dissonant with that of the other Evangelists.
passages are discussed in the various comme!!!
but nowhere more fully than in a paper, I
Robinson (Bibl. Sacra, 1845, p. 405), rept
in his (English) Harmony in an abridged fol
One Person alone has been calm amidst °’
citements of that night of horrors. On ™
now laid the weight of his cross, or at least {
transverse beam of it; and, with this pressit H
down, they proceed out of the city to Golg?
Calvary, a place the site of which is now un}
As He began to droop, his persecutors, unW)
defile themselves with the accursed burden, : :
of Simon of Cyrene and compel him to ¢)
cross after Jesus. Amongst the great mv
fl
i:
JESUS CHRIST
followed, were several women, who bewailed
amented Him. He bade them not to weep
im, but for the widespread destruction of their
a which should be the punishment for his
(Luke). After offering Him wine and myrrh,
crucified Him between two thieves. Nothing
vanting to his humiliation; a thief had been
red before Him, and two thieves share his
hment. The soldiers divided his garments
ast lots for them (see Psalm xxii. 18). Pilate
ver Him in three languages the inscription
is. the King of the Jews.’ The chief-priests
exception to this that it did not denounce
as falsely calling Himself by that name, but
: refused to alter it. The passers-by and the
n soldiers would not let even the minutes of
y agony pass in peace; they reviled and
xd Him. One of the two thieves underwent
nge of heart even on the cross: he reviled at
Matt.); and then, at the sight of the con-
7 of Jesus, repented (Luke) (Matt. xxvii.;
xv.; Luke xxiii.; John xix.).
the depths of his bodily suffering, Jesus calmly
ended to John (?), who stood near, the care
wy his mother. “ Behold thy son! behold
\other.” From the sixth hour to the ninth
was darkness over the whole land. At the
hour (3 p. M.) Jesus uttered with a loud
the opening words of the 22d Psalm, all the
2d words of which referred to the suffering
th. One of those present dipped a sponge in
mmion sour wine of the soldiers and put it
eed to moisten the sufferer’s lips. Again He
with a loud voice, “It is finished” (John),
ier, into thy hands I commend my spirit”
); and gave up the ghost. His words upon
oss had all of them shown how truly He pos-
his soul in patience even to the end of the
xe He was making: “ Father, forgive them!”
\ prayer for his enemies. ‘This day shalt
ve with me in Paradise,” was a merciful ac-
‘ce of the offer of a penitent heart. “ Woman,
) thy son,” was a sign of loving consideration,
it the last, for those He had always loved.
7 hast Thou forsaken me?” expressed the
ad the need of God. “TI thirst,” the only
that related to Himself, was uttered because
\ prophesied that they were to give Him
rtodrink. “It is finished,’ expresses the
‘tion of that work which, when He was twelve
ld, had been present to his mind, and never
| sinee; and «Into Thy hands I commend
‘Tit,” was the last utterance of his resignation
Aself to what was laid upon Him (Matt. xxvii.
| Mark xv. 20-41; Luke xxiii. 33-49; John
730).
the death of Jesus the veil which covered the
oly Place of the Temple, the place of the
/@special presence of Jehovah, was rent in
1a symbol that we may now have “ boldness
Tinto the holiest by the blood of Jesus by
and living way which He hath consecrated
‘through the veil, that is to say, through his
(Heb. x. 19, 20). The priesthood of Christ
ded the priesthood of the law. There was
4 earthquake. Many who were dead rose
"heir graves, although they returned to the
‘ain after this great token of Christ’s quick-
vower had been given to many (Matt.): they
saints ” that slept — probably those who had
arnestly longed for the salvation of Christ
¢ first to taste the fruits of his conquest of
JESUS CHRIST 187%
death. [Sarnrs, Amer. ed.] The centurion who
kept guard, witnessing what had taken place, came
to the same conclusion as Pilate and his wife,
“Certainly this was a righteous man;” he went
beyond them, “ Truly this man was the Son of
God” (Mark). Even the people who had joined
in the mocking and reviling were overcome by the
wonders of his death, and “smote their breasts
and returned”? (Luke xxiii. 48). The Jews, very
zealous for the Sabbath in the midst of their mur-
derous work, begged Pilate that he would put an
end to the punishment by breaking the legs of the
criminals (Lactant. iv. 26) that they might be taken
down and buried before the Sabbath, for which
they were preparing (Deut. xxi. 23; Joseph., B. J.
iv. 5, § 2). Those who were to execute this duty
found that Jesus was dead and the thieves still
living; so they performed this work on the latter
only, that a bone of Him might not be broken
(Ex. xii. 46; Psalm xxxiv. 20). The death of the
Lord before the others was, no doubt, partly the
consequence of the previous mental suffering which
He had undergone, and partly because his will to
die lessened the natural resistance of the frame to
dissolution. Some seek for a ‘ mysterious cause”
of it, something out of the course of nature; but
we must beware of such theories as would do away
with the reality of the death, as a punishment in-
flicted by the hands of men. Joseph of Arimathea,
a member of the Council but a secret disciple of
Jesus, came to Pilate to beg the body of Jesus, that
he might bury it. Nicodemus assisted in this work
of love, and they anointed the body and laid it in
Joseph’s new tomb (Matt. xxvii. 50-61; Mark xv.
37-47; Luke xxiii. 46-56; John xix 30-42).
Saturday the 16th of Nisan (April 8th). — Love
having done its part, hatred did its part also. The
chief priests and Pharisees, with Pilate’s permis-
sion, set a watch over the tomb, “ lest his disciples
come by night and steal Him away, and say unto
the people He is risen from the dead” (Matt. xxvii.
62-66).
Sunday the 17th of Nisan (April 9th). — The
Sabbath ended at six on the evening of Nisan 16th.
Karly the next morning the resurrection of Jesus
took place. Although He had lain in the grave for
about thirty-six or forty hours, yet these formed
part of three days, and thus, by a mode of speaking
not unusual to the Jews (Josephus frequently
reckons years in this manner, the two extreme por-
tions of a year reckoning as two years), the time
of the dominion of death over Him is spoken of as
three days. The order of the events that follow is
somewhat difficult to harmonize; for each Evangelist
selects the facts which belong to his purpose.¢ The
exact hour of the resurrection is not mentioned by
any of the Evangelists. But from Mark xvi. 2 and
9 we infer that it was not long before the coming
of the women; and from the time at which the
guards went into the city to give the alarm the
same inference arises (Matt. xxviii. 11). Of the
great mystery itself, the resumption of life by Him
who was truly dead, we see but little. ‘ There
was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord
descended from heaven, and came and rolled back
the stone from the door and sat upon it. His
countenance was like lightning, and his raiment
white as snow; and for fear of him the keepers did
@ In what follows, much use has been made of an
excellent paper by Dr. Robinson, Bibl. Sura, 1548,
p. 162. ;
13880 JESUS CHRIST
shake, and became as dead men” (Matt.). The
women, who had stood by the cross of Jesus, had
prepared spices on the evening before, perhaps to
complete the embalming of our Lord’s body, already
performed in haste by Joseph and Nicodemus.
They came very early on the first day of the week
to the sepulchre. The names of the women are
differently put by the several Evangelists, but with
no real discrepancy. Matthew mentions the two
Marys; Mark adds Salome to these two; Luke has
the two Marys, Joanna, and others with them; and
John mentions Mary Magdalene only. In thus
citing such names as seemed good to him, each
Evangelist was no doubt guided by some reason.
John, from the especial share which Mary Mag-
dalene took in the testimony to the fact of the
resurrection, mentions her only. The women dis-
cuss with one another who should roll away the
stone, that they might do their pious office on the
body. But when they arrive they find the stone
rolled away, and Jesus no longer in the Sepulchre.
He had risen from the dead. Mary Magdalene at
this point goes back in haste; and at once, believing
that the body has been removed by men, tells Peter
and John that the Lord has been taken away. The
other women, however, go into the Sepulchre, and
they see an angel (Matt., Mark), or two angels
(Luke), in bright apparel, who declare to them that
the Lord is risen, and will go before the disciples
into Galilee. The two angels, mentioned by St.
Luke, are probably two separate appearances to
different members of the group; for he alone men-
tions an indefinite number of women. ‘They now
leave the sepulchre, and go in haste to make known
the news to the Apostles. As they were going,
“ Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came
and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid; go tell
My brethren that they go into Galilee, and there
shall they see Me.’”? ‘The eleven do not believe the
account when they receive it. In the mean time
Peter and John came to the Sepulchre. They ran,
in their eagerness, and John arrived first and looked
in; Peter afterwards came up, and it is character-
istic that’ the awe which had prevented the other
disciple from going in appears to have been unfelt
by Peter, who entered at once, and found the grave-
clothes lying, but not Him who had worn them.
This fact must have suggested that the removal
was not the work of human hands. They then
returned, wondering at what they had seen. Mary
Magdalene, however, remained weeping at the tomb,
_and she too saw the two angels in the tomb, though
Peter and John did not. ‘They address her, and
she answers, still, however, without any suspicion
that the Lord is risen. As she turns away she sees
Tesus, but in the tumult of her feelings does not
even recognize Him at his first address. But He
calls her by name, and then she joyfully recognizes
her Master. He says, “ Touch Me not, for Iam not
yet ascended to My Father: but go to My brethren,
and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father and
your Father, and to My God and your God.” The
meaning of the prohibition to touch Him must be
sought in the state of mind of Mary, since Thomas,
for whom it was desirable as an evidence of the
identity of Jesus, was permitted to touch Him.
Hitherto she had not realized the mystery of the
Resurrection. She saw the Lord, and would have
touched his hand or his garment in her joy. Our
Lord's answer means, “ Death has now set a gulf
between us. ouch not, as you once might have
JESUS CHRIST
done, this body, which is now glorified by it
quest over death, for with this body I ascend
Father” (so Euthymius, Theophylact, and otl
Space has been wanting to discuss the diffi
of arrangement that attach to this part of th
rative. The remainder of the appearances y
less matter for dispute; in enumerating the
important passage in 1 Cor. xv. must be bi
in. The third appearance of our Lord was to
(Luke, Paul); the fourth to the two disciples
to Emmaus in the evening (Mark, Luke); th
in the same evening to the eleven as they
meat (Mark, Luke, John). All of these oe
on the first day of the week, the very day
Resurrection. Exactly a week after, He ap
to the Apostles, and gave Thomas a cony
proof of his Resurrection (John); this was the
appearance. The seventh was in Galilee,
seven of the Apostles were assembled, some 0
probably about to return to their old trade
ing (John). The eighth was to the eleven (1
and probably to five hundred brethren ass
with them (Paul) on a mountain in Galilee.
ninth was to James (Paul); and the last
Apostles at Jerusalem just before the Asc
(Acts). a
Whether this be the exact enumeration, ¥
a single appearance may have been quoted.
or two distinct ones identified, it is clear tl
forty days the Lord appeared to His discip,
to others at intervals. ° These disciples, acc
to the common testimony of all the Evan
were by no means enthusiastic and prejudi
pectants of the Resurrection. They were
minded men. They were only too slow to
hend the nature of our Lord’s kingdom. }
to the last they shrank from the notion of }
fering death, and thought that such a ¢
would be the absolute termination of al
hopes. But from the time of the Ascensi
went about preaching the truth that Jes
risen from the dead. Kings could not alte
conviction on this point: the fear of deat!
not hinder them from proclaiming it (see ’
24, 32, iv. 8-13, iii., x., xiii; 1 Cor. xyp9;
i. 21). Against this event no real object
ever been brought, except that it is a mira
far as historical testimony goes, nothing i)
established.
In giving his disciples their final com!
the Lord said, “All power is given untd
heaven and earth. Go ye therefore and t
nations, baptizing them in the name of the!
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: t
them to observe all things whatsoever I ha’
manded you: and lo, I am with you alwa
unto the end of the world’? (Matt. xxviii.
The living energy of Christ is ever prest
his Church, even though He has withdray
it his bodily presence. And the facts ms
}
that has been before us are the substance
apostolic teaching now as in all ages. ay
and man were reconciled by the mission
Redeemer into the world, and by his self"
to death (2 Cor. v. 18; Eph. i. 10; Col}
that this sacrifice has procured for man the’s
tion of the divine love (Rom. v. 8, viii. 324)
iv. 9); that we by his incarnation become
oi ee ee
a * On the meaning of this expression dL
not,” etc., see note under Mary MaqpaLen
ed.).
-
s
JESUS CHRIST
of God, knit to Him in bonds of love, instead
ves under the bondage of the law (Rom. viii.
9; Gal. iv. 1); these are the common ideas
e apostolic teaching. Brought into such a
on to Christ and his life, we see in all its acts
; something that belongs to and instructs
His birth, his baptism, temptation, lowliness
» and mind, his sufferings, death, burial, resur-
on, and ascension, all enter into the apostolic
hing, as furnishing motives, examples, and
gies for our use. Hence every Christian
ld study well this sinless life, not in human
nentaries only, still less in a bare abstract like
resent, but in the living pages of inspiration.
if he began the study with a lukewarm belief,
ight hope, with God’s grace, that the convic-
would break in upon him that did upon the
urion at the cross —‘“ Truly this is the Son
od.”
aronoLocy. — Year of the Birth of Christ.
; is certain that our Lord was born before the
h of Herod the Great. Herod died, according
osephus (Ant. xvii. 8, § 1), “having reigned
y-four years from the time that he had pro-
1 Antigonus to be slain; but thirty-seven from
time that he had been declared king by the
ans ” (see also B. J. i. 33, § 8). His appoint-
tas king, according to the same writer (Ant.
14, § 5), coincides with the 184th Olympiad,
‘the consulship of C. Domitius Calvinus and
isinius Pollio. It appears that he was made
» by the joint influence of Antony and Octavius;
‘the reconciliation of these two men took place
he death of Fulvia in the year 714. Again,
death of Antigonus and the siege of Jerusalem,
th form the basis of calculation for the thirty-
| years, coincide (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 16, § 4) with
‘consulship of M. Vipsanius Agrippa and L.
inius Gallus, that is with the year of Rome
* and occurred in the month Sivan (= June
fuly). From these facts we are justified in
‘ing the death of Herod in A. vU. C. 750. Those
» place it one year later overlook the mode in
th Josephus reckons Jewish reigns. Wieseler
vs by several passages that he reckons the year
athe month Nisan to Nisan, and that he counts
‘fragment of a year at either extreme as one
plete year. In this mode, thirty-four years,
i. June or July 717, would apply to any date
yeen the first of Nisan 750, and the first of
wm 751. And thirty-seven years from 714
‘ld apply likewise to any date within the same
jiini. Wieseler finds facts confirmatory of this
he dates of the reigns of Herod Antipas and
helaus (see his Chronologische Synopse, p. 55).
ween these two dates Josephus furnishes means
‘1 more exact determination. Just after Herod’s
ch the Passover occurred (Nisan 15th), and
a Herod’s death Archelaus caused a seven-days’
ning to be kept for him (Ant. xvii. 9, § 3,
8, § 4); so that it would appear that Herod
» somewhat more than seven days before the
gover in 750, and therefore in the first few days
he month Nisan a. vu. c. 750. Now, as Jesus
‘born before the death of Herod, it follows that
+ Dionysian era, which corresponds to A. U. ©.
, Is at least four years too late.
Tany have thought that the star seen by the
» men gives grounds for an exact calculation of
‘time of our Lord’s birth. It will be found,
‘ever, that this is not the case. For it has first
1 assumed that the star was not properly a star,
JESUS CHRIST 1381
but an astronomical conjunction of known stars.
Kepler finds a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn
in the sign Pisces in A. U. Cc. 747, and again in the
spring of the next year, with the planet Mars
added; and from this he would place the birth of
Jesus in 748.
lation, places it in A. U. C. 747.
only proves a highly improbable date, on highly
improbable evidence.
are extremely hard to reconcile with the notion of a
conjunction of planets; it was a star that appeared,
and it gave the Magi ocular proof of its purpose
by guiding them to where the young child was.
But a new light has been thrown on the subject by
the Rey. C. Pritchard, who has made the calcula-
tions afresh.
asserts that there were three conjunctions of Jupi-
ter and Saturn in B. c. 7, and that in the third
they approached so near that, “to a person with
weak eyes, the one planet would almost seem to
come within the range of the dispersed light of the
other, so that both might appear as one star.”
Dean Alford puts it much more strongly, that on
November 12 in that year the planets were so close
“that an ordinary eye would regard them as one
star of surpassing brightness’ (Greek Test. im (oc).
Mr. Pritchard finds, and his calculations have been
verified and confirmed at Greenwich, that this con-
junction occurred not on November 12 but early
on December 5; and that even with Ideler’s some-
what strange postulate of an observer with weak
eyes, the planets could never have appeared as one
star, for they never approached each other within
double the apparent diameter of the moon (Me-
moirs R. Astr. Soc. vol. xxv.).
East.] Most of the chronologists find an element
of calculation in the order of Herod to destroy all
the children «from two years old and under ” (ard
Sierous kal Katrwrépw, Matt. ii. 16).
age within which he destroyed, would be measured
rather by the extent of his fears than by the accu-
racy of the calculation of the Magi.
labored to show that, from the inclusive mode of
computing years, mentioned above in this article,
the phrase of the Evangelist would apply to all
children just turned one year old, which is true;
but he assumes that it would not apply to any that
were older, say to those aged a year and eleven
Ideler, on the same kind of calcu-
But this process
The words of St. Matthew
Ideler (Handbuch d. Chronologie)
[STAR IN THE
But the
Greswell has
months. Herod was a cruel man, angry, and
afraid; and it is vain to assume that he adjusted
the limit of his cruelties with the nicest accuracy.
As a basis of calculation the visit of the Magi,
though very important to us in other respects,
must be dismissed (but see Greswell, Dissertations
ete., Diss. 18th; Wieseler, Chron. Syn. p.'57 ff,
with all the references there).
The census taken by Augustus Cesar, which
led to the journey of Mary from Nazareth just
before the birth of the Lord, has also been looked
on as an important note of time, in reference to
the chronology of the life of Jesus. Several dif-
ficulties have to be disposed of ir considering it.
(i.) It is argued that there is no record in other
histories of a census of the whole Roman empire
in the time of Augustus. (ii-) Such a census, if
held during the reign of Herod the Great, would
not have included Judea, for it was not yet a Ro-
man province. (iii.) The Roman mode of taking
such a census was with reference to actual residence,
so that it would not have been requisite for Joseph
to go to Bethlehem. (iv.) The state of Mary at
the time would render such a journey less probable.
a
JESUS CHRIST 4
origin of it. Augustus was willing to ineh
his census all the tributary kingdoms, for the:
are mentioned in the passage in Tacitus; by
could scarcely be enforced. Perhaps Herod,
ing to gratify the emperor, and to emulate h
his love for this kind of information, was rez
undertake the census for Judea, but in orde
it might appear to be his rather than the empe
he took it in the Jewish manner rather than j
Roman, in the place whence the family sp
rather than in that of actual residence, |
might be some hardship in this, and we 1
wonder that a woman about to become a m
should be compelled to leave her home for g
purpose, if we were sure that it was not volun
1382 JESUS CHRIST
(v.) St. Luke himself seems to say that this census
was not actually taken until ten years later (ii. 2).
To these objections, of which it need not be said
Strauss has made the worst, answers may be given
in detail, though scarcely in this place with the
proper completeness. (i.) “As we know of the
legis actiones and their abrogation, which were
quite as important in respect to the early period
of Roman history, as the census of the empire was
in respect to a later period, not from the historical
works of Livy, Dionysius, or Polybius, but from a
legal work, the Institutes of Gaius; so we should
think it strange if the works of Paullus and Ulpian
De Censibus had come down to us perfect, and no
mention were made in them of the census of Au-
gustus; while it would not surprise us that in the
ordinary histories of the time it should be passed
over in silence” (Huschke in Wieseler, p. 78).
“Tf Suetonius in his life [of Augustus] does not
mention this census, neither does Spartian in his
life of Hadrian devote a single syllable to the edic-
tum perpetuum, which, in later times, has chiefly
adorned the name of that emperor”? (ibid.). Thus
it seems that the argumentum de taciturnitate is
The edict possibly af-
fected only the provinces, and in them was not car-
ried out at once; and in that case it would attract
very far from conclusive.
less attention at any one particular moment.
In the time of Augustus all the procurators of
the empire were brought under his sole control and
supervision for the first time A. U. c. 731 (Dion.
Cass. liii. 32).
ization renders it not improbable that a general
census of the empire should be ordered, although
it may not have been carried into effect suddenly,
nor intended to be so. But proceedings in the
way of an estimate of the empire, if not an actual
census, are distinctly recorded to have taken place
in the time of Augustus. ‘“ Huie addende sunt
mensure limitum et terminorum ex libris Augusti
et Neronis Cxsarum: sed et Balbi mensoris, qui
temporibus Augusti omnium provinciarum et civi-
tatum formas et mensuras compertas in commen-
tarios retulit et legem agrariam per universitatem
provinciarum distinxit et declaravit”’ (Frontinus,
in the Ket Agrar. Auct. of Goes, p. 109, quoted
by Wieseler). This is confirmed from other sources
(Wieseler, pp. 81, 82). Augustus directed, as we
learn, a “ breviarium totius imperii” to be made,
in which, according to Tacitus, “Opes publicee
continebantur: quantum civium sociorumque in
armis, quot classes, regna, provincize, tributa aut
vectigalia et necessitates ac lurgitiones’’ (Tacit.
Ann. i. 11; Sueton. Aug. 28, 101; Dion. Cass.
liii. 30, vi. 33, given in Wieseler; see also Ritschl,
in Rhein. Mus. fiir Philol. New Series, i. 481).
All this makes a census by order of Augustus in
the highest degree probable, apart from St. Luke’s
testimony. The time of our Lord’s birth was most
propitious. Except some troubles in Dacia, the
Roman world was at peace, and Augustus was in
the full enjoyment of his power. But there are
persons who, though they would at once believe this
fact on the testimony of some inferior historian,
added to these confirmatory facts, reject it just be-
cause an Evangelist has said it. (ii. and iii.) Next
comes the objection, that, as Judea was not yet a
Roman province, such a census would not have in-
eluded that country, and that it was not taken from
the residence of each person, but from the place
of his origin. It is very probable that the mode
of taking the census would afford a clew to the
This movement towards central-
A Jew of the house and lineage of Dayid 1
not willingly forego that position, and if it
necessary to assert it by going to the city of D
he would probably make some sacrifice to d
Thus the objection (iv.), on the ground of the
of Mary’s health, is entitled to little considers
It is said, indeed, that “all went to be taxed,
one into his own city’ (Luke ii. 3); but not
the decree prescribed that they should. “Nor
there well be any means of enforcing such a1
lation. But the principle being adopted, that
were to be taxed in the places to which their
ilies belonged, St. Luke tells us by these words
as a matter of fact it was generally followed.
The objection that, according to St. Luke's
admission, the census was not taken now, but:
Quirinus was governor of Syria, remains to be
posed of. St. Luke makes two statements, th
the time of our Lord’s birth (‘in those da;
there was a decree for a census, and that this ta
first came about, or took effect (porn eye
when Cyrenius, or Quirinus, was governor of §
(Luke ii. 1,2). And as the two statements
quite distinct, and the very form of expression
special attention to scme remarkable circumst
about this census, no historical inaccuracy is :
unless the statements are shown to be contr,
tory, or one or other of them to be untrue.
Strauss makes such a charge without establis
either of these grounds, is worthy of a write
dishonest (Leben Jesu, i., iv. 32). Now, wit
going into all the theories that have been proy
to explain this second verse, there is no doubt :
the words of St. Luke can be explained in a}
ural manner, without violence to the sense a
tradiction. Herod undertakes the census accor)
to Jewish forms; but his death the same year |
an end to it, and no more is heard of it: but
its influence as to the place of our Lord’s hr
would not have been recorded at all. But
Evangelist knows that, as soon as a census (:
papi) is mentioned, persons conversant with :
ish history will think at once of the census t?
after the banishment of Archelaus, or about?
years later, which was avowedly a Roman cers
and which caused at first some resistance in cc
quence (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, § 1). The sei
verse therefore means — “No census was acttl
completed then, and I know that the first Rott
census was that which followed the banishmen)
Archelaus; but the decree went out much eal!
in the time of Herod.’”’ That this is the only
sible explanation of so vexed a passage canno)
course be affirmed. But it will bear this it
@ See a summary of the older theories in Kulé
(in Lue. ii. 2); also in Meyer (in Luc. ii. 2), who}
.
JESUS CHRIST
yn, and upon the whole evidence there is ‘no '
whatever for denying either assertion of the |
jist, or for considering them irreconcilable.
writers have confounded an obscurity with a
inaccuracy. ‘The value of this census, as a
the chronology of the life of Christ, depends
connection which is sought to be established
n it and the insurrection which broke out
Matthias and Judas, the son of Sariphzeus,
last illness of Herod (Joseph. Ant. xv. 6, §
‘the insurrection arose out of the census, a
f connection between the sacred history and
Josephus is made out. Such a connection,
r, has not been clearly made out (see Wiese-
hausen, and others, for the grounds on which
pposed to rest).
age of Jesus at his baptism (Luke iii. 23)
an element of calculation. ‘And Jesus
f began to be about (doef) thirty years of
Born in the beginning of A. vu. c. 750 (or
lof 749), Jesus would be thirty in the be-
y of A. U. C. 780 (A. D. 27). Greswell is
ly right in placing the baptism of our Lord
yeginning of this year, and the first Passover
his ministry would be that of the same
Wieseler places the baptism later, in the
or summer of the same year. (On the
if &pxouevos, see the commentators.) To
st Passover after the baptism attaches a note
which will confirm the calculations already
«Then said the Jews, Forty and six years
s Temple in building (gxodouHOn), and wilt
‘ear it up in three days?’’ ‘There can be
ot that this refers to the rebuilding of the
by Herod: it cannot mean the second
, built after the Captivity, for this was fin-
n twenty years (B. C. 535 to B. C. 515).
‘in the eighteenth year of his reign (Joseph.
. 11, § 1), began to reconstruct the Temple
sger and more splendid scale (A. U. C. 73+).
rk was not finished till long after his death.
‘U. c. 818. It is inferred from Josephus
v. 11, §§ 5, 6) that it was begun in the
Uisleu, A. u. c. 734. And if the Passover
th this remark was made was that of A. U.
\then forty-five years and some months have
which, according to the Jewish mode of
1g (p. 1381), would be spoken of as “ forty
years.”’
the death of Herod enables us to fix a
"y on one side to the calculations of our
‘birth. The building of the Temple, for
< years, confirms this, and also gives a
‘yon the other. From the star of the Magi
Conelusive can be gathered, nor from the
of Augustus. One datum remains: the
}cement of the preaching of John the Bap-
!onnected with the fifteenth year of the reign
nlus Cesar (Luke iii. 1). The rule of Ti-
tay be calculated either from the beginning
‘(ole reign, after the death of Augustus, A.
7, or from his joint government with Au-
1. é from the beginning of A. U. Cc. 765.
Matter case the fifteenth year would corre-
si)
tnt of the view, espoused by many, that Quir-
| NOW a special commissioner for this census in
YeHovevovros, THs Xvpias), which the Greek
bear, But if the theory of the younger Zumpt
‘We, Cyrenius) be correct, then Quirinus was
vernor of Syria, and the Evangelist would
7 to his former rule. The difficulty is that
JESUS CHRIST 1383
spond with A. u. c. 779, which goes to confirm the
rest of the calculations relied on in this article.
An endeavor has been made to deduce the time
of the year of the birth of Jesus from the fact that
Zacharias was ‘‘a priest of the course of Abia”
(Luke i. 5). The twenty-four courses of priests
served in the Temple according to a regular weekly
cycle, the order of which is known. The date of
the conception of John would be about. fifteen
months before the birth of our Lord, and if the
date of the latter be A. u. c. 750, then the former
would fall in A. u. ©. 748. Can it be ascertained
in what part of the year 748 the course of Abia
would be on duty in the Temple? The Talmud
preserves a tradition that the Temple was destroyed
by Titus, A. D. 70, on the ninth day of the month
Ab. Josephus mentions the date as the 10th of
Ab (B. J. vi. 4, §§ 5, 8). Without attempting to
follow the steps by which these are reconciled, it
seems that the “course’’ of Jehoiarib had just
entered upon its weekly duty at the time the Tem-
ple was destroyed. Wieseler, assuming that the
day in question would be the same as the 5th of
August, A. U. C. 823, reckons back the weekly
courses to A. U. C. 748, the course of Jehoiarib
being the first of all (1 Chr. xxiv. 7). “It fol-
lows,’’ he says, ‘that the ministration of the course
of Abia, 74 years 10 months and 2 days, or (reck-
oning 19 intercalary years) 27,335 days earlier (=
162 hieratic circles and 119 days earlier), fell be-
tween the 3d and 9th of October, a. vu. c. 748.
Reckoning from the 10th of October, on which
Zacharias might reach his house, and allowing
nine months for the pregnancy of Elizabeth, to
which six months are to be added (Luke i. 26),
we have in the whole one year and three months,
which gives the 10th of January as the date of
Christ’s birth.” Greswell, however, from the same
starting-point, arrives at the date April 5th; and
when two writers so laborious can thus differ in
| their conclusions, we must rather suspect the sound-
| ness of their method than their accuracy in the use
of it.
Similar differences will be found amongst eminent
writers in every part of the chronology of the Gos-
pels. For example, the birth of our Lord is placed
in B. C. 1 by Pearson and Hug; B.c. 2 by Sealiger;
B. C. 3 by Baronius, Calvisius, Siiskind, and Paulus;
B. ©. 4 by Lamy, Bengel, Anger, Wieseler, and
Greswell; B. c. 5 by Usher and Petavius; B. Cc. 7
by Ideler and Sanclemente. And whilst the cal-
culations given above seem sufficient to determine
us, with Lamy, Usher, Petavius, Bengel, Wieseler,
and Greswell, to the close of B. c. 5, or early part
of B. C. 4, let it never be forgotten that there is a
distinction between these researches, which the
Holy Spirit has left obscure and doubtful, and “ the
weightier matters ’’ of the Gospel, the things which
directly pertain to man’s salvation. The silence of
the inspired writers, and sometimes the obscurity
of their allusions to matters of time and _ place,
have given rise to disputation. But their words
admit of no doubt when they tell us that Christ
Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and that
Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1, § 1) mentions that Quirinus
was sent, after the banishment of Archelaus, to take
a census. Either Zumpt would set this authority
aside, or would hold that Quirinus, twice governor,
twice made a census; which is scarcely an easier hy-
pothesis than some others. [See addition to CygENIUS
by Dr. Woolsey, Amer. ed. — H.]
1384 JESUS CHRIST
wicked hands crucified and slew Him, and that we
and all men must own Him as the Lord and Re-
deemer.
Sources. — The bibliography of the subject of
the Life of Jesus has been most fully set out in
Hase, Leben Jesu, Leipsic, 1854, 4th edition. It
would be vain to attempt to rival that enormous
catalogue. The principal works employed in the
present article are the Four Gospels, and the
best-known commentaries on them, including those
of Bengel, Wetstein, Lightfoot, De Wette, Liicke,
Olshausen, Stier, Alford, Williams, and others;
Neander, Leben Jesu (Hamburg, 1837 [5¢ Aufl.
1852, Eng. transl. by M’Clintock and Blumenthal,
New York, 1848]), as against Strauss, Leben Jesu
(Tiibingen, 1835), also consulted; Stackhouse’s
History of the Bible ; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes
Israel, vol. v., Christus (Gottingen, 1857 [8° Ausg.
1867]}; Baumgarten, Geschichte Jesu (Brunswick,
1859); Krummacher, Der Leidende Christus
(Bielefeld, 1854).
pels, see the list of works given under GOSPELS:
the principal works used for the present article have
been, Wieseler, Chronologische Synopse, etc., Ham-
burg, 1843; Greswell’s Harmony, Prolegomena,
and Dissertations, Oxford, v. y.; two papers by Dr.
Robinson in the Bibl. Sacra for 1845; and Clausen,
Tabule Synoptice, Haynie, 1829. Special works,
such as Dean Trench on the Parables and on the
Miracles, have also been consulted; and detached
monographs, sermons, and essays in periodicals.
For the text of the Gospels, the 7th edition of
Tischendorf’s Greek Test. has been employed.
Weel
* Moral Character of Jesus. — According to
the unanimous teaching of the Apostles, and the
faith of universal Christendom, Jesus was a divine-
human person, the God-Man (@edv@pwos), and
hence the Mediator between God and man and the
Saviour of the race. The idea and aim of religion,
as union and communion of man with God, was
fully actualized in Christ, and can be actualized in
us only in proportion as we become united to Him.
The Synoptic Gospels represent Him predominantly
as the divine man, the Gospel of John as the incar-
nate God; the result in both is the same.
The human side of Christ is expressed by the
designation the Son of Man (6 vios TOU avOpamou
—mark the article), the divine side by the term
the Son of God (6 vids tod Oeod, also with the
definite article, to distinguish Him as the eternal,
only begotten Son from ordinary viol or réxva Oeod
whose adoption is derived from his absolute Son-
ship). The term 6 vids tov av@pémov, which Christ
applies to himself about eighty times in the Gospels,
is probably derived from Dan. vii. 13, where it sig-
nifies the Messiah, as the head of a universal and
eternal kingdom, and from the ideal representation
of man as the divine image and head of creation in
Ps. viii. In the Syriac, the Saviour’s native dialect,
bar nosho, the son of man, is man generically: |.
the filial part of the compound denotes the identity
and purity of the generic idea. This favorite des-
ignation of the Gospels places Christ, on the one
hand, on a common level with other men as par-
taking of their nature and constitution, and, on the
other, above all other men as the absolute and per-
fect man, the representative head of the race, the
second Adam (comp. Rom. v. 12 ff; 1 Cor. xv. 27,
Heb i. 2-8). The best and greatest of men are
bounded by their nationality. Abraham, Moses,
and Elijah were Jews, and could not command
Upon the harmony of the Gos-
JESUS CHRIST
universal sympathies. Solon, Socrates, and
were Greeks, and can only be fully appreeiat
types of the Greek character. Christ is the
of men, who “draws all men”’ to him, becat
is the universal, absolute man, elevated aboy
limitations of race and nationality and the preji
of any particular age. He had the purest hum:
free from the demoniac adulteration of sin. —
most intensely human. Never man felt, s
acted, suffered, died so humanly, and so ast
peal to the sympathies and to call out the affe
of all men without distinction of race, gener.
and condition of society. It was an approa
this idea of an universal humanity when the J
philosopher Philo, a contemporary of Christ, :
the Logos, the eternal Word, 6 &An@iwds avOp
As sin and death proceeded from the first J
who was of the earth earthly, so righteousnes
life proceed from the second Adam who is
heaven heavenly.
The perfect humanity of Christ has beer
subject of peculiar interest and earnest inve
tion in the present age, and a deeper insight
it is perhaps the most substantial modern cont
tion to Christology, which is the very heart o
Christian system.
(1.) The singular perfection of Christ’s chai
viewed as a man, according to the record o
Gospels confirmed by the history of the churel
the experience of the believer, consists first i
absolute freedom from sin both original and a
This must not ,be confounded with freedom
temptation. Temptability and peceability (
peccare) is an essential feature in the moral
stitution of man, and actual temptation is nec
as a test of virtue; hence Christ as a true ma)
tempted, like Adam and all other men (meme
pévov Kata mavra Kal? duoidrnra), not only,
wilderness but throughout his whole life (Ma
1-11; Luke xxii. 28; Heb. iv. 15). But he
yielded to temptation, and turned every i.
the power of sin into a victory of virtue. H
he alone of all men stood in no need of p
and redemption, of regeneration and conyersic
and he alone could challenge even his bitte
with the question (John, viii. 46): “ Which
can convince me of sin? ’? No such claim ha
been set up by any great man. It is true, Xen
says of Socrates, that no one ever saw him
heard him say any thing impious or unholy i
mémore Swkpdrovs ovdiy doeBes ovde a
ore mpdtrovtos €idev, ovTE A€yovToS fn
Memorab. i. 11). But this is the judgmer;
of Socrates himself, but of a warm admirer, a)
ment moreover that must be judged by the hi
standard of morality. Christ's sinlessness res)
only on the unanimous testimony of a
Baptist and of his disciples (Acts iii. 14; 1.
19, ii. 22, iii. 18; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 John i
iii. 5,7; Heb. iv. 15, vii. 26), and even his a
or outside observers (Matt. xxvii. 19, 24-4;
xxiii. 22-47; Matt. xxvii. 4), but is confi!
his own solemn testimony, the whole course
life, and the very purpose for which he ap}
Self-deception in this case would border on}
ness; falsehood would overthrow the whole
fonndation of Christ’s character. If he was}
ner, he must have been conscious of it, and ?
it in some word or deed, or confessed it in the
of common honesty. To maintain a success
of sinless perfection without a corresponding
through the most trying situations of life,
i
JESUS CHRIST
self the greatest moral miracle, or monstrosity
ar, that can be imagined.
). Perfect holiness is the positive side of sin-
ess. It consists in the beautiful harmony and
metry of all virtues and graces. Christ’s life
one continued act of love or self-consecration
od and to man. ‘It was absolute love to God
yrest humanity.’’ The opposite and to us ap-
ntly contradictory virtues were found in him
qual proportion. He was free from all one-
Iness, which constitutes the weakness as well
he strength of the most eminent men. ‘The
il forces were so well tempered and moderated
ach other that none was unduly prominent,
carried to excess, none alloyed by the kindred
ig. Each was checked and completed by the
site grace. He combined innocence with
th, love with earnestness, humility with dig-
‘wisdom with courage, devotion to God with
est in man. He is justly compared to the
y and the lion. His dignity was free from
», his self-denial free from moroseness; his zeal
r degenerated into passion, nor his constancy
obstinacy, nor his benevolence into weakness,
his tenderness into sentimentality ; he was
lly removed from the excesses of the legalist,
jietist, the mystic, the ascetic, and the enthu-
. His character from tender childhood to ripe
hood was absolutely unique and original, moving
ibroken communion with God, overflowing with
purest love to man, free from every sin and
, exhibiting in doctrine and example the ideal
rtue, sealing the purest life with the sublimest
a, and ever acknowledged since as the perfect
1 of goodness for universal imitation. All
an greatness loses on closer inspection; but
st’s character grows more pure, sacred, and
y, the better we know him. The whole range
story and fiction furnishes no parallel to it.
oerson is the great miracle of which his works
‘nly the natural manifestations.
ich a perfect man in the midst of universal
rfection and sinfulness can only be understood
he ground of the godhead dwelling in Him.
perfection of his humanity is the proof of his
‘ity. All other theories, the theory of enthu-
1 and self-deception, the theory of imposture,
the theory of mythical or legendary fiction,
‘in nothing, but substitute an unnatural mon-
‘ity for a supernatural miracle. Only a Jesus
| have invented a Jesus. Even Renan must
t that “ whatever be the surprises of the future,
Swill never be surpassed ; his worship will grow
{without ceasing ; his legend (?) will call forth
without end; his sufferings will melt the,
‘st hearts; all ages will proclaim that, among
ons of men, there is none born greater than
‘” But this and similar admissions of modern
lls refute their own hypothesis, and have no
jing unless we admit the truth of Christ’s
‘ony coucerning his unity with the Father and
xtraordinary claims which in the mouth of
other man would be blasphemy or madness,
| from his lips they excite no surprise and ap-
48 natural and easy as the rays of the shining
The church of all ages and denominations
! sponse to these claims worships and adores,
ming with Thomas: “ My Lord and my God!”
is the testimony of the soul left to its deepest |
ets and noblest aspirations, the soul which |
é originally made for Christ and finds in Him |
ee of all moral problems, the satisfaction |
JESUS CHRIST 13885
of all its wants, the unfailing fountain of everlasting
life and peace.
Personal Appearance of Jesus.— None of the
Evangelists, not even the beloved disciple and
bosom friend of Jesus has given us the least hint
of his countenance and stature. In this respect our
instincts of natural affection have been wisely over-
ruled. He who is the Saviour of all and the perfect
exemplar of humanity should not be identified with
the particular lineaments of one race or nationality.
We should cling to the Christ in the spirit and in
glory rather than to the Christ in the flesh. Never-
theless there must have been an overawing majesty
and irresistible charm even in his personal appear-
ance to the spiritual eye, to account for the readi-
ness with which the disciples forsaking all things
followed him in reverence and boundless devotion.
He had not the physiognomy of a sinner. He
reflected from his eye and countenance the serene
peace and celestial beauty of a sinless soul in blessed
harmony with God. In the absence of authentic
representation, Christian art in its irrepressible
desire to exhibit in visible form the fairest among
the children of men, was left to its own imperfect
conception of ideal beauty. The church under
persecution in the first three centuries was rather
averse to all pictorial representations of Christ, and
associated with him in his state of humiliation (but
not in his state of exaltation) the idea of uncomeli-
ness; taking too literally the prophetic description
of the suffering Messiah in the twenty-second Psalm
and the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. The victorious
church after Constantine, starting from the Mes-
sianie picture in the forty-fifth Psalm and the Song
of Solomon, saw the same Lord in heavenly glory,
“fairer than the children of men” and “altogether
lovely.”’. Yet the difference was not so great as it is
sometimes represented. For even the ante-Nicene
fathers (especially Clement of Alexandria), besides
expressly distinguishing between the first appear-
ance of Christ in lowliness and humility, and his
second appearance in glory and majesty, did not
mean to deny to the Saviour even in the days of
his flesh a higher order of spiritual beauty, ‘“ the
glory of the only begotten of the Father full of
grace and of truth,” which shone through the veil
of his humanity, and which at times, as on the
mount of transfiguration, anticipated his future
glory.
The first formal description of the personal ap-
pearance of Christ, which, though not authentic and
certainly not older than the fourth century, exerted
great influence on the pictorial representations, is
ascribed to the heathen Publius Lentulus, a sup-
posed contemporary of Pilate and Proconsul of
Judea, in an apocryphal Latin letter to the Roman
Senate which was first discovered in a MS. copy
of the writings of Anselm of Canterbury, and is as
follows : —
‘‘In this time appeared a man, who lives till
now, a man endowed with great powers. Men call
Him a great prophet; his own disciples term Him
the Son of God. His name is Jesus Christ. He
restores the dead to life, and cures the sick of all
manner of diseases. This man is of noble and well-
proportioned stature, with a face full of kindness
and yet firmness, so that the beholders both love
Him and fear Him. His hair is the color of wine,
and golden at the root; straight, and without
lustre, but from the level of the ears curling and
glossy, and divided down the centre after the fashion
of the Nazarenes. His forehead is even and smooth,
1386 JESUS CHRIST
his face without blemish, and enhanced by a tem-
pered bloom. His countenance ingenuous and kind.
Nose and mouth are in no way faulty. His beard
is full, of the same color as his hair, and forked in
form; his eyes blue, and extremely brilliant. In
reproof and rebuke he is formidable; in exhortation
and teaching, gentle and amiable of tongue. None
have seen Him to laugh; but many, on the con-
trary, to weep. His person is tall; his hands beau-
tiful and straight. In speaking He is deliberate
and graye, and little given to loquacity. In beauty
surpassing most men.’’ Another description is
found in the works of the Greek theologian John
of Damascus of the 8th century. It ascribes to
Christ a stately person, beautiful eyes, curly hair,
‘‘ black beard, yellow complexion and long fingers,
like his mother.”’
On the ground of these descriptions and of the
Abgar and the Veronica legends, arose a vast num-
ber of pictures of Christ which are divided into two
classes: the Salvator pictures, with the expression
of calm serenity and dignity, without the faintest
mark of grief, and the “cece Homo pictures of the
suffering Saviour with the crown of thorns. But
‘no figure of Christ, in color, or bronze, or marble,
can reach the ideal of perfect beauty which came
forth into actual reality in the Son of God and Son
of Man. The highest creations of art are here but
feeble reflections of the original in heaven; yet
prove the mighty influence which the living Christ
continually exerts even upon the imagination and
sentiment of the great painters and sculptors, and
which He will exert to the end of the world.”’
(Schaff’s History of the Church, vol. iii. p. 571.)
LirERATURE. —I. General works on the Life
of Christ not mentioned in the above article. —
J. J. Hess, Lebensgeschichte Jesu, 3 vols. Zurich,
1781, 8th ed. 1823. H. E. G. Paulus, Das Leben
Jesu, 2 Theile in 4 Abth. Heidelb. 1828, and C. F.
von Ammon, Die Gesch. des Lebens Jesu, 3 vols.
Leipz. 1842-47 (rationalistic). K. Hase, Das Le-
ben Jesu, 5th ed. 1865 (abridged trans. from an
earlier ed. by J. F. Clarke, Boston, 1860). J. P.
Lange, Das Leben Jesu, 3 vols. Heidelb. 1847
(English trans. 6 vols. Edinb. 1864). J. J. van
Oosterzee, Leven van Jezus, 3 vols. 1846-51, 2d
ed., 1863-65. Riggenbach, Vorlesungen tiber das
Leben Jesu, Basel, 1858. J.N. Sepp (R. Cath.),
Das Leben Jesu, 2d ed. 6 vols. Regensburg, 1865.
J. Bucher (R. Cath.), Das Leben Jesu, Stuttgart,
1859. F. Schleiermacher, Das Leben Jesu, Berlin,
1865 (a posthumous work of little value). D. F.
Strauss, Dus Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet, the
large work in 2 vols. Tiibingen, 1835 sq., 4th ed.
1840, English transl., 3 vols. Lond. 1846, 2 vols.
New York, 1856; the smaller and more popular
work, Das Leben Jesu fiir das Deutsche Volk, in
1 vol. Leipzig, 1864, English transl. 2 vols. Lond.
1865 (the mythical theory). Comp. also Strauss’s
Der Christus des Glaubens und der Jesus der Ges-
chichte, and Die Halben und die Ganzen (against
Schenkel and Hengstenberg), Berlin, 1865. The
literature against Strauss is very large; see Hase.
‘E. Renan, Vie de Jésus, Paris, 1863, 13¢ éd., revue
et augmentée, 1867 (the legendary hypothesis).
Renan also called forth a whole library of books
and essays in reply. E. de Pressens¢, Jésus Christ,
son temps, sa vie, son w@uvre (against Renan),
Paris, 1866. (Translated into German and Eng-
lish.) G. Uhlhorn, Die modernen Darstellungen
des Lebens Jesu, Hanover, 1866, English transl.,
The Modern Representations of the Life of Jesus,
JESUS CHRIST
by C. E. Grinnell, Boston, 1868. Theod. Ki
Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, vol. i., Ziirieh, 1
English and American works: C. J. Ellicott, ,
torical Lectures on the Life of our Lord J
Christ, 1859, reprinted Boston, 1862. §. J..
drews, The Life of our Lord upon the Earth, }
York, 1862. Of a popular character, Henry W
Jr., The Life of the Saviour, Boston, 1833,
printed 1868; Z. Eddy, The Life of Christ, 1§
In course of preparation, H. W. Beecher, Life
Christ. See further the literature under Gospy
II. On the Chronology of the Life of Christ
K. Wieseler, Chronologische Synopse der vier lh
gelien, Hamb. 1843 (English trans. Lond. 18
R. Anger, Zur Chronol. des Lehramtes Chr
1848; C. H. A. Krafft, Chronologie u. Harm
der vier Evangelien, Erlangen, 1848; F. W.
Lichtenstein, Lebensgeschichte des Herrn J. C
chronol. Uebersicht, Erlangen, 1856; comp.
art. Jesus Christus in Herzog’s Real-Eneykl.
563-596. On the year of Christ’s birth see
F. Piper, De externa Vite J. C. Chronolo
Gotting. 1835; Seyfarth, Chronologia Sacra, Le
1846; G. Rosch, Zum Geburtsjahr Jesu, in
Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, xi. 8-48, 382.
III. On the Moral Character and Sinlessnes:
Christ. — Abp. Newcome, Observations on
Lord’s Conduct as a Divine Instructor, ete., Li
1782, reprinted Charlestown, 1810. IF. Y. R
hard, Versuch tiber den Plan Jesu, 5th ed.
Heubner, Wittenberg, 1830 (English transl. by
A. Taylor, N. Y. and Andover, 1831). C..
mann, Die Siindlosigheit Jesu, Tth ed., Hamb
1864 (English translation by R. C. L. Bre
Edinb. 1858, from the sixth edition, which is
perseded by the seventh). W. E. Channing, ser!
on the Character of Christ (Matt. xvii. 5), in
Works, Boston, 1848, vol. iv. pp. 7-29. Andi
Norton, /nternal Evidences of the Genuinenes:
the Gospels, Boston, 1855, pp. 54-62, 245 ff. J
Young, The Christ of History, Lond. and
York, 1855, new ed. 1868. W. F. Gess, Die 4
von der Person Christi entwickélt aus dem Se
bewusstsein Christi und aus dem Zeugniss der 4
tel, Basel, 1856. Fréd. de Rougemont, Chr
ses témoins, 2 vols. Paris, 1856. Horace Bush
The Character of Jesus, forbidding his pov
Classification with Men, New York, 1861 (a §:
rate reprint of the tenth chapter of his Na
and the Supernatural, N. Y. 1859). J. J.
Oosterzee, Das Bild Christi nach der Schrift, |
the Dutch, Hamb. 1864. Dan. Schenkel, /
Charakterbild Jesu (a caricature rather), v
baden, 3d ed. 1864 (translated, with Intro:
tion and Notes, by W. H. Furness, 2 vols. Bo!
1866; comp. Furness’s History of Jesus, fo
1853, and other works). Theod. Keim, Der}
chichtliche Christus, Ziirich, 8d ed. 1866. }
Schaff, The Person of Christ the Miracle of
tory; with a Reply to Strauss and Renan, v
Collection of Testimonies of Unbelievers, Bo)
1865 (the same in German, Gotha, 1869)
Dutch, with an Introduction by Dr. van Ooste?
Groningen, 1866; and in French). Ecce bi
London and Boston, 5th ed. 1867 (an art
mous sensation book of great ability, classical i
and good tendency, but bad exegesis, on the h
perfection of Christ as the founder of a new.
dom, and the kindler of enthusiasm for hum)
Comp. among the innumerable reviews faye
and unfavorable, those of Dorner in the Jah,
Deutsche Theol. for 1867, p. 344 ff., and Glad
{
|
il
¥
JETHER
d Words, 1868, reprinted in a separate vol-
Fece Deus, Lond. 1867 (an anonymous coun-
of Ecce Homo). Deus Homo, by Theophi-
sons, Chicago, 1867 (Swedenborgian). C. A.
The Jesus of the Evangelists: or, an Exam-
, of the Internal Evidence for our Lord's
, Mission, Lond. 1868.
On Images of Christ. — P. E. Jablonski
, De origine imaginum Christi Domini, Lugd.
1804. W. Grimm, Die Sage vom Ursprung
wistusbilder, Berlin, 1843. Dr. Legis Gliick-
Christus-Archdologie. Das Buch von Jesus
us und seinem wahren Ebenbilde, Prag, 1863,
Mrs. Jameson and Lady Eastlake, The His-
our Lord as exemplified in Works of Art
illustrations), 2d ed., 2 vols., Lond. 1865.
Pus.
‘THER (am [string, cord, and abun-
residue]). 1. (lo@dp: Jethro.) Jethro,
her-in-law of Moses, is so called in Ex. iv.
| the margin of A. V., though in the Heb.-
text and Sam. version the reading is 171,
he Syriac and Targ. Jon., one of Kennicott’s
and a MS. of Targ. Onk., No. 16 in De
3 collection.
(leGép: Jether.) The firstborn of Gideon’s
y sons, who were all, with the exception of
n, the youngest, slain at Ophrah by Abime-
At the time of his father’s victorious pursuit
Midianites and capture of their kings he was
‘lad on ‘his first battle-field, and feared to
iis sword at Gideon’s bidding, and avenge, as
presentative of the family, the slaughter of
asmen at Tabor (Judg. viii. 20).
(le0ép in 1 K. ii. 5, 32; *100dp in 1 Chr. ii.
ie Alex. MS. has Ie@ep in all the passages:
*.) The father of Amasa, captain-general of
m’s army. Jether is merely another form
ta (2 Sam. xvii. 25), the latter being prob-
corruption. He is described in 1 Chr. ii.
an Ishmaelite, which again is more likely to
rect than the “ Israelite’? of the Heb. in 2
xvii, or the “ Jezreelite’’ of the LXX. and
In the same passage. ‘Ishmaelite’’ is said
| author of the Quest. Hebr. in lib. Reg. to
een the reading of the Hebrew, but there is
ve of it in the MSS. One MS. of Chronicles
‘Israelite,’ as does the Targum, which adds
e was called Jether the Ishmaelite, “ because
t his loins with the sword, to help David
he Arabs, when Abner sought to drive away
and all the race of Jesse, who were not pure
er the congregation of Jehovah on account
‘th the Moabitess.”” According to Jarchi,
was an Israelite, dwelling in the land of
el, and thence acquired his surname, like the
| of Obededom the Gittite. Josephus calls
leOdpons (Ant. vii. 10, § 1). He married
)il, David’s sister, probably during the sojourn
_ family of Jesse in the land of Moab, under
tection of its king.
‘The son of Jada, a descendant of Hezron, of
be of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 32). He died with-
uildren, and being the eldest son the succes-
Il to his brother's family.
‘The son of Ezra, whose name occurs in a dis-
1 passage in the genealogy of Judah (1 Chr.
‘ Tn the LXX. the name is repeated: ‘and
\ begat Miriam,” etc. By the author of the
|
| Jephunneh (1 Chr. vii. 38).
JETHRO 1387
Quest. Hebr. in Par. he is said to have been
Aaron, Ezra being another name for Amram.
6. (IeOyp; Alex. IeGep.) The chief of a fam-
ily of warriors of the line of Asher, and father of
He is probably the
same as Ithran in the preceding verse. One of
Kennicott’s MSS. and the Alex. had Jether in both
cases. (Wind Wi
JE/THETH (FN) [pin, nail, Sim.]: *1e6ép;
[ Alex. leBep, JeGc0; Vat. in 1 Chr. leer: ] Je-
theth), one of the phylarchs (A. V_ “dukes’’) who
eame of Esau (Gen. xxxvi. 40; 1 Chr. i. 51),
enumerated separately from the genealogy of Esau’s
children in the earlier part of the chapter, ‘“ accord-
ing to their families, after their places, by their
names,’ and “according to their habitations in the
land of their possession ’’ (vv. 40-43). This record
of the Edomite phylarchs may point specially to
the places and habitations, or towns, named after,
or occupied by them; and even otherwise, we may
look for some trace of their names, after the custom
of the wandering tribes to leave such footprints in
the changeless desert. Identifications of several in
the list have been proposed: Jetheth, as far as the
writer knows, has not been yet recovered. He may,
however, be probably found if we adopt the likely
suggestion of Simonis, FWY=SVW), “a nail,”
‘a tent-pin,’’ etc. (and metaphorically “a prince,”
etc., as being stable, firm) = Arab. QMS 9 hb j
with the same signification. El-Wetideh, SAS ra |
(n. of unity of the former), is a place in Nejd, said
to be in the Dahnd (see IsHBAK); there is also a
place called El-Wetid; and El-Wetidat (perhaps
pl. of the first-named), which is the name of moun-
tains belonging to Benee ’Abd-Allah Ibn Ghatfan
(Marasid, s. vv.). Kis Sat ee
JETHLAH (712M), i. e. Jithlah [high,
elevated, Ges. ; hill-place, Fiirst]: SiAaba; [Vat.
Seidada;| Alex. [Ald. Comp.] *1e@Ad: Jethela),
one of the cities of the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix.
42), named with Ajalon and Thimnathah. In the
Onomasticon it is mentioned, without any descrip- -
tion or indication of position, as "Ie@Ady. It has
not since been met with, even by the indefatigable
Tobler in his late Wandering in that district. G.
JETH’RO (1%, 7. ¢. Jithro [preéminence,
superiority]: °109dp: [Jethro]), called also Jether
and Hobab; the son of REVEL, was priest or prince
of Midian, both offices probably being combined in
one person. Moses spent the forty years of his
exile from Egypt with him, and married his daugh-
ter Zipporah. By the advice of Jethro, Moses ap-
pointed deputies to judge the congregation and
share the burden of government with himself (Ix.
xviii.). On account of his local knowledge he was
entreated to remain with the Israelites throughout
their journey to Canaan; his room, however, was
supplied by the ark of the covenant, which super-
naturally indicated the places for encamping (Num.
x. 31, 33). The idea conveyed by the name of
Jethro or Jether is probably that of excellence ;
and as Hobab may mean beloved, it is quite possi-
ble that both appellations were given to the same
person for similar reasons. That the custom of
having more than one name was common among
1388 JETHRO
the Jews we see in the case of Benjamin, Benoni;
Solomon, Jedidiah, etc.
It is said in Ex. ii. 18 that the priest of Midian
whose daughter Moses married was Reuel; after-
wards, at ch. iii. 1, he is called Jethro, as also in
ch. xviii.; but in Num. x. 29 “‘ Hobab the son of
Raguel the Midianite’’ is called Moses’ father-in-
law: assuming the identity of Hobab and Jethro,
we must suppose that “their father Reuel,’’ in Ex.
ii. 18, was really their grandfather, and that the
person who “said, How is it that ye are come so
soon to-day ?’’ was the priest of ver. 16: whereas,
proceeding on the hypothesis that Jethro and Ho-
bab are not the same individual, it seems difficult to
determine the relationship of Reuel, Jethro, Hobab,
and Moses. ‘The hospitality, freehearted and un-
sought, which Jethro at once extended to the un-
known homeless wanderer, on the relation of his
daughters that he had watered their flock, is a pic-
ture of eastern manners no less true than lovely.
We may perhaps suppose that Jethro, before his
acquaintance with Moses, was not a worshipper of
the true God. ‘Traces of this appear in the delay
which Moses had suffered to take place with respect
to the circumcision of his son (Ex. iv. 24-26):
indeed it is even possible that Zipporah had after-
wards been subjected to a kind of divorce (Ex.
xviii. 2, mm 2”), on account of her attachment
to an alien creed, but that growing convictions
were at work in the mind of Jethro, from the cir-
cumstance of Israel's continued prosperity, till at
last, acting upon these, he brought back his daugh-
ter, and declared that his impressions were con-
firmed, for “now he knew that the Lord was
greater than all gods, for in the thing wherein they
dealt proudly, he was above them: ’’ consequently
we are told that “Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law,
took a burnt-offeriig and sacrifices for God: and
Aaron came and all the elders of Israel to eat bread
with Moses’ father-in-law before God ;’’ as though
to celebrate the event of his conversion. Whether
or not the account given at Num. x. 29-32 refers
to this same event, the narrative at Ex. xviii. 27
coincides with Hobab’s own words at Num. x. 80;
and, comparing the two, we may suppose that
Moses did not prevail upon his father-in-law to
stay with the congregation. Calvin (in 5 lb. Mosis
Comment.) understands vy. 31, 32 thus: “Thou
hast gone with us hitherto, and hast been to us
instead of eyes, and now what profit is it to thee
if, having suffered so many troubles and difficulties,
thou dost not go on with us to inherit the promised
blessing?’ And Mat. Henry imagines that Ho-
bab complied with this invitation, and that traces
of the settlement of his posterity in the land of
Canaan are apparent at Judg. i. 16 and 1 Sam. xv.
6. Some, and among them Calvin, take Jethro
and Reuel to be identical, and call Hobab the
brother-in-law of Moses. The present punctuation
of our Bibles does not warrant this. Why, at
Judg. i. 16, Moses’ father-in-law is called 13°)?
(Kenite, comp. Gen. xv. 19), or why, at Num. xii.
1, Zipporah, if it be Zipporah, is called FYWD,
A. V. Ethiopian, is not clear. ;
The Mohammedan name of Jethro is Shoaib
(Koran, 7,11). There is a tale in the Midrash
that Jethro was a counsellor of Pharaoh, who tried
to dissuade him from slaughtering the Israelitish
children, and consequently, on account of his clem-
ency, was forced to flee into Midian, but was re-
JEW
warded by becoming the father-in-law of
(see Weil’s Biblical Legends, p. 93, note),
THER; HOoBAB.| ‘
JE/TUR (750) [prob. nomadic camp
cle]: *"leroup, *letrovp, "Iroupator; [ Vat. in
v. 19, Touvpsuav:] Jethur, [Jetur, Iturei|
xxv. 15; 1 Chr. i. 31, v.19. [IruR#A,.]
JEWEL. 1. (OSD [perh. trea
God]: "lena; [Vat. Mesna:] Jehuel.) A
man of Judah, one of the Bene-Zerah fs
Z.|; apparently at the time of the first sett
in Jerusalem (1 Chr. ix. 6; comp. 2).
2. (Teouna 3 Alex. leouna: Gebel.) On
Bene-Adonikam [sons of A.] who returned
rusalem with Esdras (1 Esdr. viii. 89). [J
For other occurrences of this name see J1
JE’USH (WD [collecting or hast
"Teods, “IleovA, "leds, *Iaovs, "leds, "lwds:
Jaus).
1. Pleods, *"IeovA; Alex. in Gen. xxx
Ievs: Jehus.] Son of Esau, by Aholibam
daughter of Anah, the son of Zibeon the
(Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14, 18; 1 Chr. i. 85). It :
from Gen. xxxvi. 20-25, that Anah is a man’
(not a woman’s, as might be thought from:
and by comparison with ver. 2, that the |
were Hivites. Jeush was one of the Ed
dukes (ver. 18). The Cethib has repeatedly
Jeish.
2. PlIaods; Alex. Iews.] Head of a Ber
house, which existed in David’s time, son
han, son of Jediael (1 Chr. vii. 10, 11).
3. PIwds; Alex. omits: Jaus.] A Le
the house of Shimei, of the family of the G
ites. He and his brother Beriah were re
as one house in the census of the Leyvites t:
the reign of David (1 Chr. xxiii. 10, 11).
4. [Ieovs; Vat. Iaov@; Alex. omits: «
Son of Rehoboam king of Judah, by Abih
daughter of Eliab, the son of Jesse (2 Chr.’
19). A.C
JE/UZ (YAY? [counseling]: “teBods;
I5ws;] Alex. Ieovs: Jehus), head of a Be.
house in an obscure genealogy (1 Chr. vi
apparently son of Shaharaim and Hodesh h
wife, and born in Moab. mC
JEW (0797) [patronym., see JuDAn]
Satos: Judeus, i. e. Judean; "Iovdal(w
viii. 17, [Gal. ii. 14; "Iovdainds, 2 Macc. v
xiii. 21; *Iovdainds, ‘as do the Jews,” Gal
IY TWD, "Iovdaiert, “in the Jews’ lan;
2 K. xviii. 26, 28; 2 Chron. xxxii. 18; N)
24; Is. xxxvi. 11, 138]). This name was }
applied to a member of the kingdom of Judi:
the separation of the ten tribes. In this
occurs twice in the second book of Kings!
xvi. 6, xxv. 25, and seven times in the late?
ters of Jeremiah: Jer. xxxii. 12, xxxiy. 9 |
nection with Hebrew), xxxviii. 19, xl. 12?
xliv. 1, lii. 28. After the Return the word ‘f
a larger application. Partly from the predot?
of the members of the old kingdom of Judah
those who returned to Palestine, partly ft
identification of Judah with the religious id
hopes of the people, all the members of
state were called Jews (Judzeans), and tl
was extended to the remnants of the race s!
=
JEW JEWRY 1889.
70 A. D.) sensibly furthered in various ways the
discipline of the people of God, and prepared the
way for a final revelation. An outline of the char-
acteristic features of the several periods is given in
other articles. Briefly it may be said that the su-
premacy of Persia was marked by the growth of
organization, order, ritual [CYRUS; DISPERSION
oF THE JEws], that of Greece by the spread of
liberty, and speculation [ALEXANDER; ALEXAN-
prIA; Hetventsts], that of the Asmonzans by
the strengthening of independence and faith [Mac-
CABEES], that of the Herods by the final separa-
tion of the elements of temporal and _ spiritual do-
minion into antagonistic systems [HEROD]; and
so at length the inheritance of six centuries, pain-
fully won in times of exhaustion and persecution
and oppression, was transferred to the treasury of
the Christian Church. BW:
JEW OFT: ['Iovdaios? Judeeus}), JEWS
(yTM, Ch. TST) in Ezr. and Dan.).
Originally ‘man, or men of Judah.’ The term
first makes its appearance just before the Captivity
of the ten tribes, and then is used to denote the
men of Judah who held Elath, and were driven out
by Rezin king of Syria (2 K. xvi. 6). Elath had
been taken by Azariah or Uzziah, and made a col-
ony of Judah (2 K. xiv. 22). The men of Judah
in prison with Jeremiah (Jer. xxxii. 12) are called
«Jews? in our A. V., as are those who deserted
to the Chaldeans (Jer. xxxviii. 19), and the frag-
ments of the tribe which were dispersed in Moab,
Edom, and among the Ammonites (Jer. xl 11):
Of these latter were the confederates of Ishmael
the son of Nethaniah, who were of the blood-royal
of Judah (Jer. xli. 3). The fugitives in Egypt
(Jer. xliv. 1) belonged to the two tribes, and were
distinguished by the name of the more important ;
and the same general term is applied to those who
were carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. lii.
28, 30) as well as to the remnant which was left in
the land (2 K. xxv. 25; Neh. i. 2, ii. 16, &e.).
That the term Yéhiidi or “Jew”? was in the latter
history used of the members of the tribes of Judah
and Benjamin without distinction is evident from
the case of Mordecai, who, though of the tribe of
Benjamin, is called a Jew (Esth. ii. 5, &c.), while
the people of the Captivity are called “ the people
of Mordecai’ (Esth. iii. 6). After the Captivity
the appellation was universally given to those who
returned from Babylon. W. A. W:.
JEWEL. [Precious Srones.]
JEW’ESS (‘Iovdala: Judea), a woman of
Hebrew birth, without distinction of tribe (Acts
xvi. 1, xxiv. 24). It is applied in the former pas-
sage to Eunice the mother of Timothy, who was
unquestionably of Hebrew origin (comp. 2 Tim. iii.
15), and in the latter to Drusilla, the wife of Felix
and daughter of Herod Agrippa I.
JEWISH (Iovdaixds: Judaicus), of or be-
longing to Jews: an epithet applied to the rabbin-
ical legends against which the elder apostle warns
his younger brother (Tit. i. 14).
JEW’RY (TT : "Iovdala: Judea), the same
word elsewhere rendered JuDAH and JupmA. It
occurs but once in the 0. T., Dan. y. 13, in which
verse the Hebrew is translated both by Judah and
aed S senna, sists,
3.
out the nations (Dan. iii. 8, 12; Ezr. iv.
&e.; Neh. i. 2, ii. 16, v. 1, &ke.; Esth. iii.
ec. Cf. Jos. Ant. xi. 5, § T, €xkAnenoay bY
ya (Iovdator) e& Ts tjmépas aveBnoay ex
ayos amd THS Lovda puays .% .)-
er the name of “Judzans,” the people of
vers known to classical writers. The most
and interesting notice by a heathen writer
of Tacitus (Hist. v. 2 ff.; cf. Orelli’s Lx-
. The trait of extreme exclusiveness with
he specially charged them is noticed by many
riters (Juy. Sat. xiv. 103; Diod. Sic. Ecl.
Quint. Jnst. iii. 7, 21). The account of
(xvi. p. 760 ff.) is more favorable (cf. Just.
2), but it was impossible that a stranger
early understand the meaning of Judaism
cipline and preparation for a universal relig-
GC. Meier, Judaica, sew veterum scriptorum
orum de rebus Judaicis fragmenta, Jenae,
force of the title Iovdatos is seen particu-
1 the Gospel of St. John. While the other
lists scarcely ever use the word except in
Je “King of t'xe Jews” (as given by Gen-
: St. John, standing within the boundary of
ristian age, very rarely uses any other term
tibe the opponents of our Lord. The name,
, appeared at the close of the Apostle’s life to
true antithesis to Christianity, as describing
aited and definite form of a national religion ;
an earlier stage of the progress of the faith,
contrasted with Greek (“EAAnv) as implying
ward covenant with God (Rom. i. 16, ii. 9,
ol. iii. 11, &c.). In this sense it was of
application than Hebrew, which was the
itive of Hellenist [HELLENIST], and marked
sion of language subsisting within the entire
‘and at the same time less expressive than
ite, which brought out with especial clearness
jivileges and hopes of the children of Jacob
¢. xi. 22; John i. 47; 1 Mace. i. 43, 53, and
» history of Judaism is divided by Jost — the
profound writer who has investigated it —
wo great eras, the first extending to the close
+ collections of the oral laws, 536 B. c. — 600
: the second reaching to the present time.
ding to this view the first is the period of
al development, the second of formal construc-
the one furnishes the constituent elements,
seond the varied shape of the present faith.
's far as Judaism was a great stage in the Di-
revelation, its main interest closes with the
ction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. From that
its present living force was stayed, and its
y 1s a record of the human shapes in which
‘wine truths of earlier times were enshrined
‘idden. The old age (aidéy) passed away, and
ew age began when the Holy City was finally
ed from its citizens and the worship of the
‘le closed.
t this shorter period from the Return to the
iction of Jerusalem was pregnant with great
Nes. Four different dynasties in succession
ed the energies and influenced the character
je Jewish nation. The dominion of Persia
333 B. C.), of Greece (333-167 B. ©.), of the
means (167-63 B. c.), of the Herods (40 B. c.,
|
The exceptions are, Matt. xxviii. 15 (a note of the | Gospel); Mark vii. 3 (a similar note); Luke vii.
elist of later date than the substance of the | xxiii. 51.
1390 JEWS LANGUAGE
JEZEBEL
Jewry: the A. V. retaining the latter as it stands| Gesenius 7m voc.), wife of Ahab, king of Tsra
in Coverdale, Tyndale, and the Geneva Bible.
variation possibly arose from a too faithful imitation
of the Vulg., which has Juda and Judeu. Jewry
comes to us through the Norman-French, and is
of frequent occurrence in Old English. It is found
besides in 1 Esdr. i. 82, ii. 4, iv. 49, v. 7, 8, 57,
vi. 1, viii. 81, ix. 8; Bel, 333.2 -Maec. x. 24;
Luke xxiii. 5; John vii. 1. [The eartier English
versions have generally “Jewry” (Jue) for Ju-
zea in the N. ‘I’. See Trench, Authorized Ver-
ston, p. 49, 2d ed. — H.]
JEWS’ LANGUAGE, IN THE (1.7777).
Literally “Jewishly:” for the Hebrew must be
taken adverbially, as in the LXX. (Iovdaierf) and
Vulgate (Judaice). The term is only used of the
language of the two southern tribes after the Cap-
tivity of the northern kingdom (2 K. xviii. 26, 23;
2 Chr. xxxii. 18; Is. xxxvi. 11, 13), and of that
spoken by the captives who returned (Neh. xiii.
24). It therefore denotes as well the pure Hebrew
as the dialect acquired during the Captivity, which
was characterized by Aramaic forms and idioms.
Elsewhere (Is. xix. 18) in the poetical language of
Isaiah it is called “ the lip of Canaan.”
* JEWS’ RELIGION (2 Mace. viii. 1, xiv.
38; Gal. i. 14,15). [JupaArsm.]
JEZANVAH (A7T3339 [whom Jehovah hears] :
’Edovlas [Vat. FA.] Alex. IeCovias in Jer. xl. 8:
TT) ’"ACapios in Jer. xlii. 1: Jezonias), the son
of Hoshaiah, the Maachathite, and one of the cap-
tains of the forces, who had escaped from Jerusa-
lem during the final attack of the beleaguering
army of the Chaldeans. In the consequent pur-
suit which resulted in the capture of Zedekiah, the
army was scattered from him and dispersed through-
out the open country among the neighboring Am-
monites and Moabites, watching from thence the
progress of events. When the Babylonians had
departed, Jezaniah, with the men under his com-
mand, was one of the first who returned to Geda-
liah at Mizpah. In the events which followed the
. assassination of that officer Jezaniah took a prom-
inent part. He joined Johanan in the pursuit of
Ishmael and his murderous associates, and in the
general consternation and distrust which ensued he
became one of the foremost advocates of the mi-
gration into Egypt, so strongly opposed by Jere-
miah. Indeed in their interview with the prophet
at the Khan of Chinham, when words ran high,
Jezaniah (there called Azariah) was apparently the
leader in the dispute, and for once took precedence
of Johanan (Jer. xiii. 2). In 2 K. xxv. 23 he is
called JAAZANIAH, in which form the name was
easily corrupted into Azariah, or Zechariah, as one
MS. of the LX X. reads it. The Syriac and Jo-
sephus follow the Hebrew. Inthe LXX. his father’s
nanys is Maaseiah.
JEZ/EBEL (923.8: LXX. and N. T. 'te¢o-
Bha; Joseph. ’Ie(aBddn: Jezabel: probably a
name, like Agnes, signifying ‘“ chaste,’’ sine coitu,
a@ Amongst the Spanish Jews the name of Jezebel
was given to Isabella ‘ the Catholic,” in consequence
of the detestation in which her memory was held as
their persecutor (Ford’s Handbook of Spain, 2d ed.
p. 486). Whether the name [Isabella was originally
sonnected with that of Jezebel is doubtful.
b According to the reading of A. V. and the older
The |
mother of Athaliah, queen of Judah, and A
and Joram, kings of Israel She was a I
cian princess, daughter of “ Ethbaal king
Zidonians ’’ (or Ithobal king of the Syrian
Sidonians, Menander apud Joseph. Ant. yi
§ 2; c. Apion, i. 18). Her marriage with
was a turning point in the history of Israel.
only was the union with a Canaanitish wife
cedented in the northern kingdom, but the ¢
ter of the queen gave additional force and ;
cance to what might else have been regarded 1
as a commercial and political measure, natur
king devoted, as was Ahab, to the arts of
and the splendor of regal luxury. She was
man in whom, with the reckless and _ lice
habits of an oriental queen, were united the
est and fiercest qualities inherent in the Phe
people. The royal family of Tyre was rem:
at that time both for its religious fanaticisi
its savage temper. Her father Ethbaal unite
his royal office the priesthood of the godde
tarte, and had come to the throne by the 1
of his predecessor Phelles (Joseph. c. Apion,
The next generation included within itself $i
or Matgenes, king and priest of Baal, the m,
Pygmalion, and Elisa or Dido, foundress o
thage (7b.). Of this stock came Jezebel. |
hands her husband became a mere puppet
xxi. 25). Even after his death, through the
of his sons, her influence was the evil gen,
the dynasty. ‘Through the marriage of her |
ter Athaliah with the king of Judah, it ex
even to the rival kingdom. The wild lice’
her life, the magical fascination of her arts!
her character, became a proverb in the na
K. ix. 22). Long afterwards her name li
the byword for all that was execrable, and |
Apocalypse it is given to a church or an indi
in Asia Minor, combining in like manner fan
and profligacy (Rev. ii. 20). If we may tr
numbers of the text, she must have a
before his accession. He reigned 22 yeat
12 years from that time her grandson al
21 years of age. Her daughter Athalial
have been born therefore at least 37 years b
The first effect of her influence was the
diate establishment of the Pheenician worsh;
grand scale in the court of Ahab. At hit
were supported no less than 450 prophets of
and 400 of Astarte (1 K. xvi. 31, 32, xv
The prophets of Jehovah, who up to this ti
found their chief refuge in the northern ki!
were attacked by her orders and put to th)
(1K. xviii. 13; 2 K. ix. 7). When at |)
people, at the instigation of Elijah, rose el
ministers, and slaughtered them at the }!
Carmel, and when Ahab was terrified into |)
sion, she alone retained her presence of a“
when she received in the palace of Jezreel
ings that her religion was all but destroyec
xix. 1), her only answer was one of those
vows which have made the leaders of
nations so terrible whether for govd or
1
D
ro
versions, it is.ryv yuvatkd oov, “ thy wife.”
case she must be the wife of the “ angel;”
expression would thus confirm the inter} ®
which makes ‘the angel” to be the bisho)*
siding officer of the Church of Thyatira; ‘
wonan would thus be his wife.
JEZEBEL
‘esged in a message to the very man who, as it
ht have seemed but an hour before, had her
in his power: “As surely as thow art Elijah
as [J am Jezebel (LXX.) so may God do to
and more also, if by.this time to-morrow I
ce not thy life as the life of one of them”
<, xix. 2). Elijah, who had encountered un-
nted the king and the whole force of the
yhets of Baal, “feared’’ (LXX.) the wrath of
‘awful queen, and fled for his life beyond the
hest limits of Israel (1 K. xix. 3). [Euigan.]
‘he next instance of her power is still more
racteristic and complete. When she found her
band cast down by his disappointment at being
arted by Naboth, she took the matter into her
| hands, with a spirit which reminds us of
temnestra or Lady Macbeth. ‘Dost thow now
em the kingdom of Israel? (play the king,
eis BactAéa, LXX). Arise and eat bread and
thine heart be merry, and J will give thee the
syard of Naboth the Jezreelite’’ (1 K. xxi. 7).
wrote a warrant in Ahab’s name, and sealed
with his seal. It was couched in the official
guage of the Israelite law —a solemn fast —
nesses —a charge of blasphemy — the author-
| punishment of stoning. To her, and not to
‘ab, was sent the announcement that the royal
‘hes were accomplished (1 K. xxi. 14), and she
e her husband go and take the vacant property ,
‘on her accordingly fell the prophet’s curse, as
las on her husband (1 K. xxi. 23).
‘Ne hear no more of her for a long period. But
‘survived Ahab by 14 years, and still, as queen-
jher (after the oriental custom), was a great
sonage in the court of her sons, and, as such,
ame the special mark for vengeance when Jehu
‘anced against Jezreel to overthrow the dynasty
Ahab. “What peace so long as the whoredoms
thy mother Jezebel and her witcherafts are so
ny?” (2 K. ix. 22). But in that supreme
‘r of her house the spirit of the aged queen rose
‘hin her, equal to the dreadful emergency. She
jin the palace, which stood by the gate of the
7, overlooking the approach from the east. Be-
‘th lay the open space under the city walls.
+s determined to face the destroyer of her family,
bm she saw rapidly advancing in his chariot.¢
» painted her eyelids in the eastern fashion with
‘mony, so as to give a darker border to the
3, and make them look larger and brighter
il), possibly in order to induce Jehu, after the
‘nner of eastern usurpers, to take her, the widow
his predecessor, for his wife,? but more probably
the last act of regal splendor. She tired
nade good ’’) her head, and, looking down upon
1 from the high latticed window in the tower
‘seph. Ant. ix. 6, § 4), she met him by an allu-
1toa former act of treason in the history of
‘adopted country, which conveys a different ex-
re A graphic conception of this scene occurs in
sine’s Athalie, Act II. Sc. 5.
oe to the explanation of 8. Ephrem Syrus
| loc.
+ *The A. V. (2 K. ix. 80) renders the Hebrew
WY 52 Dwr), in the text, “ painted her
23” but in the margin more strictly, ‘t put her eyes
painting ” (or “in paint”). The act referred to is
‘uniliar one among Syrian women at the present
fe “They ‘paint’ or blacken the eyelids and
babe with 3h), and prolong the application in a de-
asing pencil, so as to lengthen and reduce the eye
JEZEBEL : 1391
pression, according as we take one or other of the
different interpretations given to it.
there peace to Zimri, who slew his ‘lord’ ?”’ as if
to remind Jehu, now in the fullness of his triumph,
how Omri, the founder of the dynasty which he
was destroying, had himself come into power as
the avenger of Zimri, who had murdered Baasha,
as he now had murdered Jehoram: or (2) a direct
address to Jehu, as a second Zimri:
peace?” (following up the question of her son in
OK: ixasth).
lord?”
poveuths Tod Kuplov avrov;) Or (3) ‘ Peace to
Zimri, who slew his ‘lord’ ’’ — (according to Jo-
sephus, Ant. ix. 6, § 4, adds dovAos 6 droKrel-
(1.) ** Was
“Ts it
“Ts it peace, O Zimri, slayer of his
(So Keil and LXX. 4 eiphyn ZauBpl 6
vas Tov Seomorhv) — Which again may be takeu
either as an ironical welcome, or (according to
Ewaid, iii. 166, 260) as a reminder that as Zimri
had spared the seraglio of Baasha, so she was pre-
pared to welcome Jehu.
Jezebel, and the doubt as to the details of the his-
tory of Zimri, would lead us rather to adopt the
sterner view of her speech.
his chariot — and his answer, again, is variously
given in the LXX. and in the Hebrew text.
the former he exclaims, ‘“ Who art thow? — Come
down to me.”’
The general character of
Jehu looked up from
In
In the latter, «« Who is on my side,
who?’ In either case the issue is the same. Two
or three eunuchs of the royal harem show their
faces at the windows, and at his command dashed @
the ancient princess down from the chamber.
fell immediately in front of the conqueror’s chariot.
She
The blood flew from her mangled corpse over the
palace-wall behind, and over the advancing horses
in front. The merciless destroyer passed on; and
the last remains of life were trampled out by the
horses’ hoofs. ‘The body was left in that open
space called in modern eastern language “ the
mounds,’’ where offal is thrown from the city-walls.
The dogs of eastern cities, which prowl around
these localities, and which the present writer met
on this very spot by the modern village which oc-
cupies the site of Jezreel, pounced upon this unex-
pected prey. Nothing was left by them but the
hard portions of the human skeleton, the skull,
the hands, and the feet. Such was the sight which
met the eyes of the messengers of Jehu, whom he
had sent from his triumphal banquet, struck with
a momentary feeling of compassion for the fall of
so much greatness. ‘Go, see now this cursed
woman and bury her, for she is a king’s daughter.”
When he heard the fate of the body, he exclaimed
in words which no doubt were long remembered as
the epitaph of the greatest and wickedest of the
queens of Israel — “ This is the word of Jehovah,
which He spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite,
saying, In the portion® of Jezreel shall the dogs
eat the flesh of Jezebel; and the carcase of Jezebel
shall be as dung on the face of the earth; so that
in appearance to what is called almond shape... . «
The powder from which kd// is made is collected from
burning almond shells, or frankincense, and is in-
tensely black. Antimony, and various ores of lead,
are also employed. ‘The powder is applied by a small
probe of wood, ivory, or silver, called meel.” (Thom-
son, Land and Book, ii. 184.) For figures of the
instruments used in the process, see also the work re-
ferred to. H.
d wrw, *t dash,” as from a precipice (Ps. exli. 6).
e or: smooth field.”
y
1392 JEZELUS
they shall not say, This is Jezebel’ (2 K. ix. 36,
37). ALPos.
JEZE’LUS (‘leGhaos; [Vat. IeOnaos:] Zech-
oleus). 1. The same as JAHAZIEL (1 Esdr. viii,
382).
2. ((PIeGHAos:] Jehelus.) JEHIEL, the father
of Obadiah (1 Esdr. viii. 35).
JEZER (12) [ formation, image]: toodap
in Gen. xlvi. 24; lecép, Num. xxvi. 49, Alex.
leopt; "Aon, 1 Chr. vii. 13, Alex. ano. [ Vat.
Iooemnp, Comp. Ald. Neowéo: :| Jeser), the third
son of Naphtali, and father of the family of the
Jezerites, who were numbered in the plains of
Moab.
JE’ZERITES, THE (E57: 6 "lecept
[Vat. -pe:], Alex. o Teopt: Jeserite). A family
of the tr "he of Naphtali, descendants of Jezer (Num.
xxvi. 49).
JEZI’AH (71°49 [whom Jehovah sprinkles,
or expiates]: ’ACia; [Vat. Ade, FA. Adesa :]
Jezia), properly Yizziyyah, a descendant of Parosh,
and one of those among the laymen after the return
from Babylon who had married strange wives, and
at Ezra’s bidding had promised to put them away
(Ezr. x. 25). In 1 Esdr. ix. 26 he is called EpprAs.
The Syriac of Ezra reads Jezaniah.
JH ZIEL (Oss, Keri DEPT, which is the
reading of some MSS. [assembly of God]: "Iwha;
FA. Adina; [Ald. "Iagina; Comp. ’ECina:] Jaziel),
one of the skilled Benjamite archers or slingers who
joined David in his retreat at Ziklag. He was
probably the son of Azmayeth of Bahurim, one of
David’s heroes (1 Chr. xii. 3). In the Syriac Jeziel
is omitted, and the sons of Azmaveth are there
Pelet and Berachah.
JEZLVAH (FINYPTY [Jehovah delivers,
First]: "Ile(alas ; [Vat. Zapeca 3] Alex. EQua;
[Comp. Ald. *IeCeAta: Jezlia]), one of a long list
of Benjamite heads of houses, sons of Elpaal, who
dwelt at Jerusalem (1 Chr. viii. 18).
As Coon.
JEZO’AR (TTT3> [shining, brilliant, as a
verb]: Sadp: Jsaar), the son of Helah, one of the
wives of Asher, the father or founder of Tekoa, and
posthumous son of Hezron (1 Chr. iv. 7). The
Keri has “WTZ) «and Zohar,” which was followed
by the LXX. and by the A. V. of 1611. [Zoar,
at the end. |
JEZRAHIT’AH (mT [J chovah causes
to break forth, i. e. into life|: [Vat. Alex. FA.
omit; FA.3] TeCpias 3 ; [Comp. Ald. "IeCovp ny
Jearata, a Levite, the leader of the choristers at
the solemn dedication of the wall of Jerusalem
under Nehemiah (Neh. xii. 42). The singers had
built themselves villages in the environs of the city,
and the Oasis of the Jordan, and with the minstrels
they gathered themselves together at the first sum-
mons to keep the dedication with gladness.
JEZ REEL Oey [God will sow or
scatter]: ’LeCpaha; [Vat. A¢pana; Alex. Teé
oeana, Alex.” leCpina:] Jezrahel), according to the
received text. a descendant of the father or founder
of Etam, of the line of Judah (1 Chr. iy. 3). But
a In Jos. Ant. viii. 13, § 6, it is called "IegpdyAa,
kdpov modis; in viii. 18, § 7 "Igapou mods singly ;
JEZREEL
as the verse now stands, we must supply some |
word as ‘families;’’ “these (are the familie
the father of Etam.’’? Both the LXX. and y
read ‘IR, “sons,” for ‘DS, “ father,” and
of Kennicott’s MSS. have the same, while in
of De Rossi’s the readings are con
Syriac is singularly different from all:
these are the sons of Aminodob, Achizagan,
Neshmo, and Dibosh,”’ the last ‘elas of ve
being entirely omitted. But, although the §}
text of the Chronicles is so corrupt as to be of |]
authority in this case, there can be no doubt
the genealogy in vy. 3, 4 is so confused as
be attended with almost insuperable difficul
Tremellius and Junius regard Etam as the pr
name of a person, and Jezreel as one of his s
while Bertheau considers them both names
places. The Targum on Chron. has, “ And #
are the Rabbis dwelling at Etam, Jezreel,” ete.
ver. 4 Hur is referred to as the ancestor of
branch of the tribe of Judah, and therefore, if
present text be adopted, we must read, “ and th
namely, Abi-Etam, Jezreel,” etc. But the p
ability is that in ver. 3 a clause has been omitti
W. A. W
JEZREEL COmprar [see above] : L!
"leapaéa, ['le(paca, "leCpaha, ’Eopaé} Alex. |
I(pand, Iopand, Ie(aBed, ete.: Vulg. Jeara
Jezraél, Jesr aél, | Joseph. ‘leapdnha, Ant.
13, § 6, 'leopdeAa, Ant. ix. 6, § 4, "I¢dpa," z
viii. 15, §§ 4, 6; "Eodphrwn, or "Eo Sphaae
iy 85.19. (6s Ramones Eusebius and Jerome
Onomasticon, voce Jezrael, Latinized into Strac
See Bordeaux Pilgrim in Jtin. Hierosol. p. 5
Its modern name is Zerin, which is in fact
same word, and which first appears in Willian}
Tyre (xxi. 26) as Gerin (Gerinum), and Benja
of Tudela as Zarzin. The history of the o
tion of these names is well given in Robinson, £/
Ist ed. iii. 163, 165, and is curious as an exal
of the tenacity of a local tradition, in spite of
carelessness of modern travellers. ;
The name is used in 2 Sam. ii. 9 and (2) iy
and Hos. i. 5, for the valley or plain between q
and Little Hermon; and to this plain, in its wi
extent, the general form of the name Esdra)
(first used in Jud. i. 8) has been applied in fi
times. It is probably from the richness of the }!
that the name is derived, “ God has sown,” “G’
sowing.” For the ey ents connected with "this p
battle-field of Palestine, see ESDRAELON.
In its more limited sense, as applied to the ;
it first appears in Josh. xix. 18, where it is 1
tioned as a city of Issachar, in the neighbor)
of Chesulloth and Shunem; and it had citi?
(1 K. xxi. 1-3), elders, and nobles of its own (
xxi. 8-11). But its historical importance (¢
from the reign of Ahab; who chose it for his ¢?
residence, as “Omri had chosen Samaria, and Ba!
Tirzah. \!
The situation of the modern village of Zerini
remains to show the fitness of his choice. It)
one of the gentle swells which rise out of the fil
plain of I Esdraelon ; but with two peculiarities we
mark it out from the rest. One is its stre1}
On the N. E. the hill presents a steep rocky de)?
of at least 100 feet (Robinson, Ist ed. iil. .
in viii. 15, §§ 4, 6,”"I¢apa, Various readings are |”
of *Ie¢dpa, "Axdpov, "ACdpov, *Acdpa..
JEZREEL
ther is its central locality. It stands at the
ng of the middle branch of the three eastern
of the plain, and looks straight towards the
western level; thus commanding the view
ds the Jordan on the east (2 K. ix. 17), and
» from Carmel on the west (1 K. xviii. 46).
the neighborhood, or within the town prob-
was a temple and grove of Astarte, with an
ishment of 400 priests supported by Jezebel
xvi. 33; 2 K. x. 11). The palace of Ahab
. xxi. 1, xviii. 46), probably containing his
y house’’ (1 K. xxii. 39), was on the eastern
f the city, forming part of the city wall (comp.
xxi. 1; 2 K. ix. 25, 30, 33). The seraglio,
ich Jezebel lived, was on the city wall, and
, high window facing eastward (2 K. ix. 30).
by, if not forming part of this seraglio (as
qs supposes, graca em Tov mipyou, Ant.
§ 4), was a watch-tower, on which a sentinel
to give notice of arrivals from the disturbed
t beyond the Jordan (2 K. ix. 17). This
-tower, well-known as * the tower in Jezreel,”’
ossibly have been the tower or “ migdol’’ near
the Egyptian army was encamped in the
between Necho and Josiah (//erod. ii. 159).
cient square tower which stands amongst the
of the modern village may be its representa-
The gateway of the city on the east was also
tteway of the palace (2 K. ix. 34). Imme-
in front of the gateway, and under the city
Yas an open space, such as existed before the
voring city of Bethshan (2 Sam. xxi. 12), and
‘lly found by the walls of eastern cities, under
me of “the mounds”’ (see Arabian Nights,
2), Whence the dogs, the scavengers of the
srowled in search of offal (2 K. ix. 25). Here
‘met with her end (2 K. ix. 35). [JEzEBEL.]
2 further east, but adjoining to the royal
2 (1 K. xxi. 1), was a smooth tract of land
out of the uneven valley (2 K. ix. 25),
‘belonged to Naboth, a citizen of Jezreel
ix. 25), by an hereditary right (1 K. xxi. 3);
‘2 royal grounds were so near that it would
gen easily turned into a garden of herbs for
yal use (1 K. xxi. 2), Here Elijah met
Jehu, and Bidkar (1 K. xxi. 17); and ‘here
‘net Joram and Ahaziah (2 K. ix. 21, 25).
(iH; JEHU.] Whether the vineyard of
1 was here or at Samaria is a doubtful ques-
[NAzotu. ]
in the same eastern direction are two
1, one 12 minutes from the town, the other
1 utes (Robinson, Ist ed. iii. 167). This latter
“flows from under a sort of cavern in the
| conglomerate rock, which here forms the
'Gilboa. The water is excellent; and issuing
tevices in the rocks, it spreads out at once
ine limpid pool, 40 or 50 feet in diameter,
fish” (Robinson, Bibl. Res. iii. 168). ‘This
Y, both from its size and situation, was
) a “THE SPRING OF JEZREEL”’ (mis-
Hed A. V. “a fountain,” 1 Sam. xxix. 1),
1 5aul was encamped before the battle of Gil-
‘/racens; and was called by the Christians
™\ and by the Arabs ’Ain Jalitd, « the spring
88
ie
JEZREELITE 1398
of Goliath” (Robinson, Bibl. Res. iii. 69). This
last name, which it still bears, is derived from a
tradition mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrim, that
here David killed Goliath. The tradition may be a
confused reminiscence of many battles fought in its
neighborhood (Ritter, Jordan, p. 416); or the word
may be a corruption of “ Gilead,” supposing that
to be the ancient name of Gilboa, and thus explain-
ing Judg. vii. 38, “depart from Mount Gilead”
(Schwarz, 334).
According to Josephus (Ant. viii. 15, §§ 4, 6),
this spring, and the pool attached to it, was the
spot where Naboth and his sons were executed,
where the dogs and swine licked up their blood and
that of Ahab, and where the harlots bathed in the
blood-stained water (LXX). But the natural in-
ference from the present text of 1 K. xxii. 38 makes
the scene of these events to be the pool of Samaria.
[See NABoru. ]
With the fall of the house of Ahab the glory of
Jezreel departed. No other king is described as
living there, and the name was so deeply associated
with the family of its founder, that when the Divine
retribution overtook the house of their destroyer,
the eldest child of the prophet Hosea, who was to
be a living witness of the coming vengeance, was
called “ Jezreel;’’ ‘for I will avenge the blood of
Jezreel upon the house of Jehu... and at that
day I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of
Jezreel; . . . and great shall be the day of Jez-
reel”? (Hos. i. 4, 5,11). And then out of that
day and place of humiliation the name is to go
back to its original signification as derived from
the beauty and fertility of the rich plain, and to
become a pledge of the revived beauty and richness
of Israel. “I will ‘hear and answer’ the heavens,
and ‘they will hear and answer’ the earth, and the
earth shall ‘hear and answer’ the corn and the
wine and the oil [of that fruitful plain], and they
shall ‘hear and answer’ Jezreel [that is, the seed
of God], and / will sow her unto me in the earth”
(Hos. ii. 22; see Ewald ad loc., and Gesenius in
voce Jezreel). From this time the image seems to
have been continued as a prophetical expression for
the sowing the people of Israel, as it were broad-
cast; as though the whole of Palestine and the
world were to become, in a spiritual sense, one rich
plain of Jezreel. “I will sow them among the
people, and they shall remember me in far coun-
tries ’’ (Zech. x. 9). “ Ye shall be tilled and sown,
and I will multiply men upon you”’ (Ez. xxxvi. 9,
10). “TI will sow the house of Israel and the house
of Judah with the seed of men and with the seed
of beasts’’ (Jer. xxxi. 27). Hence the consecration
of the image of “sowing,” as it appears in the
N.! Ts. Matt. ‘xiii. 2.
2. [Iapina; Alex. Iecdpaed; Comp. Ald. ’Ie¢-
peed: Jezraél.] A town in Judah, in the neigh-
borhood of the southern Carmel (Josh. xv. 56).
Here David in his wanderings took Ahinoam the
Jezreelitess for his first wife (1 Sam. xxvii. 3, xxx.
5). Aa Fas
JEZ/REEL (ONY: ‘te(pada: Jezrahel).
The eldest son of the prophet Hosea (Hos. i. 4),
significantly so called because Jehovah said to the
propliet, “Yet a little while and I will avenge
the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu,’’ and
“T will break the bow of Israel in the valley of
Jezreel.”’ W. A. W.
JEZREWBLITE CONV: "teCpanalensi -
1894 JEZREELITESS
Alex. Iopanarrys, once 2 K. ix. 21 I¢panaitns :
Jezrahelita). An inhabitant of Jezreel (1 K. xxi.
1 phy6, 27 lb 16s 12 Kix. 20 25),
Be hE es AE
JEZ/REELITESS (MYPSYN: tee
panAtris; [Vat. IopanAertis, exc. 2 Sam. iii. 2,
-At-3] Alex. E.(panAertis, I(panditis, lopanaitis:
Jezrahelitis, [ Jezrahelites,| Jezrdelites, Jezrdelitis).
A woman of Jezreel (1 Sam. xxvii. 3, xxx. 5; 2
Sam. ii. 2, iii. 2; 1 Chr. ili. 1). Wo eA.. Wis
JIB/SAM (OWA? [pleasant, lovely]: "Tewa-
ody: [Vat.. Bacay ;] Alex. IeBaoau ; [Comp.
‘laBady:| Jebsem), one of the sons of Tola, the
son of Issachar, who were heads of their father’s
house and heroes of might in their generations
(1 Chr. vii. 2). His descendants appear to have
served in Dayid’s army, and with others of the
same clan mustered to the number of upwards of
22,000.
JID/LAPH (FT, weeping, Ges. [melting,
languishing, Fiirst]: "IeAddp: Jedlaph), a son of
Nahor (Gen. xxii. 22), whose settlements have not
been identified, though they most probably are to
be looked for in the Euphrates country.
E. 8. P.
JIM’NA (7139) [good fortune, luck]: "lautv:
[Vat.] Alex. lope : Jemna), the firstborn of
Asher, represented in the numbering on the plains
of Moab by his descendants the Jimnites (Num.
xxvi. 44). He is elsewhere called in the A. V.
Jamnau (Gen. xlvi. 17) and Imnan (1 Chr. vii.
30), the Hebrew in both instances being the same.
JIM NAH (TW2): Teuvd; Alex. Teuva:
Jamne) = JIMNA = IMNAH (Gen. xlvi. 17).
JIM’NITES, THE (OAT [see above]:
i.e. the Jimnah; Sam. and one MS. *37AT: 6
Tauwl; [Vat. 0 Iapever;] Alex. o Tames: Jem-
naite), descendants of the preceding (Num. xxvi.
44).
JIPH/TAH (THD), «. e. Yiftach [he, i. e.
Jehovah opens, frees}: Vat. omits; Alex. [Comp.
Ald.] TepOd: Jephtha), one of the cities of Judah
in the maritime lowlands, or Shefelih (Josh. xv.
43). It is named in the same group with Mareshah,
Nezib, and others. Both the last-mentioned places
have been discovered, the former to the south, the
latter to the east of Bett-Jibrin, not as we should
expect on the plain, but in the mountains. Here
Jiphtah may some day be found, though it has not
yet been met with. G.
' JIPH’/THAH-EL, THE VALLEY O
CSTD) YA: Tarana, ’Exyat kal bahar;
Alex. Tai lepOana, Evyat lep@ana: [valles] Jeph-
tahel), a valley which served as one of the land-
marks for the boundary both of Zebulun (Josh. xix.
14) and Asher (27). The district was visited in
1852 by Dr. Robinson, who suggests that Jiphtah-el
was identical with Jotapata, the city which so long
withstood Vespasian (Joseph. B. J. iii. 7), and that
they survive in the modern Je/dt, a village in the
mountains of Galilee, half-way between the Bay of
Acre and the Lake of Gennesareth. [JoTaPaTa,
a * The A. V. represents the same Hebrew word by
Jephthah (which see), but without any reason for the
variation. LUE
b By Josephus (Ant. vii. 1, § 3), his name is given
JOAB
Amer. ed.] In this case the valley is the
Wady-Abilin, which “ has its nead in the hills
Jefat, and runs thence westward to the mar
plain’ (Robinson, iii. 107). Vande Velde co
in this, and identifies Zebulun (Josh. xix,
which he considers to be a town, with the rui
Abilin (Memoir, p. 326). It should, howey
remarked that the Hebrew word Ge, here ren
“‘ yalley,”’ has commonly rather the force of a1
or glen, and is distinct from Nachal, which an
exactly to the Arabic Wady (Stanley, S.
App. §§ 2, 38).
JO’AB (ANY : Jehovah-father [or,
father is Jehovah]: "IwdB: Joab), the eldes
most remarkable of the three nephews of Davi
children of Zeruiah, David’s sister. Their .
is unknown,? but seems to have resided at
lehem, and to have died before his sons, as w
mention of his sepulchre at that place (2 8a
32). They all exhibit the activity and coure
David’s constitutional character. But they
rise beyond this to the nobler qualities whic
him above the wild soldiers and chieftains (
time. Asahel, who was cut off in his yout)
seems to have been the darling of the fan
only known to us from his gazelle-like agi
Sam. ii. 18). Abishai and Joab are alike ir
implacable revenge. Joab, however, on
these ruder qualities something of a more |
man-like character, which brings him more
to a level with his youthful uncle; and unqui
ably gives him the second place in the whole I
of David's reign. a
I. He first appears after David's accession
throne at Hebron, thus differing from his |
Abishai, who was already David’s companion :
his wanderings (1 Sam. xxvi. 6). He with (
brothers went out from Hebron at the hi
David’s ‘servants,’’ or guards, to keep a wa
the movements of Abner, who with a consi
force of Benjamites had crossed the Jorda,
come as far as Gibeon, perhaps on a pilgrin}
the sanctuary. The two parties sate opposi
other, on each side of the tank by that city. /)
challenge, to which Joab assented, led to a de2
struggle between twelve champions from eith
[GiBEon.] The left-handed Benjamites, ¢
right-handed men of Judah — their swor?
thus coming together — seized each his ad"
by the head, and the whole number fell
mutual wounds they received.
This roused the blood of the rival tribes;
eral encounter ensued; Abner and his c'f
were defeated, and in his flight, being hard 2
by the swift-footed Asahel, he reluctantly kid
unfortunate youth. ‘The expressions which |'
«« Wherefore should I smite thee to the gt
how then should I hold up my face to Ji
brother?” (2 Sam. ii. 22), imply that uy>
time there had been a kindly, if not a frien¢
ing between the two chiefs. It was rudel
guished by this deed of blood. The other
of Judah, when they came up to the dead /.
their young leader, halted, struck dumb |
But his two brothers, on seeing the cor};
hurried on with greater fury in the purst’
sunset the Benjamite force rallied round P!
as Suri (Soupt) ; ‘but this ‘may be merely a 1 t
of Sarouiah (Sapovia).
c The word describing the halt of
Abnel)
and rendered “ troop” in the A. V. 2 Sam. 2
i
‘eh JOAB
1¢ then made an appeal to the generosity of
not to push the war to extremities. Joab
tantly consented, drew off his troops, and re-
d, after the loss of only nineteen men, to
on. They took the corpse of Asahel with them,
m the way halted at Bethlehem in the early
ing, or at dead of night, to inter it in their
y burial-place (2 Sam. ii. 32).
t Joab’s revenge on Abner was only postponed.
ad been on another of these predatory excur-
from Hebron, when he was informed on his
1that Abner had in his absence paid a visit
vid, and been received into favor (2 Sam. iii.
He broke out into a violent remonstrance
the king, and then, without David's knowl-
immediately sent messengers after Abner, who
vertaken by them at the well of Sirah, accord-
» Josephus (Ant. vii. 1, § 5), about two miles
Hebron. Abner, with the unsuspecting gen-
7 of his noble nature, returned at once. Joab
bishai met him in the gateway of the town;
took him aside (2 Sam. iii. 27), as if with a
ul intention, and then struck him a deadly
‘under the fifth rib.”’ It is possible that
he passion of vengeance for his brother may
yeen mingled the fear lest Abner should sup-
him in the king’s favor. David burst into
ate invective and imprecations on Joab when
rd of the act, and forced him to appear in
oth and torn garments at the funeral (iii. 31).
was an intimation of Joab’s power, which
never forgot. ‘The awe in which he stood
'sons of Zeruiah cast a shade over the whole
ider of his life (iii. 39). "
‘There was now no rival left in the way of
advancements, and soon the opportunity
ed for his legitimate accession to the highest
hat David could confer. At the siege of
| the king offered the office of chief of the
‘now grown into a ‘“host,’’ to any one who
lead the forlorn hope, and scale the precipice
ich the besieged fortress stood. With an
equal to that of David himself, or of his
* Asahel, Joab succeeded in the attempt, and
in consequence commander-in chief — « cap-
| the host ’? — the same office that Abner had
ader Saul, the highest in the state after the
{ Chr. xi. 6; 2 Sam. viii. 16). His im-
*e was immediately shown by his undertaking
‘fication of the conquered city, in conjunc-
th David (1 Chr. xi. 8).
His post he was content, and served the king
ndeviating fidelity. In the wide range of
Shich David undertook, Joab was the acting
€, and he therefore may be considered as the
, 4s far as military prowess was concerned,
thorough, the Belisarius, of the Jewish em-
» Abishai, his brother, still accompanied him,
un of the king’s “ mighty men”? (1 Chr. xi.
jam. x. 10). He had a chief armor-bearer
bl own, Naharai, a Beerothite (2 Sam. xxiii.
hr. xi, 39), and ten attendants to carry his
of giving the signal by trumpet for advance
Nat (2 Sam. xviii. 16). He was called by
Aost regal title of « Lord” (2 Sam. xi. Ti.
3ual one, MIS (Aguddah), elsewhere em-
xr a bunch or knot of hyssop.
: sibly the spring which still exists about that
JOAB 1305
“ the prince of the king’s army ” (1 Chr. xxvii. 34)
His usual residence (except when campaigning) was
in Jerusalem — but he had a house and property,
with barley-fields adjoining, in the country (2 Sam.
xiv. 30), in the “ wilderness” (1 K. ii. 34), prob-
ably on the N. E. of Jerusalem (comp. 1 Sam. xiii.
18, Josh. viii. 15, 20), near an ancient sanctuary,
called from its nomadic village “ Baal-hazor ” (2
Sam. xiii. 23; comp. with xiv. 30), where there
were extensive sheepwalks. It is possible that this
“house of Joab’? may have given its name to
Ataroth, Beth-Joab (1 Chr. ii. 54), to distinguish
it from Ataroth-adar. There were two Ataroths
in the tribe of Benjamin [see ATARorH].
1. His great war was that against Ammon, which
he conducted in person. It was divided into three
campaigns. (a.) The first was against the allied
forces of Syria and Ammon. He attacked and
defeated the Syrians, whilst his brother Abishai
did the same for the Ammonites. The Syrians
rallied with their kindred tribes from beyond the
Euphrates, and were finally routed by David him-
self. [HADAREZER.] (b.) The second was against
Edom. The decisive victory was gained by David
himself in the « valley of salt,” and celebrated by a
triumphal monument (2 Sam. viii. 13). But Joab
had the charge of carrying out the victory, and
remained for six months, extirpating the male pop-
ulation, whom he then buried in the tombs of Petra
(1 K. xi. 15, 16). So long was the terror of his
name preserved that only when the fugitive prince
of Edom, in the Egyptian court, heard that “ David
slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain
of the host was dead,” did he venture to return to
his own country (tb. xi. 21, 22). (c.) The third
was against the Ammonites. They were again left
to Joab (2 Sam. x. 7-19). He went against them
at the beginning of the next year “at the time
when kings go out to battle’? — to the siege of
Rabbah. The ark was sent with him, and the
whole army was encamped in booths or huts round
the beleaguered city (2 Sam. xi. 1,11). After a
sortie of the inhabitants, which caused some loss to
the Jewish army, Joab took the lower city on the
river, and, then, with true loyalty, sent to urge
David to come and take the citadel, “ Rabbah,”
lest the glory of the capture should pass from the
king to his general (2 Sam. xii. 26-28).
2. The services of Joab to the king were not
confined to these military achievements. In the
entangled relations which grew up in David's do-
mestic life, he bore an important part. (a.) ‘The
first occasion was the unhappy correspondence which
passed between him and the king during the Am-
monite war respecting Uriah the Hittite, which led
to the treacherous sacrifice of Uriah in the above-
mentioned sortie (2 Sam. xi. 1-25). It shows both
the confidence reposed by David in Joab, and Joab’s
too unscrupulous fidelity to David. From the pos-
session which Joab thus acquired of the terrible
secret of the royal household, has been dated, with
some probability,? his increased power over the
taind of the king.
(6.) The next occasion on which it was displayed
was in his successful endeavor to reinstate Absalom
in David’s favor, after the murder of Amnon. It
would almost seem as if he had been guided by
distance out of Hebron on the left of the road going
northward, and bears the name of Ain-Serah. The
road has doubtless always followed the same track.
6 See Blunt’s Coincidences, ii., xi.
,
1396 JOAB
the effect produced on the king by Nathan’s parable.
A similar apologue he put into the mouth of a
“wise woman of Tekoah.’’ The exclamation of
David on perceiving the application intimates the
high opinion which he entertained of his general,
‘Ts not the hand of Joab in all this?’ (2 Sam.
xiv. 1-20). A like indication is found in the con-
fidence of Absalom that Joab, who had thus pro-
cured his return, could also go a step further and
demand his admission to his father’s presence.
Joab, who evidently thought that he had gained as
much as could be expected (2 Sam. xiv. 22), twice
refused to visit the prince, but having been en-
trapped into an interview by a stratagem of Absa-
lom, undertook the mission, and succeeded in this
also (2b. xiv. 28-33).
(c.) The same keen sense of his master’s interests
that had prompted this desire to heal the breach in
the royal family ruled the conduct of Joab no less,
when tlie relations of the father and son were re-
versed by the successful revolt of Absalom. His
former intimacy with the prince did not impair
his fidelity to the king. He followed him beyond
the Jordan, and in the final battle of Ephraim
assumed the responsibility of taking the rebel
prince’s dangerous life in spite of David’s injunc-
tion to spare him, and when no one else had cour-
age to act so decisive a part (2 Sam. xviii. 2, 11-15).
He was well aware of the terrible effect it would
have on the king (2d. xviii. 20), and on this account
possibly dissuaded his young friend Ahimaaz from
bearing the news; but, when the tidings had been
broken, he had the spirit himself to rouse David
from the frantic grief which would have been fatal
to the royal cause (2 Sam. xix. 5-7). His stern
resolution (as he had himself anticipated) well-nigh
proved fatal to his own interests. The king could
not forgive it, and went so far in his unreasonable
resentment as to transfer the command of the army
from the too faithful Joab to his other nephew
Amasa, the son of Abigail, who had even ‘sided
with the insurgents (2 Sam. xix. 13). In like
manner he returned only a reproachful answer to
the vindictive loyalty of Joab’s brother, Abishai
(ib. 22).
(d.) Nothing brings out more strongly the good
and bad qualities of Joab than his conduct in this
trying crisis of his history. On the one hand, he
remained still faithful to his master. On the other
hand, as before in the case of Abner, he was de-
termined not to lose the post he so highly valued.
Amasa was commander-in-chief, but Joab had still
his own small following of attendants; and with
him were the mighty men commanded by his
brother Abishai (2 Sam. xx. 7, 10), and the body-
guard of the king. With these he went out: in
pursuit of the renmnants of the rebellion. In the
heat of pursuit, he encountered his rival Amasa,
more leisurely engaged in the same quest. At
“the great stone”? in Gibeon, the cousins met.
‘Joab’s sword was attached to his girdle; by de-
sign or accident it protruded from the sheath:
Amasa rushed into the treacherous embrace, to
which Joab invited him, holding fast his sword by
his own right hand, whilst the unsheathed sword
in his left hand plunged into Amasa’s stomach;
a single blow from that practiced arm, as in the
ease of Abner, sufficed to do its work. Joab and
his brother hurried on to discharge their commis-
sion, whilst one of his ten attendants staid by the
corpse, calling on the royal party to follow after
Joab.
the pursuit of the rebels.
given of the wide-spread confidence in Joab’
ment. In the besieged town of Abel Beth-ma
far in the north, the same appeal was addre
his sense of the evils of an endless civil wa
had been addressed to him years before by
near Gibeon.
the rebel chief, and on the sight of his head 1
over the wall, withdrew the army and retur
Jerusalem (2 Sam. xx. 16-22).
long unshaken, at last wavered.
JOAB
sion. The dead body was lying in a pool of
by the roadside; every one halted, as they
up, at the ghastly sight, till the attendant d.
it out of the road, and threw a cloak o
Then, as if the spell was broken, they fo
Joab, now once more captain of the host (é
xx. 5-13).
presented an aspect long afterwards remer
with horror.
over the girdle to which the sword was att
and the sandals on his feet were red with the
left by the falling corpse (1 K. ii. 5).
He, too, when they overtook
The blood of Amasa had spir
(e.) But, at the moment, all were absor
Once more a pro
He demanded only the surren
[SHEBA. |
(f-) His last remonstrance with David |
the announcement of the king’s desire to1
the people.
“The king prevailed against
(2 Sam. xxiv. 1-4). But Joab’s scruples y
strong that he managed to avoid numberi
of the tribes, Levi and Benjamin (1 Chr. xx
3. There is something mournful in the |
Joab. At the close of his long life, his loy:
“¢ Thor
had not turned after Absalom (or, as in L.
Joseph. Ant. viii. 1, § 4, ‘He turned not afl
omon’), he turned after Adonijah” (1 K..
This probably filled up the measure of the
long cherished resentment. We learu fro
vid’s last song that his powerlessness over h.
tiers was even then present to his mind (
xxiii. 6, 7), and now, on his deathbed, he
to Scolomon’s recollection the two murders 0;
and Amasa (1 K. ii. 5, 6), with an injunet
to let the aged soldier escape with impunity:
The revival of the pretensions of Adonij:
David’s death was sufticient to awaken th
cions of Solomon. The king deposed thé
priest Abiathar, Joab’s friend and fellow-;
ator — and the news of this event at once |
Joab himself. He claimed the right of a
within the curtains of the sacred tent, un
shelter of the altar at Gibeon. He was '
by Benaiah, who at first hesitated to vio!
sanctuary of the refuge; but Solomon urg
the guilt of two such murders overrode ‘
protection. With his hands on the altar tl)
the gray-headed warrior was slaughtered,
successor. The body was carried to his :
the wilderness,’”’ and there interred. He!
scendants, but nothing is known of then
it may be inferred from the double curse ¢
(2 Sam. iii. 29) and of Solomon (1 K. ii. /
they seemed to dwindle away, stricken b
cession of visitations — weakness, leprosy, |i!
murder, starvation. His name is by some‘)
(in allusion to his part in Adonijah’s coron'
that spot) to be preserved in the modern?
tion of En-rogel — “the well of Job” —¢
from Joab. A.
S (AB: "IwBdB; Alex. lwaB: Soni
of Seraiah, and descendant of Kenaz (1
But the deed produced a frightful impres-
14). He was father, or prince, as Jarchi
;
‘ yA
XX
7
JOACHAZ
the valley of Charashim, or smiths, so called,
ding to the tradition quoted by Jerome ( Quest.
. in Paral.), because the architects of the
le were selected from among his sons.
(IwdB3 [Vat. in Ezr. ii. 6, Neh. vii. 11,
g: Joab,] Job in 1 Esdr.) ‘The head of a
y, not of priestly or Levitical rank, whose
ndants, with those of Jeshua, were the most
rous of all who returned with Zerubbabel
‘ii. 6, viii. 9; Neh. vii. 11; 1 Esdr. viii. 35).
not clear whether Jeshua and Joab were two
inent men among the children of Pahath-
), the ruler or sultan (shzlton) of Moab, as the
¢ renders, or whether, in the registration of
who returned, the descendants of Jeshua and
were represented by the sons of Pahath-Moab.
latter is more probably the true solution, and
erse (zr. ii. 6; Neh. vii. 11) should then be
zed: ‘the sons of Pahath-Moab, for (@. e.
senting) the sons of Jeshua and Joab.’ In
case the Joab of [zr. viii. 9 and 1 Esdr. viii.
as probably a distinct personage.
YACHAZ Clexovias; Alex. Iwxac; [ Ald.
ya(:] Jechonias)—=JeEHOAHAZ (1 Esdr. i.
the son of Josiah. The LXX. and Vulgate
1 this case followed by St. Matthew (i. 11), or
been altered so as to agree with him.
YACHIM (Clwarefu; [Ald. Iwayeiu:] Jo-
). 1. (Bar. i. 3) =JeEnOIAKIM, called also
‘IM.
[Iwareiu: Joakim.) A’ “high-priest’’ (6
s) at Jerusalem in the time of Baruch “the
wf Chelcias,” 7. ¢. Hilkiah (Bar. i. 7). The
does not occur in the list 1 Chr. vi. 13 ff.
B. F. W.
VACIM (Iwakiu; [Vat. Iwareju;] Alex.
uw and Iwakeyu: Joacim). 1. = Jehoiakim
dr. i. 37, 38, 39). [JeEHOIAKIM, 1. ]
(\(PIwaxiu; Vat. Alex. -Kemu:] Joachin) =
MACHIN (1 Esdr. i. 43).
| PIwaxim; Vat. Alex. -xeyu: Joacim]
im, the son of Jeshua (1 Esdr. v. 5). He is
istake called the son of Zerubbabel, as is clear
Neh. xii. 10, 26; and the passage has in con-
‘nee been corrected by Junius, who renders it
/huabh filius Jehotzadaki cum Jehojakimo filio.””
ngton (Geneal. i. 72) proposed to omit the
}"Ioaklu 6 rob altogether as an interpolation.
W. A. W.
TIoarly, Vat. Sin. Alex. -keyu: Eliachim,
mJ) “The high-priest which was in Jerusa-
| (Jud. iv. 6, 14) in the time of Judith, who
‘med the heroine after the death of Holofernes,
Mpany with “the ancients of the children of
1” YEpovola tay vidy 'Iopaha, xv. 8 ff.).
‘ame occurs with the various reading Lliakin,
| 18 Impossible to identify him with any his-
character. No such name occurs in the
if high-priests in 1 Chr. vi. (Joseph. Ang. x.
); and it is a mere arbitrary conjecture to
e that Eliakim mentioned in 2 K. xviii. 18
fterwards raised to that dignity. Still less
'¢ said for the identification of Joacim with
wh (2 K. xxii. 4; ’EAraxlas, Joseph. Ant. x.
|} XeAkias, LXX.). The name itself is ap-
jate to the position which the high-priest
& m the story of Judith («The Lord hath
1”), and the person must be regarded as a
| pry part of the fiction.
‘Plwakelu: Joakim, but ed. 1590 Joachim.]
usband of Susanna (Sus. 1 ff.). The name
i
|
JOAHAZ 1597
seems to have been chosen, as in the former case,
with a reference to its meaning; and it was prob-
ably for the same reason that the husband of Anna,
the mother of the Virgin, is called Joacim m early
legends (Protev. Jac. i., &e.).
JOADA/NUS (Iwaddvos: Joadeus), one of
the sons of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak (1 Esdr. ix.
19). His name occupies the same position as that
of Gedaliah in the corresponding list in Ezr. x. 18,
but it is uncertain how the corruption originated,
Probably, as Burrington suggests ((eneal. i. 167),
the [ was corrupted into I, and AI into N, a change
which in the uncial character would be very slight.
JO’AH (SV [Jehovah his brother = friend] :
"Iwds in Kings, "Iwdy in Isaiah; Alex. Iwoapar
in 2 K. xviii. 18, 26, and Iwas in ver. 37; [Vat.
and Comp. Iwds in Is. xxxvi. 11; Sin.1 Iwy in Is.
xxxvi. 3, ver. 11 omits, ver. 22, Iwax:] /oahe).
1. The son of Asaph, and chronicler, or keeper
of the records, to Hezekiah. He was one of the
three chief officers sent to communicate with the
Assyrian general at the conduit of the upper pool
(Is. xxxvi. 8, 11, 22), and probably belonged to the
tribe of Levi.
2. (IwdB; Alex. Iway: Joah.) The son or
grandson of Zimmah, a Gershonite (1 Chr. vi. 21),
and apparently the same as Ethan (ver. 42), unless,
as is not improbable, in the latter list some names
are supplied which are omitted in the former, and
vice versd. For instance, in ver. 42 Shimei is
added, and in ver. 43 Libni is omitted (comp. ver.
20). If Joah and Ethan are identical, the passage
must have been early corrupted, as all ancient ver-
sions give it as it stands at present, and there are
no variations in the MSS.
3. (Iwd0; Alex. Iwaa: Joaha.) The third
son of Obed-edom (1 Chr. xxvi. 4), a Korhite, and
one of the door-keepers appointed by David. With
the rest of his family he is characterized as a man
of excellence in strength for the service (ver. 8).
They were appointed to keep the southern gate of
the Temple, and the house of Asuppim, or “ gath-
erings,’’ which was either a storehouse or council-
chamber in the outer court (ver. 15).
4. (Iwdad5; [Vat. omits;] Alex. Iwa; [Comp.
"Iwdx:] Joah.) A Gershonite, the son of Zim-
mah, and father of Eden (2 Chr. xxix. 12). As
one of the representatives of the great Levitical
family to which he belonged, he took a leading part
in the purification of the Temple in the reign of
Hezekiah. In the last clause of the verse the LXX.
have "Iwayd, which is the reading of both MSS.;
but there is nothing to show that the same person
is not in both instances intended, nor any MS.
authority for the various reading.
5. (Iovdxy; [Ald.] Alex. "Iwds; [Comp. "Iwd:]
Joha.) The son of Joahaz, and keeper of the rec-
ords, or annalist to Josiah. Together with the chief
officers of state, Shaphan the scribe, and Maaseiah,
the governor of the city, he superintended the repair
of the Temple which had been neglected during the
two previous reigns (2 Chr. xxxiv. 8). Josephus
calls him ’Iwdrns, as if he read Ms. The
Syriac and Arabic omit the name altogether.
JOYAHAZ (FSV [whom Jehovah holds,
takes as by the hand]: Iwdxa; [Vat. Iwax:]
Joachaz), the father of Joah, the chronicler or
keeper of the records to king Josiah (2 Chr. xxxiv.
8). One of Kennicott’s MS. reads “IT? , t. e. Ahaz,
1398
and the margin of Bomberg’s Bible gives TTS,
t. €. Jehoahaz. In the Syr. and Arab. versions the
hame is omitted.
JOA’NAN (Iwvdy; Alex. [Ald.] ’Iwavdy:
Jonathas) = JOHANAN 9, the son of Eliashib (1
Esdr. ix. 1).
JOAN’NA [properly Joan’NAs] (Iwavvas;
[Lachm. Tisch. Treg.,] *Iwavdy: Joanna), son of
Khesa, according to the text of Luke iii. 27, and
one of the ancestors of Christ. But according to
the view explained in a previous article, son of
Zerubbabel, and the same as Hananiah in 1 Chr.
iii. 19. [GENEAL. OF Cnuisr; HANANTAN, 8.]
An Gord,
JOANNA (Iwdyva, modern form “ Joan,”
of the same origin with "Iwavvas, the reading of
most MSS., also rendered A. V. “Joanna,” St.
Luke iii. 27, and ’Iwdyyns = Hebr. JEHOHANAN),
the name of a woman, occurring twice in Luke
(vill. 3, xxiv. 10), but evidently denoting the same
person. In the first passage she is expressly stated
to have been “wife of Chusa [Chuzas], steward
(emltpomos), of Herod,” that is, Antipas, tetrarch
of Galilee. Professor Blunt has observed in his
Coincidences, that “we find here a reason why
Herod should say to his servants (Matt. xiv. 2),
‘This is John the Baptist’ . . . because his
steward’s wife was a disciple of Jesus, and so there
would be frequent mention of him among the ser-
vants in Herod’s court’ (Alford, ad loc. ; comp.
Luke ix. 7). Professor Blunt adds the still more
iuteresting instance of Manaen (Acts xiii. 1), the
tetrarch's own “ foster-brother”’ (ovvtpodos, Blunt,
p- 263, ed. 1859). Another coincidence is, that
our Lord’s ministry was mostly confined to Galilee,
the seat of Herod’s jurisdiction. Further, if we
might suppose Herod at length to have dismissed
Chusa [Chuzas] from his service, on account of
Joanna’s attachment to one already in ill odor with
the higher powers (see particularly Luke xiii. 31),
the suppression of her husband’s name, now no
longer holding a distinguished office, would be very
natural in the second passage. However, Joanna
continued faithful to our Lord throughout his min-
istry; and as she was one of those whose circum-
stances permitted them to ‘minister unto Him out
of their substance ’’ during his lifetime, so she was
one of those who brought spices and ointments to
embalm his body when dead. EK. 8S. Ff.
JOAN’NAN (Iwavydy; Alex. Iwavvys:
Joannes), the eldest brother of Judas Maccab:eus
(1 Mace. ii. 2). He had the surname of Caddis,
and is elsewhere called John. [JOHN, 2.]
* JOAN’NAS, Luke iii. 27. [Joanna.]
JO’ARIB CIwapiB ; Alex. Iwapety ; [Sin.
Iwapiu:] Joarib), chief of the first of the twenty-
four courses of priests in the reign of David, and
ancestor of the Maccabees (1 Mace. ii. 1). His
name appears also in the A. V. as JENOIARIB
- (1 Chr. xxiv. 7), and Jarre (1 Mace. xiy. 29).
Josephus retains the form adopted by the LXX.
(Ant. xii. 6, § 1).
JO’/ASH (eNy [whom Jehovah gave], the
contracted form of the name JEHOASH, in which
it is frequently found: "Iwds: Joas). 1. Son of
Ahaziah king of Judah, and the only one of his
children who escaped the murderous hand of Ath-
aliah. Jehoram having himself killed all his own
oretliren, and all his sons, except Ahaziah, having
JOANAN
JOASH
been killed by the irruption of the Philistine
Arabians, and all Ahaziah’s remoter relation;
ing been slain by Jehu, and now all his sons
put to death by Athaliah (2 Chr. xxi. 4, 17;
1, 8, 9, 10), the house of David was reduced {
lowest ebb, and.Joash appears to have been th
surviving descendant of Solomon. After his fa
sister Jehoshabeath, the wife of J ehoiada, had ;
him from among the king’s sons, he was hid
years in the chambers of the Temple. In th
year of his age and of his concealment, a suec
revolution placed him on the throne of his;
tors, and freed the country from the tyrann:
idolatries of Athaliah. [JEHoIADA.] For at
23 years, while Jehoiada lived, this reign wa:
prosperous. Excepting that the high-places
still resorted to for incense and sacrifice, pu
ligion was restored, large contributions were
for the repair of the Temple, which was accord
restored; and the country seems to have bee
from foreign invasion and domestic disturl
But, after the death of Jehoiada, Joash, wh
evidently of weak character, fell into the han
bad advisers, at whose suggestion he revive
worship of Baal and Ashtaroth. When hi
rebuked for this by Zechariah, the son of Jeb
who had probably succeeded to the high-priest
with base ingratitude and daring impiety.
caused him to be stoned to death in the very,
of the Lord’s house, “ between the Temple an
altar’? (Matt. xxiii. 85). The vengeance i)
cated by the murdered high-priest was not;
delayed. ‘That very year, Hazael king of |
after a successful campaign against the Philis)
came up against Jerusalem, and carried off ¢|
booty as the price of his departure. A de.
victory, gained by a small band of Syrians ¢
great host’ of the king of Judah, had thus 1;
Jerusalem at his mercy. This defeat is exp
said to be a judgment upon Joash for havin)
saken the God of his fathers. He had sei
escaped this danger, when he fell into anothe
a fatal one. Two of his servants, taking adva
of his severe illness, some think of a wound re¢
in battle, conspired against him, and slew
his bed in the fortress of Millo, thus avengir
innocent blood of Zechariah. He was buri
the city of David, but not in the sepulehres :
kings of Judah. Possibly the fact of Jel
being buried there had something to do wit!
exclusion. Joash’s reign lasted 40 years, fro1>
to 838 B. c. He was 10th king from Davi!
clusive, reckoning the reign of the usurper Athi
He is one of the three kings (Ahaziah, «
Amaziah) omitted by St. Matthew in the gene):
of Christ. :
With regard to the different accounts «t
Syrian invasion given in 2 K. and in 2 Chr., }
have led some (as Thenius and many older’!
mentators) to imagine two distinct Syrian inva)!
and others to see a direct contradiction, or ai
a strange incompleteness in the narratives, as V!
the difficulty exists solely in the minds of the
The narrative given above, which is also 0)
Keil and E. Bertheau (Ezeg. Handb. z. A. -
well as of Josephus, perfectly suits the two ace!
which are merely different abridgments of tle
fuller account contained in the original chrcel
of the kingdom. Gramberg pushes the syst
incredulous criticism to such an absurd pitel!
he speaks of the murder of Zacharias as 4!
fable (Winer, Reahvérth. art. Jehoasch).
~~
i
JUASH
should be added that the propnet Elisha
shed in Israel throughout the days of Joash;
here is some ground for concluding with Winer
ing with Credner, Movers, Hitzig, Meier, and
3) that the prophet Joel also prophesied in the
r part of this reign. (See Movers, Chronik,
19-121.)
Son and successor of Jehoahaz on the throne
‘ael from B. C. 840 to 825, and for two full
a contemporary sovereign with the preceding
xiv. 1; comp. with xii. 1, xiii. 10). When
seeeded to the crown, the kingdom was in a
‘able state from the devastations of Hazael
jen-hadad, kings of Syria, of whose power at
ime we had also evidence in the preceding
» In spite of the perseverance of Joash in
orship set up by Jeroboam, God took com-
nupon the extreme misery of Israel, and in
abrance of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac,
facob, interposed to save them from entire
ction. On occasion of a friendly visit paid
ash to Elisha on his deathbed, where he wept
lis face, and addressed him as “ the chariot
ael and the horsemen thereof,’’ the prophet
sed him deliverance from the Syrian yoke in
«, the scene of Ahab’s great victory over a
» Ben-hadad (1 K. xx. 26-30). He then bid
mite upon the ground, and the king smote
and then stayed. The prophet rebuked him
‘ying, and limited to three his victories over
- Accordingly Joash did beat Ben-hadad three
‘on the field of battle, and recovered from
ae cities which Hazael had taken from Je-
t. ‘The other great military event of Joash’s
was his successful war with Amaziah king
‘ah. The grounds of this war are given fully
hr. xxy. [AmAzr1AH.] The hiring of 100,-
ten of Israel for 100 talents of silver by
ah is the only instance on record of such a
tion, and implies that at that time the king-
‘Israel was free from all fear of the Syrians.
mercenary soldiers having been dismissed by
ah, at the instigation of a prophet, without
allowed to take part in the Edomitish expe-
returned in great wrath to their own coun-
jid sacked and plundered the cities of Judah
jnge for the slight put upon them, and also
mmnify themselves for the loss of their share
}plunder. It was to avenge this injury that
ah, on his return from his triumph over the
es, declared war against Joash, in spite of
ming of the prophet, and the contemptuous
ion of Joash under the fable of the cedar
ie thistle. The result was that the two
! met at Beth-shemesh, that Joash was vic-
) put the army of Amaziah to the rout, took
Visoner, brought him to Jerusalem, broke
Je wall of Jerusalem, all along the north side
tie Gate of Ephraim to the Corner Gate, a
#e of 400 cubits, plundered the Temple of its
ad silver vessels, seized the king’s treasures,
istages, and then returned to Samaria, where
1, probably not very long afterwards, and
tied in the sepulchres of the kings of Israel.
(lin the 15th year of Amaziah king of Judah,
3 sueceeded by his son Jeroboam II. There
' crepance “between the Bible account of his
Her and that given by Josephus. For whereas
mer says of him, “‘ He did that which was
the sight of the Lord’ (2 K. xiii. 11), the
ays that he was a good man, and very dif-
from his father. Josephus probably was
JOASH 1399
guided by the account of Joash’s friendly inter-
course with Elisha, which certainly indicates some
good disposition in him, although he followed the
sin of Jeroboam. Ea ©
3. The father of Gideon, and a wealthy man
among the Abiezrites. At the time of the Midian-~
itish occupation of the country, he appears to have
gone so far with the tide of popular opinion in
favor of idolatry, that he had on his own ground
an altar dedicated to Baal, and an Asherah. In
this, however, he submitted rather to the exigencies
of the time, and the influence of his family and
neighbors, and was the first to defend the daring
act of his son, and protect him from the vengeance
of the Abiezrites, by sarcasm only less severe than
that which Elijah employed against the priests of
Baal in the memorable scene on Carmel (Judg. vi.
11, 29, 30, 31, vii. 14, viii. 13, 29, 832). The LXX.
put the speech in vi. 31 most inappropriately into
the mouth of Gideon, but this is corrected in the
Alex. MS. In the Vulg.:the name is omitted in
vi. 31 and viii. 13.
4. Apparently a younger son of Ahab, who held
a subordinate jurisdiction in the lifetime of his
father, or was appointed viceroy (&pyovra, LXX.
of 2 Chr. xviii. 25) during his absence in the attack
on Ramoth-Gilead (1 K. xxii. 26; 2 Chr. xviii. 25).
Or he may have been merely a prince of the blood-
royal. But if Geiger be right in his conjecture,
that Maaseiah, “the king’s son,”’ in 2 Chr. xxviii.
7, was a prince of the Moloch worship, Joash would
be a priest of the same. There is, however, but
slender foundation for the belief (Geiger, Urschrift,
ete., p. 307). The Vulgate calls him ‘the son of
Amelech,”’ taking the article as part of the noun,
and the whole as a proper name. Thenius suggests
that he may have been placed with the governor
of the city for the purpose of military education.
5. [Vat. corrupt.] A descendant of Shelah the
son of Judah, but whether his son or the son of
Jokim, as Burrington (Genealogies, i. 179) sup-
poses, is not clear (1 Chr. iv. 22). The Vulvate
rendering of this name by Secwrus, according to its
etymology, as well as of the other names in the
same verse, is very remarkable. ‘The Hebrew tra-
dition, quoted by Jerome ( Quest. Hebr. in Paral.)
and Jarchi (Comm. in loc.), applies it to Mahlon,
the son of Elimelech, who married a Moabitess.
The expression rendered in A: V., “ who had the
dominion Qby3, badli) in Moab,’’ would, accord-
ing to this interpretation, signify “who married
in Moab.”” The same explanation is given in the
Targum of R. Joseph.
6. [Rom. FA. "Iwds; Vat. Iwa; Alex. Iwpas.]
A Benjamite, son of Shemaah of Gibeah (1 Chr.
xii. 3). He was one of the heroes, “ helpers of the
battle,’’ who resorted to David at Ziklag, and as-
sisted him in his excursions against the marauding
parties to whose attacks he was exposed (ver. 21).
He was probably. with David in his pursuit of the
Amalekites (comp. 1 Chr. xii. 21, with 1 Sam. xxx.
8, where “TT should be “troop’’ in both pas-
sages). The Peshito-Syriac, reading 122 for
‘33, makes him the son of Ahiezer.
7. One of the officers of David’s household, to
whose charge were entrusted the store-houses of
oil, the produce of the plantations of sycamores
and the olive-yards of the lowlands of Judah (1
Chr. xxvii. 28). W.A. W.
1400
JO’ASH ( wy [to whom Jehovah hastens],
a different name from the preceding: “Iwds: Joas),
son of Becher, and head of a Benjamite house,
which existed in the time of king David (1 Chr.
vii. 8). A. C. H.
JO’ATHAM (‘Iwd0au: Joatham) = JoTHAM
the son of Uzziah (Matt. i. 9).
JOAZAB’DUS (I1é(aBdos; [Vat. ZaBdos;
Ald. "Iwd¢aBdos :] Joradus) = JozaBap the
Levite (1 Esdr. ix. 48; comp. Neh. viii. 7).
JOB (2) [perh. = AAW? ; will return, or re-
turner, convert}: ’Agotms Alex. Iacoup; [Ald.
"IacovB:| Job), the third son of Issachar (Gen.
xlvi. 13), called in another genealogy JASHUB
(1 Chr. vii. 1), which is the reading of the Heb.
Sam. Codex in Genesis, as it was also in all prob-
ability of the two MSS. of the LXX., 2 being
frequently represented by p.
JOB (218, i. e. Zyob [one persecuted, af-
Jflicted: see further, Fiirst, Handw. s. v.; Ges.
Thesaur. 8. v.]: ’1éB: Job). The numerous and
difficult questions touching the integrity of this
book, its plan, object, and general character; and
the probable age, country, and circumstances of its
author, cannot be satisfactorily discussed without
a previous analysis of its contents. It consists of
five parts: the introduction, the discussion between
Job and his three friends, the speech of Elihu, the
manifestation and address of Almighty God, and
the concluding chapter.
I. Analysis. —1. The Introduction supplies all
the facts on which the argument is based. Job, a
chieftain in the land of Uz,4 of immense wealth
and high rank, “the greatest of all the men of the
East,”’ is represented to us as a man of perfect
integrity, blameless in all the relations of life,
declared indeed by the Lord Himself to be “ with-
out his like in all the earth,’ “a perfect, and an
upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth
evil.” The highest goodness, and the most perfect
temporal happiness are combined in his person;
under the protection of God, surrounded by a nu-
merous family, he enjoys in advanced life? an
almost paradisiacal state, exemplifying the normal
results of human obedience to the will of a right-
eous God. One question could be raised by envy;
may not the goodness which secures such direct
and tangible rewards be a refined form of selfish-
ness? In the world of spirits, where all the mys-
teries of existence are brought to light, Satan, the
accusing angel, suggests the doubt, * doth Job fear
God for nought ?’’ and asserts boldly that if those
external blessings were withdrawn Job would cast
off his allegiance, — ‘he will curse thee to thy
face.’ The problem is thus distinctly propounded
which this book is intended to discuss and solve.
[See addition, Amer. ed.] Can goodness exist
JOASH
@ The situation of Uz is doubtful. Ewald (Das Buch
Ijob, p. 20) supposes it to have been the district south
of Bashan. Spanheim and Rosenmiiller (Proll. pp.
29-38) fix it in the N. EB. of the desert near the Eu-
phrates. See also Dr. Lee, Introduction to Job, p. 29.
b From ch, xlii. 16 it may be inferred that he was
about 70 years old at this time.
€°Os kal @cod kar’ ad’trod ywpodvros. Didymus Alex.
ed. Migne, col. 1125.
ad * The Hebrew words are properly rendered (ac-
tording to Gesenius and other eminent Hebraists),
‘Bless God and die.” It is a taunting reproach,
JOB: aa
irrespective of reward, can the fear of God |
tained by man when every inducement to g
ness is taken away? The problem is obvious
infinite importance, and could only be answer
inflicting upon a man, in whom, while prosp
malice itself could detect no evil, the cala
which are the due, and were then believed
invariably the results, even in this life, of wi
ness. The accuser receives permission to mak
trial. He destroys Job’s property, then his
dren; and afterwards, to leave no possible op
for a cavil, is allowed to inflict upon him the
terrible disease known in the East. Each of
calamities assumes a form which produces a
pression that it must be a visitation from |
precisely such as was to be expected, supposing
the patriarch had been a successful hypoerit
served for the day of wrath. Job’s wife b
down entirely under the trial —in the very 1
which Satan had anticipated the patriarch hii
would at last utter in his despair, she counsel:
‘“‘to curse God and die.” ¢ Job remains stea
The destruction of his property draws not
him a word of complaint: the death of his chi
elicits the sublimest words of resignation y
ever fell from the lips of a mourner —the d.
which made him an object of loathing to man
seemed to designate him as a visible examp
divine wrath, is borne without a murmur; |
pels his wife’s suggestion with the simple y
“What! shall we receive good at the hand «
Lord, and shall we not receive evil?” «]
this Job did not sin with his lips.’ |
The question raised by Satan was thus ansy
His assaults had but issued in a coniplete rei;
of the outer forms which could mislead men’s |
ment, and in developing the highest type of |
terested worth. Had the narrative then e
the problem could not be regarded as bos
while a sublime model would have been exh
for men to admire and imitate.
2. Still in that case it is clear that many })
of deep interest would have been left in obse}
Entire as was the submission of Job, he must!
been inwardly perplexed by events to which hh
no clew, which were quite unaccountable o1
hypothesis hitherto entertained, and seemed 1
nant to the ideas of justice engraven on 1!
heart. It was also most desirable that thii
pressions made upon the generality of mé¢
sudden and unaccountable calamities shou
thoroughly discussed, and that a broader and :
basis than heretofore should be found for sp!
tions concerning the providential governmel
the world. An opportunity for such discuss
afforded in the most natural manner by the
duction of three men, representing the wisdou
experience of the age, who came to condole’l
Job on hearing of his misfortunes. Some /
appears to have elapsed in the interim, 4!
Bless God (if you will), and die ;” for that | '
that will come of it. This language is consisten/!
her own spirit of distrust, which could see no g”
for his unshaken confidence in God. But no }
can be given, why she should say to him, “!
God, and die.’? Did she want to be rid of -
€ Otherwise it would be difficult to meet |
miiller’s objection (p. 8). It seems indeed pr¢)?
that some months even might pass by before thié
would reach the friends, and they could arrang™
meeting, ;
JOB
h the disease had made formidable progress,
Job had thoroughly realized the extent of his
ry. The meeting is described with singular
ty. At a distance they greet him with the
demonstrations of sympathizing grief usual in
Bast; coming near they are overpowered by
ight of his wretchedness, and sit seven days
seven nights without uttering a word. This
| silence, whether Job felt it as a proof of real
athy, or as an indication of inward suspicion @
reir part, drew out all his anguish. In an
y of desperation he curses the day of his birth,
ees and hopes for no end of his misery, but
le
ith the answer to this outburst begins a series
cussions, continued probably (as Ewald shows,
) with some intervals, during several successive
Hliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in turn, bring
rd arguments, which are severally answered
'b.
e results of the first discussion (from e. iii.
-may be thus summed up. We have on the
if Job’s friends a theory of the divine govern-
‘resting upon an exact and uniform correlation
en sin and punishment (iv. 6, 11, and through-
Afflictions are always penal, issuing in the
‘ction of those who are radically opposed to
or who do not submit to his chastisements.
lead of course to correction and amendment
_ when the sufferer repents, confesses his sins,
‘hem away, and turns to God. In that case
ition to peace, and even increased prosperity
e expected (vy. 17-27). Still the fact of the
ng always proves the commission of some
' sin, while the demeanor of the sufferer in-
‘the true internal relation between him and
‘se principles are applied by them to the case
They are in the first place scandalized by
emence of his complaints, and when they
iat he maintains his freedom from willful, or
us sin, they are driven to the conclusion.
Nis faith is radically unsound; his protesta-
lappear to them almost blasphemous, they
‘convinced that he has been secretly guilty
‘¢ unpardonable sin, and their tone, at first
Hus, though warning (comp. c. iv. with e.
»comes stern, and even harsh and menacing.
‘lear that unless they are driven from their
and exclusive theory they must be led on to
V ualified condemnation of Job.
uis part of the dialogue the character of the
‘iends is clearly developed. Eliphaz repre-
le true patriarchal chieftain, grave and dig-
“ind erring only from an exclusive adherence
€'s hitherto unquestioned, and influenced in
{i place by genuine regard for Job, and sym-
i vith his afiliction. Bildad, without much
ity or independence of character, reposes
tlm the wise saws of antiquity, partly on the
ity of his older friend. Zophar differs from
ile Seems to be a young man; his language
Hit, and at times even coarse and offensive
eeially his second speech, c. xx.). He rep-
H the prejudiced and narrow-minded bigots
age.
Nder to do justice to the position and argu-
| must be borne in mind, that the
the trial was to ascertain whether
JOB 1401
he would deny or forsake God, and that his real
integrity is asserted by God Himself. His answers
throughout correspond with these data. He knows
with a sure inward conviction that he is not an
offender in the sense of his opponents: he is there
fore confident that whatever may be the object of
the afflictions for which he cannot account, God
knows that he is innocent. This consciousness,
which from the nature of things cannot be tested
by others, enables him to examine fearlessly their
position. He denies the assertion that punishment
follows surely on guilt, or proves its commission.
Appealing boldly to experience, he declares that in
point of fact prosperity and misfortune are not
always, or generally, commensurate; both are often
irrespective of man’s deserts, “the tabernacles of
robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are
secure” (c. xii. 6). In the government of Provi--
dence he can see but one point clearly, namely,
that all events and results are absolutely in God’s
hand (xii. 9-25), but as for the principles which
underlie those events he knows nothing. In fact,
he is sure that his friends are equally uninformed,
and are sophists, defending their position, out of
mere prejudice, by arguments and statements false
in themselves and doubly offensive to God, being
hypocritically advanced in his defense (xiii. 1-13).
Still he doubts not that God is just, and although
he cannot see how or when that justice can be
manifested, he feels confident that his innocence
must be recognized. “Though He slay me, yet
I will trust in Him; He also will be my salvation ”
(xiii. 14, 16). There remains then but one course
open to him, and that he takes. He turns to sup-
plication, implores God to give him a fair and open
trial (xiii. 18-28). Admitting his liability to such
sins as are common to man, being unclean by birth
(xiii. 26, xiv. 4), he yet protests his substantial
innocence, and in the bitter struggle with his
misery, he first meets the thought which is after-
wards developed with remarkable distinctness. Be-
lieving that with death all hope connected with
this world ceases, he prays that he may be hidden
in the grave (xiv. 13), and there reserved for the
day when God will try his cause and manifest Him-
self in love (ver. 15). This prayer represents but
a dim, yet a profound and true presentiment, drawn
forth, then evidently for the first time, as the pos-
sible solution of the dark problem. As for a re-
newal of life here, he dreams not of it (14), nor
will he allow that the possible restoration or pros-
perity of his descendants at all meets the exigen-
cies of his case (21, 22).
In the second discussion (xv.-xxi.) there is a
more resolute elaborate attempt on the part of
Job’s friends to vindicate their theory of retributive
justice. This requires an entire overthrow of the
position taken by Job. They cannot admit his
innocence. The fact that his calamities are unpar-
allelea, proves to them that there must be some-
thing quite unique in his guilt. Eliphaz (c. xv.),
who, as usual, lays down the basis of the argument,
does not now hesitate to impute to Job the worst
crimes of which man could be guilty. His defense
is blasphemous, and proves that he is quite godless;
that he disregards the wisdom of age and experi-
ence, denies the fundamental truths of religion (3-
16), and by his rebellious struggles (25-27) against
God deserves every calamity which can befall him
systematized by Basilides, to the great scandal of the
early Fathers. See Clem. Al. Strom. iv. p. 506.
14.2 JOB
4
Kd
JOB
(28-30). Bildad (xviii.) takes up this suggestion | had those crimes been committed; hence he
of ungodliness, and after enlarging upon the iney-
itable results of all iniquity, concludes that the
special evils which had come upon Job, such as
agony of heart, ruin of home, destruction of family,
are peculiarly the penalties due to one who is with-
out God. Zophar (xx.) draws the further inference
that a sinner’s sufferings must needs be propor-
tioned to his former enjoyments (5-14), and his
losses to his former gains (15-19), and thus not
only accounts for Job’s present calamities, but men-
aces him with still greater evils (20-29).
In answer Job recognizes the hand of God in his
afflictions (xvi. 7-16, and xix. 6-20), but rejects
the charge of ungodliness; he has never forsaken
his Maker, and never ceased to pray. ‘This being
a matter of inward consciousness cannot of course
be proved. He appeals therefore directly to earth
and heaven: *“*My witness is in heaven, and my
record is on high” (xvi. 19). The train of thought
thus suggested carries him much farther in the way
towards the great truth — that since in this life the
righteous certainly are not saved from evil, it fol-
lows that their ways are watched and their suffer-
ings recorded, with a view to a future and perfect
manifestation of the divine justice. This view be-
comes gradually brighter and more definite as the
controversy @ proceeds (xvi. 18, 19, xvii. 8, 9, and
perhaps 13-16), and at last finds expression in a
strong and clear declaration of his conviction that
at the latter day (evidently that day which Job had
expressed a longing to see, ¢c. xiv. 12-14) God will
personally manifest Himself, and that he, Job, will
then see him, in his body,” with his own eyes, and
notwithstanding the destruction of his skin, 7. e.,
the outward man, retaining or recovering his per-
sonal identity (xix. 25-27). There can be no
doubt that Job here virtually anticipates the final
answer to all difficulties supplied by the Christian
revelation.
On the other hand, stung by the harsh and
narrow-minded bigotry of his opponents, Job draws
out (xxi.) with terrible force the undeniable fact,
that from the beginning to the end of their lives
ungodly men, avowed atheists (vy. 14, 15), persons,
in fact, guilty of the very crimes imputed, out of
mere conjecture, to himself, frequently enjoy great
and unbroken prosperity. From this he draws the
inference, which he states in a very unguarded
manner, and in a tone calculated to give just offense,
that an impenetrable veil hangs over the temporal
dispensations of God.
In the third dialogue (xxii.-xxxi.) no real prog-
ress is made by Job’s opponents. They will not
give up and cannot defend their position. Eliphaz
(xxii.) makes a last effort, and raises one new point
which he states with some ingenuity. The station
in which Job was formerly placed presented tempta-
tions to certain crimes; the punishments which he
undergoes are precisely such as might be expected
a This gradual and progressive development was
perhaps first brought out distinctly by Ewald.
7) wa, lit. “from my flesh,” may mean in
the body, or out of the body. Each rendering is
equally tenable on grammatical grounds; but the
specification of the time (7s) and the place
(npp-by) requires a personal manifestation of God,
and a personal recognition on the part of Job. Com-
plete personality in the mind of the ancients implies
3 living body.
they actually were committed. The tone «
discourse thoroughly harmonizes with the che
of Eliphaz. He could scarcely come to a di
conclusion without surrendering his funda
principles, and he urges with much dignit
impressiveness the exhortations and warnings
in his opinion were needed. Bildad has n
to add but a few solemn words on the inex
hensible majesty of God and the nothingn
man.¢ Zophar, the most violent and least r:
of the three, is put to silence, and retires frc
contest.
In his two last discourses Job does not al
position, nor, properly speaking, adduce ar
argument, but he states with incomparable
and eloquence the chief points which he reg:
established (c. xxvi.). All creation is confe
by the majesty and might of God; man cateh
a faint echo of God's word, and is baffled
attempt to comprehend his ways. He then (¢.
describes even more completely than his opp
had done@ the destruction which, as a rul
mately falls upon the hypocrite, and which |
tainly would deserve if he were hypocritic
disguise the truth concerning himself, anc
his own integrity. He thus recognizes wh
true in his opponent’s arguments, and corre
own hasty and unguarded statements. Th
lows (xxviii.) the grand description of Wisdo.
the declaration that human wisdom does ni
sist in exploring the hidden and inscrutabl
of God, but in the fear of the Lord, and mm t
away from evil. ‘The remainder of this dij
(xxix.xxxi.) contains a singularly beauti.
scription of his former life, contrasted w
actual misery, together with a full vindica’
his character from all the charges made or!
uated by his opponents.
3. Thus ends the discussion, in ie
evident both parties had partially failed. J
been betrayed into very hazardous statement:
his friends had been on the one hand dising:
on the other bigoted, harsh, and_ pitiless
points which had been omitted, or imperfe
veloped, are now taken up by a new inter
(xxxiixxxvii.). Elihu, a young man, de:
from a collateral branch of the family of Abr;
has listened in indignant silence to the arg)
of his elders (xxxii. 7), and, impelled by an
inspiration, he now addresses himself to both}
in the discussion, and specially to Job. He
1. that they had accused Job upon false 0
ficient grounds, and failed to convict him?
vindicate God’s justice. Job again had a!
his entire innocence, and had arraigned that}
(xxxiii. 9-11). These errors he traces to thi
overlooking one main object of all suffering
speuks to man by chastisement (14,7 19?
warns him, teaches him self-knowledge and In
ee ES eee
¢ Mr. Froude, on The Book of Job, seems)
perceive, or to ignore, the ground on which
reasons.
d See Herder’s excellent remarks, quoted b;¥
miiller, p. 24. Mr. Froude quite overlooks
that Job here, as elsewhere, takes up his op?
arguments, and urges all the truth which tl
involve with greater force, thus showing himse
of the position.
e A Buzite.
f A point well drawn out by Schlottman
Job had specially complained of the silence of
P
—
,
ai
JOB
1 and prepares him (23) by the mediation
spiritual interpreter (the angel Jehovah@ of
sis) to implore and to obtain pardon (24),
al of life (25), perfect access and restoration
This statement does not involve any charge
ial guilt, such as the friends had alleged and
iad repudiated. Since the warning and suffer-
re preventive, as well as remedial, the visita-
wticipates the commission of sin; it saves man
pride, and other temptations of wealth and
,and it effects the real object of all divine
sitions, the entire submission to God's will.
), Elihu argues (xxxiv. 10-17) that any charge
ustice, direct or implicit, against God involves
tradiction in terms. God is the only source
stice; the very idea of justice is derived from
overnance of the universe, the principle of
-islove. In his absolute knowledge God sees
erets, and by his absolute power he controls
ents, and that, for the one end of bringing
ousness to light (21-30). Man has of course
im upon God; what he receives is purely a
r of. grace (xxxv. 6-9). The occasional ap-
ce of unanswered prayer (9), when evil seems
the upper hand, is owing merely to the fact
an prays in a proud aud. insolent spirit (12,
Job may look to his heart, and he will see
t is true of himself.
is silent, and Elihu proceeds (xxxvi.) to show
he Almightiness of God is not, as Job seems
art, associated with any contempt or neglect
creatures. Job, by ignoring this truth, has
led into grave error, and terrible danger (12;
), but God is still drawing him, and if he
“and follows he will yet be delivered. The
‘the discourse brings out forcibly the lessons
+ by the manifestations of goodness, as well
atness in creation. Indeed, the great object
natural phenomena is to teach men — “ who
th like Him?” This part differs from Job’s
‘ficent description of the mystery and majesty
Vs works, inasmuch as it indicates a clearer
ition of a loving purpose —and from the
's of the Lord which follows, by its discursive
‘gumentative tone. The last words are evi-
[ ‘spoken while a violent storm is coming on,
ch Elihu views the signs of a Theophany,
cannot fail to produce an intense realization
‘nothingness of man before God.
‘rom the preceding analysis it is obvious that
weighty truths have been developed in the
i of the discussion — nearly every theory of the
€ and uses of suffering has been reviewed —
i great advance has been made towards the
Jension of doctrines hereafter to be revealed,
were known only to God. But the mystery
as yet really cleared up. The position of the
: original opponents is shown to be untenable
views of Job himself to be but imperfect —
leven Elihu gives not the least intimation
2 recognizes one special object of calamity.
-case of Job, as we are expressly told, that
‘us A. Schultens. There can be no doubt that
)” not * messenger,” is the true translation ;
at the angel, the one of a thousand, is the
My qnbn of Genesis.
‘is bearing of the statement upon the whole
‘nt is satisfactorily shown by Hahn (Introduction
and by Schlottmann in his commentary
5 ‘passae (p. 489).
* is is the strangely exaggerated form in which
JOB 1403
object was to try his sincerity, and to demonstrate
that goodness, integrity in all relations, and devout
faith in God, can exist independent of external cir- .
cumstances. [See addition, Amer. ed.] This object
never occurs to the mind of any one of the inter-
locutors, nor could it be proved without a revelation.
On the other hand, the exact amount of censure due
to Job for the excesses into which he had been be-
trayed, and to his three opponents for their harshness
and want of candor, could only be awarded by an om-
niscient Judge. Hence the necessity for the Theoph-
any — from the midst of the storm Jehovah speaks.
In language of incomparable grandeur He re-
proves and silences the murmurs of Jol. God does
not condescend, strictly speaking, to argue with
his creatures. The speculative questions discussed
in the colloquy are unnoticed, but the declaration
of God’s absolute power is illustrated by a marve-
lously beautiful and comprehensive survey of the
glory of creation, and his all-embracing Providence
by reference to the phenomena of the animal king-
dom. He who would argue with the Lord must
understand at least the objects for which instincts
so strange and manifold are given to the beings far
below man in gifts and powers. This declaration
suffices to bring Job to a right mind: he confesses
his inability to comprehend, and therefore to answer
his Maker (xl. 3, 4). A second address completes
the work. It proves that a charge of injustice
against God involves the consequence that the ac-
cuser is more competent than He to rule the uni-
verse. He should then be able to control, to punish,
to reduce all creatures to order — but he cannot
even subdue the monsters of the irrational creation.
Baffled by leviathan and behemoth, how can he
hold the reins’ of government, how contend with
Him who made and rules them all?
5. Job’s unreserved submission terminates the
trial. He expresses deep contrition, not of course
for sins falsely imputed to him, but for the bitter-
ness and arrogance which had characterized some
portions of his complaints. In the rebuke then
addressed to Job’s opponents the integrity of his
character is distinctly recognized, while they are
condemned for untruth, which, inasmuch as it was
not willful, but proceeded from a real but narrow-
minded conviction of the Divine justice, is pardoned
on the intercession of Job. The restoration of his
external prosperity, which is an inevitable result
of God’s personal manifestation, symbolizes the
ultimate compensation of the righteous for all suf-
ferings undergone upon earth.
From this analysis it seems clear that certain
views concerning the general object of the book are
partial or erroneous. It cannot be the object of
the writer to prove that there is no connection be-
tween guilt and sorrow,¢ or that the old orthodox
doctrine of retribution was radically unsound. Job
himself recognizes the general truth of the doctrine,
which is in fact confirmed by his ultimate restora-
tion to happiness.¢ Nor is the development of the
great doctrine of a future state the primary object.¢
Mr. Froude represents the views of Ewald. Nothing
can be more contrary to the whole tenor of the book.
d See Ewald’s remarks in his Jahrb. 1858, p. 33
The notion that Job is a type of the Hebrew nation
in their sufferings, and that the book was written to
console them in their exile, held by Clericus and Bp.
Warburton, is generally rejected. See Rosenmiiller,
pp. 13-16.
e Ewald’s theory, on which Schlottmann has some
excellent observations (p. 48).
1404 JOB 3
It would not in that case have been passed over in
Job’s last discourse, in the speech of Elihu, or in
the address of the Lord God. In fact, critics who
hold that view admit that the doctrine is rather
suggested than developed, and amounts to scarcely
more than a wish, a presentiment, at the most a
subjective conviction of a truth first fully revealed
by Him “who brought life and immortality to
light.’’ The great object must surely be that which
is distinetly intimated in the introduction, and
confirmed in the conclusion, to show the effects of
calamity in its worst and most awful form upon a
truly religious spirit. Job is no Stoic, no Titan
(Ewald, p. 26), struggling rebelliously against God ;
no Prometheus,* victim of a jealous and unrelenting
Deity: he is a suffering man, acutely sensitive to
all impressions inward and outward, grieved by the
loss of wealth, position, domestic happiness, the
respect of his countrymen, dependents, and _fol-
lowers, tortured by a loathsome and all but unen-
durable disease, and stung to an agony of grief and
passion by the insinuations of conscious ouilt and
hypocrisy. Under such provocation, being wholly
without a clew to the cause of his misery, and
hopeless of restoration to happiness on earth, he is
shaken to the utmost, and driven almost to des-
peration. Still in the centre of his being he re-
mains firm and unmoved —with an intense con-
sciousness of his own integrity — without a doubt
as to the power, wisdom, truth, or absolute justice
of God, and therefore awaiting with longing expec-
tation® the final judgment which he is assured
must come and bring him deliverance. The repre-
sentation of such a character, involving the dis-
comfiture of man’s great enemy, and the develop-
ment of the manifold problems which such a
spectacle suggests to men of imperfect knowledge,
but thoughtful and inquiring minds, is the true
object of the writer, who, like all great spirits of
the ancient world, dealt less with abstract proposi-
tions than with the objective realities of existence.
Such is the impression naturally made by the book,
and which is recognized more distinctly in propor-
tion as the reader grasps the tenor of the arguments,
aud realizes the characters and events. [See ap-
pended remarks, Amer. ed. ]
Il. Integrity of the book. —It is eaters to
find that the arguments employed by those who
impugn the authenticity of considerable portions
of this book are for the most part mutually de-
structive, and that the most minute and searching
investigations bring out the most convincing proofs
of the “unity of its composition, and the coherence
of its constituent parts. One point of great im-
portance is noted by the latest and one of ‘the most
ingenious writers (M. E. Renan, Le Livre de Job,
Paris, 1859) on this subject. ‘After some strong
remarks upon the inequality of the style, and ap-
pearance of interpolation, M. E. Renan observes
(p. xliv.): “The Hebrews, and Orientals in general,
differed widely from us in their views about con)-
position. Their works never have that perfectly
a Schlottmann (p. 46), who draws also a very in-
teresting comparison between Job and Vicramitra, in
the Ramayana (p. 128).
b See the passages quoted by Ewald, p. 27.
¢ It is a very remarkable instance both of the in-
consistency of M. Renan, and of the little reliance
which can be placed upon the judgment of critics upon
such questions, that he aud Ewald are at direct issue
as to the state in which the text of this book has been
bunded down to us. Ewald considers that it is pure
JOB
defined outline to which we are accustomed,
should be careful not to assume interpola
alterations (retouches) when we. meet with
of sequence which surprise us.’’ He then
that in parts of the work, ccksowieaail
critics to be by one hand, there are very str
stances of what Europeans might regard as
tion, or suspect of interpolation:¢ thus
recommences his argument four times; wl
courses of Job, which have distinct portior
as to modern critics might seem unconnect
even misplaced, are impressed with such a
ter of sublimity and force as to leave no dou
they are the product of a single inspiratio
this just and true observation it must be
that the assumed want of coherence and of
consistency is for the most part only appare
results from a radical difference in the n
thinking and enunciating thought between
Eastern and modern European.
Four parts of the book have been most g
attacked. Objections have been made to th
ductory and concluding chapters (1) on ace
the style. Of course there is an obvious a
ural difference between the prose of the n:
and the highly poetical language of the ec
Yet the best critics now acknowledge that t
of these portions is quite as antique in its
and severe grandeur as that of the Pen
itself (to which it bears a striking resemb.
or as any other part of this book, while |
strikingly unlike the narrative style of allt
productions of the Hebrews. Ewald sa,
perfect truth, ‘these prosaic words ha
thoroughly with the old poem in subject
and thoughts, in coloring and in art, alsc
guage, so far as prose can be like poetry.’
said again that the doctrinal views are not
mony ‘with those of Job. This is wholly uni
The fundamental principles of the patri
developed in the most solemn of his discou)
identical with those maintained through
book. The form of worship belongs essen
the early patriarchal type; with little of cel|
ritual, without a separate priesthood, thc
domestic in form and spirit. The repres
of the angels, and their appellation, ‘sons (
peculiar to this book and to Genesis, accord)
with the intimations in the earliest docun'
the Semitic race. It is moreover alleged tl
are discrepancies between the facts relate)
introduction, and statements or allusions
dialogue. But the apparent contradiction t
xix. 17 and the statement that all Job’s |
had perished, rests upon a misinterpretatio
words Pim 32, ‘children of my woml
‘sof the, womb that bare me’ — «my bri!
not “my children” (ef. iii. on indeed ‘
struction of the patriarch’s whole famil i
peatedly assumed in the dialogue (e. g. vill
5). Again, the omission of all referenct
—that the MSS. must have been very &¢7
verbal connection is accurate — and emendaP
necessary (see p. 66). M. Renan asserts, “ Ce
monument nous est parvenu, j’en suis persui’,
un état fort misérable et maculé en plus?
droits ”’ (p. Ix.). .
d Renan: “Le grand caractére du récit™
preuve de son ancienneté.”
e For a list of coincidences see Dr. Lee’ f
49,
7 JOB
of Satan in the last chapter is quite in ac-
ce with the grand simplicity of the poem
ttmann, pp- 39, 40). It was too obvious a
to need special notice, and it had in fact
complished by the steadfast faith of the
ch even before the discussions commenced.
usion to the agency of that spirit was to be
ed in the colloquy, since Job and his friends
presented as wholly ignorant of the transac-
n heaven. At present, indeed, it is generally
vledged @ that the entire work would be un-
rible without these portions.
strong objections are made to the passage
from ver. 7 to the end of the chapter. Here
scribes the ultimate fate of the godless hypo-
1) terms which some critics hold to be in di-
ntradiction to the whole tenor of his argu-
in other discourses. Dr. Kennicott, whose
1 is adopted by Eichhorn, Froude, and others,
iat, Owing to some confusion or omission in
S., the missing speech of Zophar has been
0 the mouth of Job. The fact of the con-
ion is denied by able writers, who have shown
; rests upon a misapprehension of the patri-
character and fundamental principles. He
en provoked, under circumstances of peculiar
ation, into statements which at the close of
cussion he would be anxious to guard or re-
was bound, having spoken so harshly, to
ize, what beyond doubt he never intended to
the general justice of divine dispensations
| this world. Moreover he intimates a belief
entiment of a future retribution, of which
ire no indications in any other speaker (see
\ The whole chapter is thoroughly coherent :
t part is admitted by all to belong to Job;
1 the rest be disjoined from it without in-
1 the sense. Ewald says, “only a grievous
‘erstanding of the whole book could have
the modern critics who hold that this pas-
‘interpolated or misplaced.’’ Other critics
yundantly vindicated the authenticity of the
» (Hahn, Schlottmann, ete.). As for the
i Renan, a most competent authority in a
of taste, declares that it is one of the finest
‘ments of the poem. It certainly differs ex-
‘ly in its breadth, loftiness, and devout spirit,
je speeches of Zophar, for whose silence sat-
y reasons have been already assigned (see
lysis).
‘he last two chapters of the address of the
‘ty have been rejected as interpolations by
of course rationalistic, writers (Stuhlmann,
tin, Eichhorn, Ewald, Meier); partly be-
if an alleged inferiority of style; partly as
fing any bearing upon the argument; but
‘ection of reasoning, involved, though, as
}9@ expected, not drawn out in this discourse,
}n shown in the preceding analysis; and as
| |) DS
tn, p. 13; Rosenmiiller, p. 46; Eichhorn,
1 Schlottmann, Renan, etc.
> Style du fragment dont nous parlons est celui
leurs endroitsdu poéme. Nulle part la coupe
‘U8 vigoureuse, le parallélisme plus sonore;
, due que ce singulier morceau est de la méme
i ais non pas du méme jet, que le reste du dis-
ol Jéhovah ” (p. L.).
3 tholdt, Gesenius, Schirer, Jahn, Umbreit,
: iller; and of course by moderate or orthodox
le Hiivernick, Ifabn, Stickel, Hengstenberg,
lottmann. Mr. Froude ventures, nevertheless,
hie
*t that this speech is now decisively pro-
JOB 1405
| for the style, few who have a true ear for the re-
sonant grandeur of ancient Hebrew poetry will dis-
sent from the judgment of E. Renan, whose sug-
gestion, that it may have been written by the same
author at a later date, is far from weakening the
force of his observation as to the identity of the style.
4. The speech of Elihu presents greater difli-
culties, and has been rejected by several rationalists,
whose opinion, however, is controverted not only
by orthodox writers, but by some of the most
skeptical commentators. The former support their
decision chiefly on the manifest, and to a certain
extent the real, difference between this and other
parts of the book in tone of thought, in doctrinal
views, and more positively in language and general
style. Much stress also is laid upon the facts that
Elihu is not mentioned in the introduction nor at
the end, and that his speech is unanswered by Job,
and unnoticed in the final address of the Almighty.
These points were observed by very early writers,
and were accounted for in various ways. -On the
one hand, Elihu was regarded as a specially inspired
person (Schlottmann, p. 53). In the Seder Olam
(a rabbinical system of chronology) he is reckoned
among the prophets who declared the will of God
to the Gentiles before the promulgation of the law.
S. Bar Nachman (12th century) notes his connec-
tion with the family of Abraham as a sign that he
was the fittest person to expound the ways of God.
The Greek Fathers generally follow Chrysostom in
attributing to him a superior intellect; while many
of the best critics of the two last centuries ¢ con-
sider that the true dialectic solution of the great
problems discussed in the book is to be found in his
discourse. On the other hand, Jerome,¢ who is
followed by Gregory,’ and many ancient as well as
modern writers of the Western Church, speak of
his character and arguments with singular con-
tempt. Later critics, chiefly rationalists,7 see in
him but an empty babbler, introduced only to
heighten by contrast the effect of the last solemn
and dignified discourse of Job. The alternative of
rejecting his speech as an interpolation was scarcely
less objectionable, and has been preferred by Stuhl-
mann, Bernstein, Ewald, Renan, and other writers
of similar opinions in our country. A candid and
searching examination, however, leads to a different
conclusion. It is proved (see Schlottmann, /inl.
p- 55) that there is a close internal connection be-
tween this and other parts of the book; there are
references to numerous passages in the discourses
of Job and his friends; so covert as only to be dis-
covered by close inquiry, yet, when pointed out, so
striking and natural as to leave no room for doubt.
Elihu supplies exactly what Job repeatedly demands
—a confutation of his opinions, not merely pro-
duced by an overwhelming display of divine power,
but by rational and human arguments, and pro-
ceeding from one, not like his other opponents
nounced by Hebrew scholars not to be genuine,’ anc
he disposes of the question in a short note (The Book
of Job, p. 24).
d Thus Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, and A. Schultens.
who speaks of his speech thus: ‘ Elihui moderatis-
sima illa quidem, sed tamen zelo Dei flagrantissima
redargutio, qua Jobum subtiliter non minus quam
graviter compescere aggreditur.”’
e The commentary on Job is not by Jerome, but
one of his disciples, and probably expresses his
thoughts.
J Moralia Magna, lib. xxviii. 1, 11.
g Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Umbreit.
1406 JOB
bigoted or hypocritical, but upright, candid, and
truthful (comp. xxxiii. 3 with vi. 24, 25). The
reasonings of Elihu are, moreover, such as are
needed for the development of the doctrines incul-
cated in the book, while thev are necessarily cast
in a form which could not withcut irreverence be as-
signed to the Almighty.* As to the objection that
the doctrinal system of Elihu is in some points
more advanced than that of Job or his friends, it
may be answered, first, that there are no traces in
this discourse of certain doctrines which were un-
doubtedly known at the earliest date to which those
critics would assign the interpolation; whereas it is
evident that if known they would have been ad-
duced as the very strongest arguments for a warn-
ing and consolation. No reader of the Psaims and
of the prophets could have failed to urge such topics
as the resurrection, the future judgment, and the
personal advent of Messiah. Secondly, the doc-
trinal system of Elihu differs rather in degree than
in kind: from that which has been either developed
or intimated in several passages of the work, and
consists chiefly in a specific application of the me-
diatorial theory, not unknown to Job, and in a
deeper appreciation of the love manifested in all
providential dispensations. It is quite consistent
with the plan of the writer, and with the admirable
skill shown in the arrangement of the whole work,
that the highest view as to the object of afflictions,
and to the source to which men should apply for
comfort and instruction, should be reserved for this,
which, so far as regards the human reasoners,? is
the culminating point of the discussion. Little can
be said for Lightfoot’s theory, that the whole work
was composed by Elihu; or for E. Renan’s con-
jecture that this discourse may have been composed
by the author in his old age;¢ yet these views
imply an unconscious impression that Elihu is the
fullest exponent of the truth. It is satisfactory to
know that two @ of the most impartial and discern-
ing critics, who unite in denying this to be an
original and integral portion of the work, fully
acknowledge its intrinsic excellence and beauty.
There is no difficulty in accounting for the omis-
sion of Elihu’s name in the introduction. No per-
sons are named in the book until they appear as
agents, or as otherwise concerned in the events.
Thus Job’s brethren are named incidentally in one
of his speeches, and his relatives are for the first
time in the concluding chapter. Had Elihu been
mentioned at first, we should of course have ex-
pected him to take part in the discussion, and the
impression made by his startling address would
have been lost. Job does not answer him, nor in-
deed could he deny the cogency of his argunients;
while this silence brings out a curious point of coin-
cidence with a previous declaration of the patriarch
(vi. 24, 25). Again, the discourse being substan-
tially true did not need correction, and is therefore
a See Schlottmann (/. c.). The reader will remem-
ber the just, though sarcastic, criticism of Pope on
Milton’s irreverence and bad taste.
b Hahn says of Elihu: “A young wise man, rep-
resenting all the intelligence of his age”’ (p. 5). Cf.
A. Schultens and Hengstenberg in Kitto’s Cycl. of
Bibl. Lit.
c Page lvii. This implies, at any rate, that in his
opinion there is no absolute incompatibility between
this and other parts of the book in point of style or
thougkt. ‘he conjecture is a striking instance of in-
ansistency in a very dogmatic writer.
ad Ewald and Renan. Ewald says: ‘“ The thoughts
c
JOB
left unnoticed in the final decision of the Aly
Nothing indeed could be more in harmo
the ancient traditions of the East than that,
moved by a special and supernatural iny
speak out God's truth in the presence of hi
should retire into obscurity when he had
work. More weight is to be attached to th
tion resting upon diversity of style, and |
peculiarities. The most acute critics diffe
in their estimate of both, and are often
deceived (see Schlottmann, p. 61), still th
be little doubt as to the fact. It may be ae
for either on the supposition that the aut
hered strictly to the form in which tradition
down the dialogue; in which case the spe
Syrian might be expected to bear traces of
lect: or that the Chaldaic forms and idiom:
are far from resembling later vulgarisms or
tions of Hebrew, and occur only in highl
passages of the oldest writers, are such 2
liarly suit the style of the young and fiery
(see Schlottmann, Linl. p. 61). It has b
served, and with apparent truth, that the di
of the other interlocutors have each a very
and characteristic coloring, shown not onl
general tone of thought, but in peculiar
expression (Ewald and Schlottmann). Th
sive obscurity of the style, which is uni
admitted, may be accounted for in a simil
ner. A young man speaking under strong
ment, embarrassed by the presence of his
and by the peculiar responsibility of his ;
might be expected to use language obsei
repetitions; and, though ingenious and ti
somewhat intricate and imperfectly develop:
ments; such as in fact present great diffic
the exegesis of this portion of the book.
IIL. Historical Character of the Work. -
distinct theories have been maintained at
times — some believing the book to be stri
torical; others a religious fiction; others a ¢
tion based upon facts. Until a comparati
time the prevalent opinion was, not only
persons and events which it describes are |
that the very words of the speakers were ac
recorded. It was supposed either that Job
employed the latter years of his life in w|
(A. Schultens), or that at a very early a;
inspired Hebrew collected the facts and |
faithfully preserved by oral tradition, and p:
them to his countrymen in their own tong)
some the authorship of the work was attri!
Moses; by others it was believed (and thi)
has lately been sustained with much ingt
that Moses became acquainted with the do
during his residence in Midian, and that 1!
the introductory and concluding chapters.
The fact of Job’s existence, and the a
truth of the narrative, were not likely to b
a ee
in this speech are in themselves exceedingly :
true, conceived with greater depth, and preset
more force than in the rest of the book” m
e This seems a sufficient answer to an -
more likely to occur to a modern European
Hebrew.
f Stickel supposes that the Aramaic for
intentionally introduced by the author on at
the Syrian descent of Elihu.
g By Dr. Lee; see his Introduction. He
thus for the use of the name 7717), found, |
exception, only in these chapters.
a!
aa
‘ia
‘-)
; JOB
febrews or Christians, considering the terms
hich the patriarch is named in the 14th of Eze-
and in the Epistle of St. James (ver. 11). It
ed to early writers incompatible with any idea
spiration to assume that a narrative, certainly
llegorical, should be a mere fiction; and irrev-
; to suppose that the Almighty would be in-
aced as a speaker in an imaginary colloquy.
1e Bast numerous traditions (Ewald, pp. 17, 18;
D’Herbelot, s. v. Ayoub) about the patriarch
his family show the deep impression made by
haracter and calamities: these traditions may
bly have been derived from the book itself;
it is at least equally probable that they had an
pendent origin. We are led to the same con-
on by the soundest principles of criticism.
ld says (Linl. p. 15) most truly, ‘* The inven-
of a history without foundation in facts — the
tion of a person, represented as having a real
rical existence, out of the mere head of the
—is a notion so entirely alien to the spirit of
intiquity, that it only began to develop itself
ually in the latest epoch of the literature of
ancient people, and in its complete form belongs
to the most modern times.’’ In the canonical
s there is not a trace of any such invention.
ll people the Hebrews were the least likely to
rle the mere creations of imagination with the
ad records reverenced as the peculiar glory of
race.
his principle is corroborated by special argu-
ts. It is, to say the least, highly improbable
‘a Hebrew, had he invented such a character
iat of Job, should have represented him as be-
ing to a race which, though descended from
mmmon ancestor, was never on friendly, and
rally on hostile, terms with his own people.
the residence of Job, is in no way associated
Israelitish history, and, apart from the patri-
’s own history, would have no interest for a
rew. The names of most persons introduced
no meaning connected with the part attribu-
to them in the narrative. The name of Job
elf is but an apparent exception. According
ost critics as is derived from 2°8, infen-
Suit, and means “cruelly or hostilely treated; ’’
rding to others (Ewald and Rosenmiiller) of
authority it may signify ‘a true penitent,”
S
=
oF
ently with reference to his name, in the Koran
}». 88, 44). In either case the name would give
/& very partial view, and would indeed fail to
ssent the central principle® of the patriarch’s
Vie character. It is moreover far from improb-
| that the name previously borne by the hero
‘have been changed in commemoration of the
) A fictitious name would of course have meant
¥i the ancients supposed that Job must signify.
®B dvoua dromovy voeirar, Kal eat, ws yeverOat
(Vv 0 mpocKAnOy, } KAyOAvaL Omep éyévero, Didymus
and. col. 1120, ed. Migne.
This is assumed by all the critics who believe the
ls of the work to be a pure creation of the poet.
| has represented the simple relations of patri-
ul life, and sustained the assumed character of a
1 Arabian chieftain of a nomad tribe, with the
est truthfulness.” ({lahn.) Thus Ewald, Schlott-
4, ete., p. 70.
Both races probably dwelt near the land of Uz.
Sosenm. ProJl. pp. 30, 31.
at
ie
JOB 1407
event. Such was the case with Abraham, Jaccb,
Joshua, and in all probability with many other his-
torical personages in the Old Testament. It is
worth noting, without laying much stress upon the
fact, that in a notice appended to the Alexandrian
yersion it is stated, “‘ he bore previously the name
of Jobab;’’ and that a tradition adopted by the
Jews and some Christian Fathers, identifies Job
with Jobab, prince of Edom, mentioned in Gen.
xxxvi. 33. Moreover a coincidence between the
name and the character or history of a real person
is not uncommon in any age. To this it is objected
that the resemblance in Greek does not exist in the
Hebrew —a strange assertion: 2S and I2VY
are certainly not much less alike than ’1é8 and
IwBaB.
To this it must be added that there is a singular
air of reality in the whole narrative, such as must
either proceed naturally from a faithful adherence
to objective truth, or be the result of the most con-
summate art. ‘The effect is produced partly by
the thorough consistency of all the characters,
especially that of Job, not merely as drawn in
broad strong outlines, but as developed under a
variety of most trying circumstances: partly also
by the minute and accurate account of incidents
which in a fiction would probably have been noted
by an ancient writer in a vague and general man-
ner. ‘Thus we remark the mode in which the
supernatural trial is carried into execution by nat-
ural agencies — by Chaldzean and Sabean © robbers
— by whirlwinds common in and peculiar to the
desert — by fire—and lastly by the elephantiasis
(see Schlottmann, p. 15; Ewald, /. c.; and Heng-
stenberg), the most formidable disease known in
the East. The disease was indeed one which the
Indians “ and most Orientals then probably believed
to be peculiarly indicative of divine wrath, and
would therefore be naturally selected by the writer
(see the analysis above). But the symptoms are
descr:bed so faithfully as to leave no doubt that
the writer must either have introduced them with
a view of giving an air of truthfulness to his work,
or haye recorded what he himself witnessed, or
received from an exact tradition. The former sup-
position is confuted by the fact that the peculiar
symptoms are not described in any one single pas-
sage so as to attract the reader’s attention, but are
made out by a critical and scientific examination
of words occurring here and there at intervals in
the complaints of the sufferer.¢ The most refined
art fails in producing such a result: it is rarely
attempted in the most artificial ages; was never
dreamed of by ancient writers, and must here be
regarded as a strong instance of the undesigned
coincidences which the soundest criticism regards
as the best evidence of genuineness and authen-
ticity in any work.
d Thus Origen, c. Cels. vi. 5, 2; Abulfeda, Hist.
Anteis!. \ 5, p. 27, ed. Fleischer,
1 O90s prs: ; :
i. e. his body was smitten with elephantiasis (the
S
- 3
old>) and eaten by worms. The disease is de-
scribed by Ainslie, Transactions R. S., and Bruce.
See Ewald, p. 23.
e Ch. ii. 7,33; vii. 5,18; xvi. 8; xix. 17, 20; xxx.
18; and other passages. See the valuable remarks
of Ewald, p. 22.
1408 JOB
Forcible as these arguments may appear, many
critics have adopted the opinion either that the
whole work is a moral or religious apologue, or
that, upon a substratum of a few rudimental facts
preserved by tradition, the genius of an original
thinker has raised this, the most remarkable mon-
ument of the Semitic mind. The first indications
of this opinion are found in the Talmud (Baba
Bathra, 14-16). In a discussion upon the age of
this book, while the Rabbins in general maintain
its historical character, Samuel Bar Nachman de-
clares hts conviction “Job did not exist, and was
not a created man, but the work is a parable.’’4
Hai Gaon,? a. D. 1000, who is followed by Jarchi,
alters this passage to “‘ Job existed and was created
to become a parable.”” They had evidently no crit-
ical ground for the change, but bore witness to the
prevalent tradition of the Hebrews. Maimonides
(Moreh Nevochim, iii. 22), with his characteristic
freedom of mind, considers it an open question of
little or no moment to the real value of the inspired
book. Ralbag, 7. e. R. Levi Ben Gershom, treats
it as a philosophic work. A late Hebrew commen-
tator, Simcha Arieh (Schlottmann, p. 4), denies
the historical truth of the narrative, on the ground
that it is incredible the patriarchs of the chosen
race should be surpassed in goodness by a child of
Edom. This is worth noting in corroboration of the
argument that such a fact was not likely to have
been invented by an Israelite of any age.¢
Luther first suggested the theory which, in some
form or other, is now most generally received. In
his introduction to the first edition of his transla-
tion of the Bible, he speaks of the author as having
so treated the historical facts as to demonstrate the
truth that God alone is righteous —and in the
Tischreden (ed. Walch, tom. xxii. p. 2093), he says,
‘‘T look upon the book of Job as a true history, yet
I do not believe that all took place just as it is
written, but that an ingenious, pious, and learned
man brought it into its present form.’? This po-
sition was strongly attacked by Bellarmin, and other
Roman theologians, and was afterwards repudiated
by most Lutherans. The fact that Spinoza, Cler-
icus [Le Clerc], Du Pin, and Father Simon, held
nearly the same opinion, the first denying, and the
others notoriously holding low views of the inspira-
tion of Scripture, had of course a tendency to bring
it into disrepute. J. D. Michaelis first revived the
old theory of Bar Nachman, not upon critical but
dogmatic grounds. In a mere history, the opinions
or doctrines enounced by Job and his friends could
have no dogmatic authority; whereas if the whole
book were a pure inspiration, the strongest argu-
ments could be deduced from them on behalf of the
great truths of the resurrection and a future judg-
ment, which, though implied in other early books,
are nowhere so distinctly inculcated. The arbitrary
character of such reasoning is obvious. At present
no critic doubts that the narrative rests on facts,
although the prevalent opinion among continental
scholars is certainly that in its form and general
° Swi SYS NII ND) TT NY? APS
rll. Mashal has a much wider signification than
parable, or any English synonym.
6 Ewald and Dukes's Bettrage, iii. 165.
c¢ Theodorus of Mopsuestia stands alone in denying
the inspiration, while he admits the historical char-
acter of the book, which he asserted, in a passage
condemned at the second Council of Constantinople,
to be replete with statements derogatory to God, and |
JOB
features, in its reasonings and representatic
character, the book is a work of creative gen
The question, however, cannot be settle
indeed thoroughly understood, without refere
other arguments by which critics have ende;
to determine the date at which the work was
pleted in its present form, and the circums
under which it was composed. We proceed,
fore, to consider —
IV. The probable Age, Country, and Posit
the Author.— The language alone does not, as
have asserted, supply any decisive test as to th
of the composition. Critics of the last centur
erally adopted the opinion of A. Schultens (.
ad librum Jobi), who considered that the indie
of external influences were best accounted f
the supposition that the book was written at :
early period, before the different branches ¢
Semitic race had completely formed their di
dialects. The fact that the language of this
approaches far more nearly to the Arabic tha
other Hebrew production was remarked by Ji
and is recognized by the soundest critics. 0
other hand, there are undoubtedly many Ar:
words,¢ and grammatical forms, which some ,
have regarded as a strong proof that the w
must have lived during, or even after the Capt
At present this hypothesis is universally give
as untenable. It is proved (Ewald, Renan, Se
mann, and Kosegarten) that there is a radica
ference between the Aramaisms of the later H
writings and those found in the book of Job. |
latter are, without an exception, such as cl
terize the antique and highly poetic style;
occur in parts of the Pentateuch, in the So
Deborah, in the earliest Psalms, and the So
Solomon, all of which are now admitted ev
the ablest rationalistic critics to be among th
liest and purest productions of Hebrew litera|
So far as any argument can be drawn from i
atic peculiarities, it may be regarded as a 8
point that the book was written long befor
exile (see some good observations by Have
l. c.); while there is absolutely nothing to pi!
later date than the Pentateuch, or eyen those
of the Pentateuch which appear to belong t
patriarchal age.
This impression is borne out by the style.
critics have recognized its grand archaic char
Firm, compact, sonorous as the ring of a}
metal, severe and at times rugged, yet alway!)
nified and majestic, the language belongs oe
to a period when thought was slow, but pro
and intensely concentrated, when the weight}
oracular sayings of the wise were wont to bi
graved upon rocks with a pen of iron and in |
acters of molten lead (see xix. 24). It ist
lapidary style, such as was natural only in a
when writing, though known, was rarely used, |
language had acquired clearness, fluency, an¢'
ibility, but lost much of its freshness and 1)
force. Much stress has been laid upon thi
such as could only proceed from a yain and igi’
heathen. Aben Hzra, among the Jews, maintain't
same opinion. i
d A list is given by Lee, p. 50. See also Have“
Introd. to O. T. p. 176, Eng. Trans.
é Renan’s good taste and candor here, as ces
neutralize his rationalistic tendency. In the H?)
des Langues Sémitiques, ed. 1857, he held that
Aramaisms indicate a very late date; in the
to Job he has adopted the opinion here express?
7
bony
a
JOB
the hook bears a closer resemblance to the
rbs of Solomon than to any other Hebrew
(see especially Rosenmiiller, Proll. p. 38).
is true to a remarkable extent with regard to
houghts, words, and forms of expression, while
etre, which is somewhat peculiar and strongly
ed,@ is almost identical. Hence it has been
ed that the composition belongs to the Solo-
an era, or to the period between Solomon and
kiah, by whose orders, as we are expressly in-
il, a great part of the book of Proverbs was
iled. But the argument loses much of its
when we consider that Solomon did not merely
t the proverbs, but collected the most ancient
urious sayings of olden times, not only of the
2ws, but probably of other nations with whom
id extensive intercourse, and in whose philos-
he is supposed, not without good reason, to
taken deep interest, even to the detriment of
ligious principles (see Renan’s Job, p. xxiii.);
those proverbs which he invented himself
asa matter of course be cast in the same
val form and take an archaic character.
i, there can be little doubt that the passages
ich the resemblance is most complete and
dg, were taken from one book by the author
» other, and adapted, according to a Hebrew
common among the prophets, to the special
ses of his work. On comparing these pas-
it seems impossible to deny that they be-
| in the first instance to the book of Job,?
they are in thorough harmony with the
of the argument, and have all the character-
‘of the author’s genius. Taking the resem-
as a fact, we are entitled to conclude that
ve in Job a composition not later than the
neient proverbs, and certainly of much earlier
han the entire book.
‘extent to which the influence of this book
‘eptible in the later literature of the Hebrews
bject of great interest and importance; but
not yet been thoroughly investigated. Hii-
«has a few good remarks in his general Jn-
tion to the Old Testament, § 30. Dr. Lee
7. section vii.) has led the way to a more
te and searching inquiry by a close examina-
‘five chapters, in which he produces a vast
T of parallel passages from the Pentateuch
_he holds to be contemporary with the Intro-
‘1, and of a later date than the rest of the
from Ruth, Samuel, the Psalms, Proverbs,
jastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel,
| Micah, and Nahum, all of which are probably,
/ne of them demonstrably, copied from Job.
a
ch verse, with very few exceptions, consists of
Tallel members, and each member of three
When that number is exceeded, it is owing to
‘ticles or subordinate words, which are almost
" 80 combined as to leave only three tones in
amber (Schlottmann, p. 68).
'Rosenmiiller, Proll, p. 40. Even Renan, who
that Job was written after the time of Solo-
‘ds that the description of Wisdom (ch. xxviii.)
/ "isimal source of the idea which we find in
8 (chs. yiii., ix.).
Some excellent remarks by Renan, p. xxxvii.
°Makamat of Hariri, and the life of Timour
shah, in Arabic, the works of Lycophron in
/are good examples. Somewhat of this char-
4Y perhaps be found in the last chapters of
‘tes, while it is conspicuous in the apocryphal
f Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch. In-
89
1
JOB 1409
Considerable weight must also be attached to
the fact that Job is far more remarkable for obscu-
rity than any Hebrew writing.¢ There is an ob-
security which results from confusion of thought,
from carelessness and inaccuracy, or from studied
involutions and artificial combination of metaphors
indicating a late age. But when it is owing to
obsolete words, intense concentration of thought
and language, and incidental allusions to long-for-
gotten traditions, it is an all but infallible proof of
primeval antiquity. Such are precisely the diffi-
culties in this book. The enormous mass of notes
which a reader must wade through, before he can
feel .himself competent to decide upon the most
probable interpretation of a single chapter, proves
that this book stands apart from all other produc-
tions of the Hebrews, belongs to a different epoch,
and, in accordance with the surest canons of crit-
icism, to an earlier age.
We arrive at the same conclusion from consider-
ing the institutions, manners, and historical facts
described or alluded to in this book. It must be
borne in mind that no ancient writer ever succeeded
in reproducing the manners of a past age;/ to use
the words of M. Renan, “antiquity had not an
idea of what we call local coloring.’’ The attempt
was never made by any Hebrew; and the age of
any writer can be positively determined when we
know the date of the institutions and customs which
he describes. Again it is to the last degree improb-
able (being without a precedent or parallel) that an
ancient author9 should intentionally and success-
fully avoid all reference to historical occurrences,
and to changes in religious forms or doctrines of a
date posterior to that of the events which he nar-
rates. These points are now generally recognized,
but they have rarely been applied with consistency
and candor by commentators on this book.
In the first place it is distinctly admitted that
from the beginning to the end no reference what-
ever is made to the Mosaic law, or to any of the
peculiar institutions of Israel,” or to the great car-
dinal events of the national history after the Ex-
odus. It cannot be proved that such reference
was unlikely to occur in connection with the argu-
ment. The sanctions and penalties of the Law, if
known, could scarcely haye been passed over by the
opponents of Job, while the deliverance of Israel
‘and the overthrow of the Egyptians supplied ex-
actly the examples which they required in order to
silence the complaints and answer the arguments
of Job. The force of this argument is not affected
by the answer that other books written long after
the establishment of the Mosaic ritual contain few
stances in our own literature will occur to every
reader.
€ The amraé Acyoueva, and passages of which the
interpretation is wholly a matter of conjecture, far
surpass those of any portion of the O. T.
J This is true of the Greek dramatists, and of the
greatest original writers of our own, and indeed of
every country before the 18th century.
9 In fact, scarcely one work of fiction exists in
which a searching criticism does not detect anachron-
isms or inconsistencies.
h See Renan, p. xvi. It should be noted that even
the word Sod 11, sO common in every other book,
especially in those of the post-Davidic age, occurs only
once in Job (xxii. 22), and then not in the special or
technical signification of a received code.
i See, on the other side, Pareau ap. Rosenm.
1410 JOB
or no allusions to those institutions or events. The
statement is inaccurate. In each of the books spe-
cified ¢ there are abundant traces of the Law. It
was not to be expected that a complete view of the
Levitical rites, or of historical facts unconnected
with the subject-matter of those works, could be
derived from them; but they abound in allusions
to ‘customs and notions peculiar to the Hebrews
trained under the Law, to the services of the Tab-
ernacle or Temple, and they all recognize most dis-
tinctly the existence of a sacerdotal system, whereas
our author ignores, and therefore, as we may rea-
sonably conclude, was unacquainted with any forms
of religious service, save those of the patriarchal age.
Ewald, whose judgment in this case will not be
questioned,? asserts very positively that in all the
descriptions of manners and customs, domestic,
social, and political, and even in the indirect allu-
sions and illustrations, the genuine coloring of the
age of Job, that is of the period between Abraham
and Moses, is very faithfully observed; that all his-
torical examples and allusions are taken exclusively
from patriarchal times, and that there is a com-
plete and successful avoidance of direct reference to
later occurrences,¢ which in his opinion may have
been known to the writer. All critics concur in
extolling the fresh, antique simplicity of manners
described in this book, the genuine air of the wild,
free, vigorous life of the desert, the stamp of hoar
antiquity, and the thorough consistency in the
development of characters, equally remarkable for
originality and force. There is an absolute con-
trast between the manners, thoughts, and feelings,
and those which characterized the Israelites during
the monarchical period; while whatever difference
exists between the customs of the older patriarchs
as described in Genesis and those of Job’s family
and associates, is accounted for by the progress of
events in the intervening period. The chieftain
lives in considerable splendor and dignity; menial
offices, such as commonly devolved upon the elder
patriarchs and their children, are now performed
by servants, between whom and the family the dis-
tinction appears to be more strongly marked. Job
visits the city frequently, and is there received with
high respect as a prince, judge, and distinguished
warrior (xxix. 7-9). There are allusions to courts
of judicature, written indictments,“ and regular
forms of procedure (xiii. 26, and xxxi. 28). Men
had begun to observe and reason upon the phe-
nomena of nature, and astronomical observations
were connected with curious speculations upon
primeval traditions. We read (xx. 15, xxiii. 10,
xxvii. 16, 17, xxviii. 1-21) of mining operations,
creat buildings, ruined sepulchres, perhaps even of
sculptured figures of the dead,’ and there are
aM. Renan says: “On s’étonnait de ne trouver
dans le livre de Job aucune trace des prescriptions
mosaiques. Mais on n’en trouve pas davantage dans
le livre des Proverbes, dans Vhistoire des Juges et des
premiers Rois, et en général dans les écrivains anté-
rieurs 4 la derniére époque du royaume de Juda.”
It must be remembered that this writer denies the
authenticity of the Pentateuch.
b Einleitung, p. 57. M. Renan, Hahn, Schlott-
mann, and other critics, agree fully with this opinion.
ce The entire disappearance of the bushmen (Job
xxx. 4-7) belongs to a very early age. Ewald supposes
them to have been descendants of the Horites; and
Schlottmann (p. 15) observes, truly, that the writer
must have known them from his own observation.
This throws us of course back to the Mosaic age.
JOB
throughout copious allusions to the natural
ductions and the arts of Egypt. Great revoh
had occurred within the time of the writer; n
once independent had been overthrown, and
races reduced to a state of misery and degrad
All this might be expected, even supposin
work to have been written before or near the
of the Exodus. The communications with |
were frequent, and indeed uninterrupted durir
patriarchal age, and in that country each o
the customs upon which most reliance is pla
indicating a later date is now proved to have
common long before the age of Moses (see Le
Schlottmann, p. 107). Moreover, there is suf
reason to believe that under favorable circumst
a descendant of Abraham, who was himself a
rior, and accustomed to meet princes on ter
equality, would at a very early age acquir
habits, position, and knowledge which we adm
Job. He was the head of a great family, su
ful in war, prosperous in peace, supplied abune
with the necessaries of life, and enjoying ma
its luxuries; he lived near the great cities
Euphrates’ and Tigris, and on the route «
caravans which at the remotest periods exeh:
the productions of Egypt and the far Kast, an
therefore abundant opportunities of procurir
formation from those merchants, supposing tl
did not himself visit a country so full of inter
a thoughtful mind.
Such a progress in civilization may or ma
be admitted by historical critics to be pr
within the limits of time thus indicated, b
positive historical fact or allusion can be pro
from the book to prove that it could not have
written before the time of Moses. ‘The sing
jection (Renan, p. 40) which presents any dif
is the mention of the Chaldeeans in the introd)
chapter. It is certain that they appear fi
Hebrew history about the year B. c. 770. B.
name of Chesed, the ancestor of the race, is
in the genealogical table in Genesis (xxi.
fact quite sufficient to prove the early existe!
the people as a separate tribe. It is highly
able that an ancient race bearing that na
Curdistan (see Xenoph. Cyr. iii. 1, § 84; |
iv. 8, § 4. v. 5, § 17) was the original source
nation, who were there trained in predatory !
and accustomed, long before their appearai
history, to make excursions into the neigh|
deserts: 9 a view quite in harmony with th
assigned to them in this book.
The arguments which have induced the ge
of modern critics to assign a later date to thi:
notwithstanding their concurrence in most
points and principles which we have just cons)
a
d Known in Egypt at an early period (Diod'
p. 75).
e Oh. xxi. 32. The interpretation is very dc’
Ff The remarkable treatise by Chwolsohn,
Ueberreste der Babylonischen Literatur m Arch
Uebersetzungen, proves an advance in menta?
vation in those regions at a far earlier agt
than sufficient to answer every objection of t
ture.
g This is now generally admitted. See M.?
Histoire Générale des Langues Sémitiques, &-
p. 56. He says truly that they were “ redout
tout Orient pour leurs brigandages” (p. 6
also Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier, vol. i. p. 812. U
Chaldeans was undoubtedly so named becaus
founded or occupied by that people.
—
JOB
e reduced to two heads, which we will now
ne separately : —
We are told that the doctrinal system is con-
bly in advance of the Mosaic; in fact that it
result of a recoil from the stern, narrow dog-
Here of course there
e no common ground between those who
and those who secretly or openly deny the
ticity and inspiration of the Mosaic writings.
ven rationalistic criticism cannot show, what
confidently assumes, that there is a demon-
difference in any essential point between the
les recognized in Genesis and those of our
The absence of all recognition of the
views and institutions first introduced or
ged in the Law has been already shown to be
dence of an earlier date —all that is really
is that the elementary truths of primeval
ion are represented, and their consequences
ed under a great variety of striking and
1 forms —a fact sufficiently accounted for by
thly thoughtful character of the book, and
loubted genius of the writer (comp. Job x.
iii, 19; Isa. xxvii. 38; Gen. ii. 7, vii. 22;
li. 15, 16, with the account of the deluge).
esis and in this work we have the same
y; the attributes of the Godhead are iden-
‘Man is represented in all his strength and
is weakness, glorious in capacities, but infirm
n of the Pentateuch.
pure in his actual condition, with a soul and
llied to the eternal, but with a physical con-
a framed from the dust to which it must
The writer of Job knows just so much of
‘of Adam and the early events of man’s his-
cluding the deluge (xxii. 15, 16), as was
) be preserved by tradition in all the families
ed from Shem. And with reference to those
nwhich a real progress was made by the
8 after the time of Moses, the position from
ais writer starts is precisely that of the law-
One great problem of the book is the recon-
of unmerited suffering with the love and
ofGod. In the prophets and psalms the
‘is repeatedly discussed, and receives, if not
ete, yet a substantially satisfactory settle-
connection with the great doctrines of
‘s kingdom, priesthood, sufferings, and sec-
ont, involving the resurrection and a future
at. In the book of Job, as it has been
‘here is no indication that the question had
y been raised. The answers given to it
| ntly elicited by the discussions. Even in
curse of Elihu, in which the nearest ap-
othe full development of the true theory
ential dispensations is admitted to be found,
*h indeed for that very reason has been
of interpolation, there is no sign that the
iew those characteristics of Messiah which
time of David were continually present to
| of the Israelites.
i it is said that the representation of angels,
More specially of Satan, belongs to a later
“Some have even asserted that the notion
ve been derived from Persian or Assyrian
Nea de
Nie epoch of the Achemenide.
ena, p. xxxix, This was previously pointed
Y order,
Hee (Introduction to Job, p. 18) observes that
Satan is not named in Genesis, yet the char-
‘ch that name implies is clearly intimated
nds, 1 will put enmity (TTS) between
JOB 1411
mythology. That hypothesis is now generally re-
jected —on the one hand it would fix a far later
date for the composition than any critic of the
least authority would now assign to the book; on
the other it is proved > that Satan bears no resem-
blance to Ahriman; he acts only by permission
from God, and differs from the angels not in essence
but in character. It is true that Satan is not
named in the Pentateuch, but there is an exact
correspondence between the characteristics of the
malignant and envious accuser in this book and
those of the enemy of man and God, which are
developed in the history of the Fall.c The appella-
tion of “sons of God ’’ is peculiar to this book and
that of Genesis. .
It is also to be remarked that no charge of idol-
atry is brought against Job by his opponents when
enumerating all the crimes which they can imagine
to account for his calamities. The only allusion
to the subject (xxxi. 26) refers to the earliest form
of false religion known in the East.¢ To an Israelite,
living after the introduction of heathen rites, such
a charge was the very first which would have sug-
gested itself, nor can any one satisfactory reason be
assigned for the omission.
2. Nearly all modern critics, even those who
admit the inspiration of the author, agree in the
opinion that the composition of the whole work, the
highly systematic development of the plot, and the
philosophic tone of thought indicate a considerable
progress in mental cultivation far beyond what can,
with any show of probability, be supposed to have
existed before the age of Solomon. We are told
indeed that such topics as are here introduced occu-
pied men’s minds for the first time when schools
of philosophy were formed under the influence of
that prince. Such assertions are easily made, and
resting on no tangible grounds, they are not easily
disproved. It should, however, be remarked that
the persons introduced in this book belong to a
country celebrated for wisdom in the earliest times:
insomuch that the writer who speaks of those
schools considers that the peculiarities of the Sol-
omonian writings were derived from intercourse
with its inhabitants (Renan, pp. xxiii.-xxv.). The
book of Job differs from those writings chiefly in
its greater earnestness, vehemence of feeling, vivacity
of imagination, and free independent inquiry into
the principles of divine government; characteristics
as it would seem of a primitive race, acquainted
only with the patriarchal form of religion, rather
than of a scholastic age. There is indeed nothing
in the composition incompatible with the Mosaic
age, admitting (what all rationalistie eritices who
assign a later date to this book deny) the authen-
ticity and integrity of the Pentateuch.
We should attach more weight to the argument
derived from the admirable arrangement of the
entire book (Schlottmann, p. 108), did we not
remember how completely the same course of
reasoning misled the acutest critics in the case of
the Homeric poems. There is a kind of artifice in
style and arrangement of a subject which is at once
recognized as an infallible indication of a highly
thee and him.’? The connection between this word
and the name of Job is perhaps more than an acci-
dental coincidence.
d The worship of the moon was introduced into
Mesopotamia, probably in the earliest age, by the
Aryans See Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier, i. p. 313.
1D JOB
cultivated or declining literature. This, however,
differs essentially from the harmonious and majestic
simplicity of form, and the natural development of
a great thought which characterize the first grand
productions of genius in every nation, and produce
so powerful an impression of reality as well as of
grandeur in every unprejudiced reader of the book
of Job.
These considerations lead of course to the con-
clusion that the book must, have been written before
the promulgation of the Law, by one speaking the
Hebrew language, and thoroughly conversant with
the traditions preserved in the family of Abraham.
Whether the writer had access to original docu-
ments @ or not is mere matter of conjecture; but it
can scarcely be doubted that he adhered very closely
to the accounts, whether oral or written, which he
received.
It would be a waste of time to consider the ar-
guments of those who hold that the writer lived
near the time of the Captivity — that view is now
all but universally repudiated: but one hypothesis
which has been lately brought forward (by Stickel,
who is followed by Schlottmann), and supported
by very ingenious arguments, deserves a more spe-
cial notice. It meets some of the objections which
have been here adduced to the prevalent opinion of
modern critics, who maintain that the writer must
have lived at a period when the Hebrew language
and literature had attained their full development;
while it accounts in a satisfactory manner for some
of the most striking peculiarities of the book. That
supposition is, that Job may have been written after
the settlement of the Israelites by a dweller in the
south of Judea, in a district immediately bordering
upon the Idumean desert. The inhabitants of that
district were to a considerable extent isolated from
the rest of the nation: their attendance at the fes-
tivals and ordinances of the Tabernacle and of the
Temple before the time of the later kings was prob-
ably rare and irregular, if it were not altogether
interrupted during a long period. In that case it
would be natural that the author, while recognizing
and enforcing the fundamental principles of religion,
should be sparing in allusions to the sanctions or
observances of the Law.
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
€y») at the
Jubilee. But Maimonides and Bartenora say that
rams’ horns were used on both occasions (Rosh Ha-
shana, p. 342, edit. Suren.). Bochart and others have
justly objected that the horns of rams, or those of
wild goats, would form but sorry trumpets. [CoRNET.]
It is probable that on this, as on other occasions
of public proclamation, the trumpets were blown by
the priests, in accordance with Num. x. 8. (See
Kranold, Comment. de Jubil@o, p. 50; with whom
agree Ewald, Bahr, and most modern writers.) Bahr
supposes that, at the proclamation of the Jubilee, the
trumpets were blown in all the priests’ cities and
wherever a priest might be living ; while, on the Feast
of Trumpets, they were blown only in the Temple.
Maimonides says that every Hebrew at the Jubilee
blew nine blasts, so as to make the trumpet literally
* sound throughout the land” (Ley. xxv. 9). Sucha
usage may have existed, as a mere popular expression
of rejoicing, but it could have been no essential part
of the ceremony.
d Tt would seem that the Israelites never parted
with their land except from the pressure of poverty.
The objection of Naboth to accept the offer of Ahab
(1 K. xxi. 1), appears to exemplify the sturdy feeling
of a substantial Hebrew, who would have felt it to be
ashame and asin to give up any part of his patri-
mony —‘* The Lord forbid it me that I should give
the inheritance of my fathers to thee.” If Michaelis
had felt as most Englishmen do in such matters, he
would have had more respect for the conduct of Na-
both. (See Comment. on the Mosaic Law, art. 73.)
But the conduct of Naboth has been questioned on
different ground in a dissertation by 8. Andreas, in the
Critict Sacri, vol. xiii. p. 608.
1484 JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF
systematically made on account of the number of
sabbatical years, which would deprive the purchaser
of certain crops within that period.
(b.) The possession of the field could, at any time,
be recovered by the_original proprietor, if his cir-
cumstances improved, or by his next of kin ® (Od,
i. e. one who redeems). The price to be paid for
its redemption was to be fixed according to the
same equitable rule as the price at which it had
been purchased (ver. 16).
(c.) Houses in walled cities © were not subject to
the law of Jubilee, but a man who sold his house
could redeem it at any time within a full year of
the time of its sale. After that year, it became the
absolute property of the purchaser.
(d.) Houses and buildings in villages, or in the
country, being regarded as essentially connected
with the cultivation of the land, were not excepted,
but returned in the Jubilee with the land on which
they stood.
(e.) The Levitical cities were not, in respect to
this law, reckoned with walled towns. If a Levite
sold the use of his house, it reverted to him in the
Jubilee, and he might redeem it at any previous
time. The lands in the suburbs of the Levites’
cities could not be parted with under any condition,
and were not therefore affected by the law of Jubilee
(ver. 34).
(f.) Ifa man had sanctified a field of his patri-
mony unto the Lord, it could be redeemed at any
time before the next year of Jubilee, on his paying
one fifth in addition to the worth of the crops,
rated at a stated valuation (Lev. xxvii. 19). If not
so redeemed, it became, at the Jubilee, devoted for
ever. Ifthe man had previously sold the usufruct
of the field to another, he lost all right to redeem
it (vv. 20, 21).
(g.) If he who had purchased the usufruct of a
field sanctified it, he could redeem it till the next
Jubilee, that is, as long as his claim lasted; but it
then, as justice required, returned to the original
proprietor (ver. 22-24).
3. All Israelites who had become bondmen, either
to their countrymen, or to resident foreigners, were
set free in the Jubilee (Lev. xxv. 40, 41), when it
happened to occur before their seventh year of servi-
tude, in which they became free by the operation
of another law (Ex. xxi. 2). Those who were bound
to resident foreigners might redeem themselves, if
they obtained the means, at any time; or they
might be redeemed by a relation. Even the bond-
man who had submitted to the ceremony of having
his ears bored (Ex. xxi. 6) had his freedom at the
Jubilee.¢
Such was the law of the year of Jubilee, as it is
given in the Pentateuch. It was, of course, like
the law of the sabbatical year, and that of those
rites of the great festivals which pertain to agricul-
a This must be the meaning of the price being cal-
culated on “the years of fruits,” TSI IW
(Lev. xxv. 15, 16), the years of tillage, «-.clusive of the
years of rest.
b Kranold observes (p. 54) tha. there is no record
of the goel ever exercising his right till after the death
of him who had sold the field. But the inference
that the goel could not previously exercise his power
seems to be hardly warranted, and is opposed to what
is perhaps the simplest, interpretation of Ruth iy. 3, 4.
See note 6, § V.
¢ A Jewish tradition, preserved by Maimonides and
JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF
ture, delivered proleptically. The same formu
used — “When ye be come into the land y]
I give unto you’’ — both in Lev. xxv. 2, and ]
xxiii. 10. ee
Il. Josephus (Ant. iii. 12, § 3) states that
debts were remitted in the year of Jubilee, y
the Scripture speaks of the remission of debts «
in connection with the sabbatical year (Deut.
1,2). [SABBATICAL YEAR.] He also descr,
the terms on which the holder of a piece of |
resigned it in the Jubilee to the original proprie
The former (he says) produced a statement of
value of the crops, and of the money which he
laid out in tillage. If the expenses proved to
more than the worth of the produce, the bale
was paid by the proprietor before the field was
stored. But if the balance was on the other g
the proprietor simply took back the field, and!
lowed him who had held it to retain the profit.
Philo (De Septenario, cc. 18, 14, vol. y. p,
edit. Tauch.) gives an account of the Jubilee ag’
ing with that in Leviticus, and says nothing of
remission of debts. @ ei
IV. There are several very difficult quest
connected with the Jubilee, of which we now }
ceed to give a brief view: — a |
1. Origin of the word Jubilee. —The doubt
this point appears to be a very old one. The}
brew word is treated by the LXX. in diffe}
modes. They have retained it untranslated in J)
vi. 8, 13 (where we find keparivo: rod IwBAA, |
adAmiyé TOU IwBHA). In Lev. xxv. they genei}j
render it by &peois, or apéoews onpaota; |
where the context suits it, by pdvn odAmy)
In Ex. xix. 13 they have ai gwval na) ai oad;
yes. The Vulgate retains the original wor
Lev. xxy., as well as in Josh. vi. (“ buccines qua
usus est in Jubileo’’), and [renders it} by buci
in Ex. xix. 13. It ‘seems, therefore, beyond dct
that uncertainty respecting the word must |
been felt when the most ancient versions of.
QO. T. were made. a.
Nearly all of the many conjectures which |*
been hazarded on the subject are directed to ext
the word exclusively in its bearing on the yea
Jubilee. This course has been taken by Josey|
— érevdepiay 8& onuatver Tovyoua; and bys
Jerome — Jobel est demittens aut mittens. My
modern writers have exercised their ingenuit}
the same track. Now in all such attempts ats
planation there must be an anachronism, as
word is used in Ex. xix. 18, before the institu
of the Law, where it can have nothing to do"?
the year of Jubilee, or its observances.
Thet
pression there used is Sova wna. sini
S5
e
f
f
fr
to that in Josh. vi. 5, VAWTT TID WWM
nb
The question seems to be, can bei here 0
eg
others, states that no cities were thus reckonet™
regards the Jubilee, but such as were walled init
time of Joshua. According to this, Jerusalem™
excluded. a
d Maimonides says that the interval between}
Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, in
year of Jubilee, was a time of riotous rejoicing '
servants. If there is any truth in the tradition ®
he records (which is in itself probable enough)!
eight days must have been a sort of Saturnalia. |
¢ The Mishna contains nothing on the Jubile!
unimportant scattered notices, though it has a”
siderable treatise on the sabbatical year (Shebitth,
JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF 1485
euliar sound, or the instrument for producing allowing the land to have two years of rest in suc-
und? Ewald favors the latter notion, and | cession has been felt by some, and deemed sufficient
: . : to prove that the Jubilee could only have been the
3 ¢ Tt) | P : y
caus pipes sub 7 T ), following the 49th year, that is, one with the seventh Sabbatical
ysions (with which our own agrees), though | year.” But in such a case, a mere @ priori argu-
Ca he explains esi as clangor. De|ment cannot justly be deemed sufficient to over-
} dines the same way, rendering the words throw a clear ynequivocal statement, involving no
xix. 13 — “beim Blasen des Jobelhorns.”’ inconsistency, or physical impossibility.¢
\: translates the same words — “ wenn es wird Hug has suggested that the sabbatical year
ange tinen”’ (though he is not consistent might have begun in Nisan and the Jubilee Year
‘imself in rendering Josh. vi. 5);—Bihr ren- |" Yisri (Winer, sub voce). In this way the labors
em, “cum trahetur sonus,” and most recent of the husbandmen would only have been inter-
/ agree with him. It would follow from this mitted for a year and a half. But it is surely a
“hat what is meant in Joshua, when the | Very harsh supposition to imagine that Moses would
‘et is expressly mentioned, is, “ When the have spoken of the institution of the two years, and
| called Jubilee (whatever that may be) is of the relation in which they stand to each other,
Heed on the horn.’ @ without noticing such a distinction, had it existed.
i. It is most probable that the sabbatical year and
the year of Jubilee both began in Tisri, as is stated
enerally ascribed to the root a, undavit, | in the Mishna (Rosh Hashana, p. 300, edit. Suren.).
2 et cum quodam impetu fluxit.’’ Hence rei salt YEAR. | ask ; “ait
i ; : : ‘ The simplest view, and the only one which ac-
i Id explains D2, “id quod magno strepitu | cords with the sacred text, is, that the year which
5 and he adds, “ duplex igitur in ea radice vis | followed the seventh sabbatical year was the Jubilee,
fuitur, fluendi et sonandi altera in ban which was intercalated between two series of sab-
: ~ | batical years, so that the next year was the first of
ium), Gen. vi. 17, altera in ‘av (artis | a new half century, and the seventh year after that
e inventor), Gen. iv. 21, conspicua.’’ The | was the first sabbatical year of the other series.
eng of Jubilee would thus seem to be, @ rush-| Thus the Jubilee was strictly a Pentecost year,
‘enetrating sound.» But in the uncertainty, | holding the same relation to the preceding seven
i, it must be allowed, exists, our translators | sabbatical years, as the day of Pentecost did to
jaken a safer course by retaining the original | the seven Sabbath days. Substantially the same
tin Ley. xxv. and xxvii., than that which was | formula, in reference to this point, is used in each
by Luther, who has rendered it by Halljuhr. | case“ (cf. Lev. xxiii. 15, 16, xxv. 8-10).
§ Was the Jubilee every 49th or 50th year? —| 3. Were Debts remitted in the J ubilee ?— Not a
i plain words of Lev. xxv. 10 are to be fol- word is said of this in the O. T., or in Philo. The
this question need not be asked. ‘he state- | affirmative rests entirely on the authority of Jose-
that the Jubilee was the 50th year, after the| phus. Maimonides says expressly that the remis-
sion of seven weeks of years, and that it was| sion of debts¢ was a point of distinction between
guished from, not identical with, the seventh the sabbatical year and the Jubilee. The Mishna
ical year, is as evident as language can make | is to the same effect (Shebiith, cap. x. p. 194, edit.
jut the difficulty of justifying the wisdom of | Suren.)./ It seems that Josephus must either have
‘regards the derivation of the word, it is now
‘he grounds on which the opposite view rests are The other notions respecting the word may be found
‘elsewhere. [See CORNET.] in Fuller (Mise. Sac. p. 1026 f.; Critict Sacri, vol.
Darpzoy (App. p. 449) appears to have been the | ix.), in Carpzov (p. 448 f.), and, most completely given,
sho put forth this view of the origin and mean- | in Kranold (p. 11 f.).
y the word. The figure of the pouring along of ¢ The only distinguished Jewish teacher who advo-
rich stream of music” is familiar enough in | cated the claims of the 49th year was R. Jehuda. He
Anguages to recommend it as probable. But | was followed by the Gaonim, certain doctors who took
/ orc up the exposition of the Talmud after the work was
Bieaerefers to Be B second r00k, mah fupilare, completed, from the seventh to the eleventh century
he ascribes to onomatopca, like the Latin | (Winer, sub voce). The principal Christian writers on
\e, and the Greek odoAvcerv. the same side are, Scaliger, Petavius, Ussher, Cunzeus,
fanciful notion that bay signifies a ram has and Schroeder. ¥
linterest, ee te bry bald ‘by the Jews ko d Ewald (Alterthiimer, p. 419) and others, have re-
lly and by the Chaldee Paraphrast ; and from ferred the words of Is. xxxvii. 80 to the J ubilee year
}/ving influenced our translators in Josh. vi. to pucteeliae : dp Pemba sont peu Gesenius ce a
Saorns on which the Jubilee was sounded another view of the passage, which accords better with
ui ets of rams? horns. It appears to come from ie the context. He regards it as merely referring to the
re nonsense rich aaue ht He Habbis in early continuance of the desolation occasioned by the war
b began to talk respecting the ram which ag | ee ;
ced in the place of Isaac. They said (R. Bechai be eauiene ed vompaus aps a iis 804 OL Sy
xix. ap. Kranold) that after the ram was burnt, eminent Jewish and Christian writer, except those that
(niraculously restored the body. His apt have been mentioned, are in favor of the fiftieth year.
a - : yaks Ideler has taken up the matter very satisfactorily
le ;
posited in the golden altar; from his viscera (Handb. der Chron. i. p. 505).
"made the strings of David’s harp; his skin be-
ui, the mantle of Elijah; his left horn was the
1 yet : oe . : “ r
of Sinai; and his right horn was to sound mene ety NaS SR
Messiah comes (Is. xxvii. 13). R. Akiba, to con- as
|, : ‘ b Haw) f * Ginsburg, in his art. on the year of Jubilee in
ptt with the Jubilee, affirms that 72) is the | Kitto’s Cycl. of Bibl. Lit., 8 ed., says that this ref:
b for a ram, though the best Arabic scholars say | erence to the Mishna is erroneous, the passage in
‘is no such word in the language. question not speaking of the Jubilee at all, A.
iY
e Whether this was an absolute remission of debts,
or merely a justitium for the year, will be considered
1486 JUBILEE, THE YEAR OF
wholly made a mistake, or that he has drawn too
wide an inference from the general character of the
year. Of course to those who were in bondage for
their debts, the freedom conferred by the Jubilee
must have amounted to a remission; as did, not
less, their freedom at the end of their seven years
of servitude. y
The first Jubilee year must have fallen in due
course after the first seven sabbatical years. For
the commencement of the series on which the
succession of sabbatical years was reckoned, see
CHRONOLOGY, vol. i. p. 437, and SABBATICAL
YEAR.
V. Maimonides, and the Jewish writers in gen-
eral, consider that the Jubilee was observed till the
destruction of the first Temple. But there is no
direct historical notice of its observance on any one
occasion, either in the books of the O. T., or in any
other records. ‘The only passages in the Prophets
which can be regarded with much confidence, as
referring to the Jubilee in any way, are Is. v. 7, 8,
Oe lOs Islet. 12s oe vi. 2218s Bigs xlyis 16,
17,18. Regarding Is. xxxvii. 30, see note d, p. 1485.
Some have doubted whether the law of Jubilee ever
came into actual operation (Michaelis, Laws of
Moses, art. Ixxvi., and Winer, sub voce), others
have confidently denied it (Kranvld, p. 80; Hup-
feld, pt. iii. p. 20). But Ewald contends that the
institution is eminently practical in the character
of its details, and that the accidental circumstanee
of no particular instance of its observance having
been recorded in the Jewish history proves nothing.
Besides the passages to which reference has been
made, he applies several others to the Jubilee. He
conceives that “the year of visitation’? mentioned
in Jer. xi. 23, xxiii. 12, xlvili. 44, denotes the pun-
ishment of those who, in the Jubilee, withheld by
tyranny or fraud the possessions or the liberty of
the poor.t From Jer. xxxii. 6-12 he infers that
the Law was restored to operation in the reign of
Josiah © (Alterthiimer, p. 424, note 1).
VI. The Jubilee is to be regarded as the outer
circle of that great sabbatical system which com-
prises within it the sabbatical year, the sabbatical
month, and the Sabbath day. [FEAsts.] The rest
and restoration of each member of the state, in his
spiritual relation, belongs to the weekly Sabbath
and the sabbatical month, while the land had its
rest and relief in the sabbatical year. But the
a The words of Isaiah (v. 7-10) may, it would seem
with more distinctness, be understood to the same
effect, as denouncing woe against those who had un-
righteously hindered the Jubilee from effecting its
object.
b Is there not a difficulty in considering this pas-
sage to have any bearing on the Jubilee, from its
relating, apparently, to a priest’s field? (See § II.
2(e).) At all events, the transaction was merely the
transfer of land from one member of a family to
another, with a recognition of a preference allowed
to a near relation to purchase. The case mentioned
Ruth iv. 3 f. appears to go further in illustrating the
Jubilee principle. — Naomi is about to sell a field of
Elimelech’s property. Boaz proposes to the next of
kin to purchase it of her, in order to prevent it from
going out of the family, and, on his refusal, takes it
himself, as having the next right.
ce The foundation of the law of Jubilee appears to
be so essentially connected with the children of Israel,
that it seems strange that Michaelis should have con-
fidently affirmed its Egyptian origin, while yet he
acknowledges that he can produce no specific evidence
JUBILEE, THE YEAR O
Jubilee is more immediately connected
body politic; and it was only as a mem
state that each person concerned could
in its provisions. It has less of a formally
aspect than either of the other sabbatical
tions, and its details were of a more immedi
practical character. It was not distinguishe¢
any prescribed religious observance peculiar to if
like the rites of the Sabbath day and of
batical month; nor even by anything like the r
ing of the Law in the sabbatical year. But
Hebrew state, polity and religion were ne
arated, nor was their essential connection |
dropped out of sight. Hence the year was
lowed, in the strict sense of the word, by the sol|
blast of the Jubilee trumpets, on the same da
which the sins of the people had been acknoywlec
in the general fast, and in which they had |
symbolically expiated by the entrance of the h
priest into the holy of holies with the blood of
appointed victims. Hence also the deeper gre
of the provisions of the institution is stated)
marked emphasis in the Law itself. — The land
to be restored to the families to which it had |
at first allotted by divine direction (Josh. xiy|
because it was the Lord's. ‘The land shall
be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye
strangers and sojourners with me’’ (Ley. xxv. |
“Tam the Lord your God which brought you {|
out of the land of Egypt, to give you the lan,
Canaan, and to be your God” (ver. 88),—
Hebrew bondman was to have the _privilegi
claiming his liberty as a right, because he ¢!
never become the property of any one but Jehc
‘For they are my servants which I brought {;
out of the land of Egypt; they shall not beat)
bondmen ”’ (ver. 42). ‘For unto me the chil;
of Israel are servants, whom I brought forth ou)
the land of Egypt”’ © (ver. 55). fee
If regarded from an ordinary point of view!
Jubilee was calculated to meet and remedy
incidents which are inevitable in the cours)
human scciety; to prevent the accumulatio1)
inordinate wealth in the hands of a few; an|
relieve those whom misfortune or fault had red)
to poverty. As far as legislation could go, its ¢
visions tended to restore that equality in out
circumstances which was instituted in the }
settlement of the land by Joshua.¢ But if we?
}
———$——
on the subject (Mos. Law, art. 73). The only }
proved instance of anything like it in other na!
appears to be that of the Dalmatians, mention
Strabo, lib. vii. (p. 815, edit. Casaub.). He says?
they redistributed their land every eight years. BY
following the statement of Plutarch, refers ton
institution of Lyeurgus; but Mr. Grote has }?
another view of the matter (Hist. of Greece, VW"
p. 580). oe
d A collateral result of the working of the Jv!
must have been the preservation of the geneal¢”
tables, and the maintenance of the distinction 0°
tribes. Ewald and Michaelis suppose that the \
were systematically corrected and filled up at
Jubilee. This seems reasonable enough, in ordet!
the fresh names might be filled in, that irregula!
arising from the dying out of families might be i
fied, and that disputed claims might be, as far ai?
sible, authoritatively met. ,
Its effect in maintaining the distinction of the i
is illustrated in the appeal made by the tribe of
asseh in regard to the daughters of Zelophehad "
xxxvi. 4). The sense of the passage is, howeve
si
le JUCAL
it in its more special character, as a part of
ivine law appointed for the chosen people, its
eal bearing was to vindicate the right of each
ite to his part in the covenant which J ehovah
nade with his fathers respecting the land of
ise. The loud notes of the Jubilee horns
olized the voice of the Lord proclaiming the
ation of political order, as (according to Jew-
adition) the blast in the least of ‘Trumpets
ten days before, commemorated the creation
e world and the completion of ‘the material
0S.
the incurable uncertainty respecting the fact
e observance of the Jubilee, it is important
we should keep in mind that the record of the
whether it was obeyed or not, was, and is, a
ant witness for the truth of those great social
iples on which the theocracy was established.¢
over, from the allusions which are made to it
e prophets, it must have become a standing
iecy in the hearts of the devout Hebrews.
who waited in faith for the salvation of Israel
kept in mind of that spiritual Jubilee which
to come (Luke iv. 19), in which every one of
piritual seed of Abraham was to have, in the
of God, an equality which no accident could
listurb; and a glorious freedom, in that lib-
with which He that was to come was to make
ree, and which no force or fraud could ever
from him.
lere are several monographs on the Jubilee, of
1 Kranold has given a catalogue. There is a
se by Maimonides, de Anno Sabbatico et Ju-
. Of more recent works, the most important
aat of J. G. C. Kranold himself, Commentatio
mo Hebreorum Jubileo, Gottingen, 1837, 4to,
that of Carpzov, first published in 1730, but
yards incorporated in the Apparatus [Historico-
cus, p. 447 ff.; Ewald (Alterthiimer, p. 415,
md Bahr (Symbolik, vol. ii. p. 572 ff), but
jally the latter, have treated the subject in a
‘instructive manner. Hupfeld (Commentatio
ebreorum Festis, pt. iii. 1852) has lately dealt
it in a willful and reckless style of criticism.
ther writers, those who appear to have done
to illustrate the Jubilee, are Cuneeus (de Rep.
. ¢. ii. § iv., in the Critici Sacrt, vol. ix. p.
f.), and Michaelis (Commentaries on the Laws
loses, vol. i. p. 376 ff., English translation).
nga notices the prophetical bearing of the
ee in lib. iv. c. 4 of the Observationes Sacre.
tfoot (Harm. Evang. in Luc. iv. 19) pursues
ubject in a fanciful manner, and makes out
Christ suffered in a Jubilee year. For this he
ell rebuked by Carpzov (App. Hist. Crit. p.
. Schubert (Symbolik des Traums) has fol-
1 in neariy the same track, and has been
ered by Biihr. 8. C.
U’CAL (S20 [prob. Jehovah is mighty,
|: "Iwdyad: Juchal), son of Shelemiah
' Xxxvili. 1). Elsewhere called JEHUCAL.
UDA (Iovdas, 7. e. Judas; "Iovda being
the genitive case).
‘din most versions. It is, ‘t And even when the
lee comes, their inheritance will be in another
” The rendering the particle DS by etiamsi
tisfactorily vindicated by Kranold, p. 33.
f regards the reason of the exception of houses
wns from the law of Jubilee, Bahr has observed
48 they were chiefly inhabited by artificers and
JUDAHA 1487
1. [Juda.] Son of Joseph in the genealogy of
Christ (Luke iii. 30), in the ninth generation from
David, about the time of King Joash.
2. [Juda.] Son of Joanna [Joannas] or Hana-
niah [HANANTIAH, 8] (Luke iii. 26). He seems
to be certainly the same person as Abiud in Matt.
i. 13. His name, TTT, is identical with that
of “FATA, only that IN is prefixed; and whem
thesa is discarded from Luke’s line, and allowance
is made for St. Matthew’s omission of generations
in his genealogy, their times will agree perfectly.
Both may be the same as Hodaiah of 1 Chr. iii
24. See Hervey’s Genenlogies, p. 118 ff.
3. [Judas.] One of the Lord’s brethren, enu-
merated in Mark vi. 3. [Josrs; JosepH.] On
the question of his identity with Jude the brother
of James, one of the twelve Apostles (Luke vi. 16;
Acts i. 18), and with the author of the general
Fpistle, see art. JUDE. In Matt. xiii. 55 his name
is given in the A. V. as JuDAs [and should be so
given, Mark vi. 3].
4. [Judas.] The patriarch JuDAHN (Sus. 56;
Luke iii. 33; Heb. vii. 14; Rev. v. 5, vii. 5) [or
in the last three passages, the name of the tribe. |
Ae Sos, Ee
* JUDA, A city oF (A. V.), for réAts *Iobda
in Luke i. 89, where Zacharias and Elizabeth lived,
and where probably John the Baptist was born.
But whether a town so named is meant, or the ter-
ritory of Juda (=’lIovdaia) is disputed. In the
latter case the city is spoken of merely as one ‘in
the hill country (dpewhv, Luke)’ of Judea, the
name of which may have been unknown to Luke.
Some suppose that the nameless city may have been
Hebron, as that was both among the hills and be-
longed to the priests (Josh. xxvi. 11). So Lightfoot
(Hor. Hebr. ii. 493, Rotterd. 1686), Sepp (Leben
Christi, ii. 8), and Andrews (Life of our Lord, p.
65). The Franciscans have a Convent of St. John
at ’Ain Karim, a little west of Jerusalem, where
they place the house of Zacharias and the nativity
of the Forerunner (Thomson’s Land and Book, ii.
536 ff.). Others regard this Juda as the name of
the town itself, and identical with the modern
Jiitta, found in the neighborhood of Hebron. — Dr.
Robinson, after Reland (Palestina, p. 870), adopts
this view (Bidl. Res. ii. 206, and Greek Harm.,
Notes, § 4). That this Jitta and Juttah in Josh.
xxi. 16, are the same, no one can doubt; but it
does not follow from this that Jutta and Juda are
the same. Meyer (on Luke i. 39) calls it an arbi-
trary supposition. Bleek also objects (Synopt. Lr-
klérung, i. 53) that if Luke had been acquainted with
the name, he would naturally have introduced it in
ver. 23. If Juda answers to Juttah (= Yitta),.
it can be only as a very mutilated form; for oth-
erwise Juda and Juttah (79) have no ety-
mological relation to each other. H.
JUDAA or JUDE’A (ovata), a territo-
rial division which succeeded to the overthrow of
the ancient landmarks of the tribes of Israel and
tradesmen, whose wealth did not consist in lands, it
was reasonable that they should retain them in abso-
lute possession. It has been conjectured that many
of these tradesmen were foreign proselytes, who could
not hold property in the land which was subject to
the law of Jubilee.
a This view is powerfully set forth by Bibr.
1488 JUDAHA
Judah in their respective captivities. The word
first occurs Dan. v. 13 (A. V. “Jewry ”’), and the
first mention of the “ province of Judea” is in
the book of Ezra (v. 8); it is alluded to in Neh. xi.
3 (Hebr. and A. V. “ Judah’’), and was the result
of the division of the Persian empire mentioned
by Herodotus (iii. 89-97), under Darius (comp.
Esth. viii. 9; Dan. vi. 1). In the Apocryphal
Books the word “ province’? is dropped, and
throughout the books of Esdras, Tobit, Judith,
and Maccabees, the expressions are the ‘land of
Judea,” “Judea” (A. V. frequently “Jewry ”),
and throughout the N. T. In the words of Jo-
sephus, “The Jews made preparations for the work
(of rebuilding the walls under Nehemiah) — a
name which they received forthwith on their re-
turn from Babylon, from the tribe of Judah, which
being the first to arrive in those parts, gave name
both to the inhabitants and the territory’ (Ant.
xi. 5, § 7). But other tribes also returned from
Babylon, such as the tribes of Benjamin and Levi
(Ezr. i. 5, and x. 5-9; Neh. xi. 4-36), scattered
remnants of the ‘children of Ephraim and Man-
asseh ’’ (1 Chr. ix. 3), or ‘Israel,’ as they are
elsewhere called (Ezr. ii. 70, iii. 1, and x. 5; Neh.
vii. 73), and others whose pedigree was not ascer-
tainable (Kzr. ii. 59). In fact so many returned
that in the case of the sin-offering the number of
he-goats offered was twelve, according to the origi-
nal number of the tribes (¢bid. vi. 17, see also viii.
35). There had indeed been more or less of an
amalgamation from the days of Hezekiah (2 Chr.
XXX.-xxxl.), which continued ever afterwards, down
to the very days of our Lord. Anna, wife of
Phanuel, for instance, was of the tribe of Asher
(St. Luke ii. 386), St. Paul of the tribe of Benja-
min (Rom. xi. 1), St. Barnabas, a Levite, and so
forth (Acts iv. 86; comp. Acts xxvi. 7; and Pri-
deaux, Connection, vol. i. p. 128-180, ed. McCaul).
On the other hand the schismatical temple upon
Mount Gerizim drew many of the disaffected Jews
from their own proper country (Joseph. Ant. xi. 8);
Nazareth, a city of Galilee, was the residence of
our Lord’s own parents; Bethsaida, that of three
of his Apostles; the borders of the sea of Galilee
generally, that of most of them. The scene of
his preaching —intended as it was, during his
earthly ministry, for the lost sheep of the house
of Israel — was, with the exception of the last part
of it, confined to Galilee. His disciples are ad-
dressed by the two angels subsequently to his
Ascension, as “‘men of Galilee’’ (Acts i. 11), and
it was asked by the multitude that came together
in wonder on the day of Pentecost, “ Are not all
these who speak, Galileans?’’ (Acts ii. 7). Thus,
neither did all who were Jews inhabit that limited
territory called Judea; nor again was Judea in-
habited solely by that tribe which gave name to it,
or even in sole conjunction with Benjamin and
Levi.
Once more as regards the territory. In a wide
and more improper sense, the term Judea was
sometimes extended to the whole country of the
Canaanites, its ancient inhabitants (Joseph. Ant. i.
6, § 2); and even in the Gospels we seem to read
of the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan (St. Matt.
xix. 1; St. Mark x. 1), a phrase perhaps counte-
aanced by Josephus no less (Ant. xii. 4, § 11; comp.
Josh. xix. 34), if the usual rendering of these pas-
sages is to be followed (see Reland, Polestina, i.
6). ‘He stirreth up the people, teaching through-
out all Jewry (xa barre THs lovdatas) beginning
JUDZA, WILDERNESS 0
JSrom Galilee, unto this place,’ said t¢
priests of our Lord (St. Luke xxiii. 5),
Ptolemy, moreover (see Reland, , and the regular administration of justice.
eign of Jehoram, the husband of Athaliah, a
of bloodshed, idolatry, and disaster, was cut
“by disease. Alhaziah was slain by Jehu.
iah, the grand-daughter of a Tyrian king,
2d the blood-stained throne of David, till the
ers of the ancient religion put her to death,
rowned Jehoash the surviving scion of the
house. His preserver, the high-priest, ac-
| prominent personal influence for a time; but
ng fell into idolatry, and failing to withstand
ower of Syria, was murdered by his own
|s. The vigorous Amaziah, flushed with the
(ry of Edom, provoked a war with his more
ful contemporary Jehoash the conqueror of
yrians; and Jerusalem was entered and plun-
by the Israelites. But their energies were
ently occupied in the task of completing the
ation of Damascus. Under Uzziah and
tm, Judah long enjoyed political and religious
rity, till the wanton Ahaz, surrounded by
l enemies, with whom he was unable to cope,
ie in an evil hour the tributary and vassal of
hh-Pileser.
\ Already in the fatal grasp of Assyria, Judah
et spared for a checkered existence of almost
Ger century and a half after the termination
t kingdom of Israel. The effect of the repulse
Sinacherib, of the signal religious revival under
dah and under Josiah, and of the extension
air salutary influence over the long-severed
iry of Israel, was apparently done away by the
jinious reign of the impious Maniasseh, and
€ngering decay of the whole people under the
Wieeble descendants of Josiah. Provoked by
teachery and imbecility, their Assyrian master
ed in successive deportations all the strength
‘kingdom. The consummation of the ruin
JUDAH, KINGDOM OF 1493
came upon them in the destruction of the Temple
by the hand of Nebuzaradan, amid the wailings of
prophets, and the taunts of heathen tribes released
at length from the yoke of David.
7. The national life of the Hebrews seemed now
extinct; but there was still, as there had been all
along, a spiritual life hidden ‘within the body.
It was atime of hopeless darkness to all but
those Jews who had strong faith in God, witha
clear and steady insight into the ways of Providence
as interpreted by prophecy. ‘The time of the divis-
ion of the kingdoms was the golden age of proph-
ecy. Ineach kingdom the prophetical office was
subject to peculiar modifications which were re-
quired in Judah by the circumstances of the priest-
hood, in Israel by the existence of the House of
Baal and the Altar in Bethel. If, under the shadow
of the Temple, there was a depth and a grasp else-
where unequaled, in the views of Isaiah and the
prophets of Judah, if their writings touched and
elevated the hearts of thinking men in studious
retirement in the silent night-watches; there was
also, in the few burning words and energetic deeds
of the prophets of Israel, a power to tame a law-
less multitude and to check the high-handed ty-
ranny and idolatry of kings. The organization
and moral influence of the priesthood were matured
in the time of David; from about that time to the
building of the second Temple the influence of the
prophets rose and became predominant. Some
historians have suspected that after the reign of
Athaliah the priesthood gradually acquired and
retained excessive and unconstitutional power in
Judah. The recorded facts scarcely sustain the
conjecture. Had it been so, the effect of such
power would have heen manifest in the exorbitant
wealth and luxury of the priests, and in the constant
and cruel enforcement of penal laws, like those of
Asa, against irreligion. But the peculiar offences
of the priesthood, as witnessed in the prophetic
writings, were of another kind. Ignorance of God’s
Word, neglect of the instruction of the laity, un-
truthfulness, and partial judgments, are the offenses
specially imputed to them, just such as might be
looked for where the priesthood is an hereditary
caste and irresponsible, but neither ambitious nor
powerful. When the priest either, as was the case
in Israel, abandoned the land, or, as in Judah,
ceased to be really a teacher, ceased from spiritual
communion with God, ceased from living sympathy
with man, and became the mere image of an in-
tercessor, a mechanical performer of ceremonial
duties little understood or heeded by himself, then
the prophet was raised up to supply some of his
deficiencies, and to exercise his functions so far as
was necessary. Whilst the priests sink into ob-
scurity and almost disappear, except from the
genealogical tables, the prophets come forward ap-
pealing ‘everywhere to the conscience of individuals,
in Israel as wonder-workers, calling together God’s
chosen few out of an idolatrous nation, and in
Judah as teachers and seers, supporting and puri-
fying all that remained of ancient piety, explaining
each mysterious dispensation of God as it was
unfolded, and promulgating his gracious spiritual
promises in all their extent. The part which
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets took in pre-
paring the Jews for their Captivity, cannot indeed
be fully appreciated without reviewing the succeed-
ing efforts of Ezekiel and Daniel. But the influ-
ence which they exercised on the national mind
was too important to be overlooked in a sketch
1494. JUDAH UPON JORDAN JUDAS SURNAMED BARSAR
however brief, of the history of the kingdom of
Judah. Wa ease:
* JUDAH ovpon Jorpan (A. V.), a border
town of Naphtali (Josh. xix. 34). See note a,
p- 1491. The Hebrew is more strictly Judah-Jor-
dan, without a preposition. Though the tribe of
Judah was in the south and Naphtali in the
north, it is very conceivable that there may have
been a town named after one tribe in the territory of
another. Dr. Thomson’s discovery gives support
to this supposition. He found a place near Banias
and the Wadi er-Rahbeh ( reel is ots)
or Valley of Rehoboth, marked by ruins and a tomb
with a dome, revered as the tomb of a prophet
by the Arabs, and called Sidi Yehida ( S OdrAnw
15-22) ‘My Lord Judah.” He is very confi-
dent that this is the site of the ancient Judah
with its name perpetuated. (See Land and Book, i.
389 ff.) A conterminous border of Judah and
Naphtali at any point is of course out of the ques-
tion. Hi;
* JUDAISM (‘Iovdaieuds: Vulg. Judais-
mus), Only in Gal. i. 18, 14 in the N. T. ( * Jews’
religion,”” A. V.), and 2 Mace. ii. 21 (rendered “Ju-
daism ’’) and xiv. 88 twice (“Judaism and “re-
ligion of the Jews”). It denotes the system of
Jewish faith and worship in its perverted form as
one of blind attachment to rites and traditions, and
of bigotry, self-righteousness, and national exclu-
siveness. To what extent the religion of the Jews
partook of this character in the time of our Lord,
appears not only from his constant exposure of
their formalism and self-assumption, but especially
in the fact, that in John’s Gospel “the Jews ” (of
"Ilovdato1) occurs more frequently than otherwise as
sybonymous with opposers of Christ and of his teach-
ings. A similar usage is foundin the Acts. Yet
Paul recognizes the idea of a true Judaism as
distinguished from its counterfeit, when he says:
“He is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circum-
cision 7s that of the heart, in the spirit, and not. in
the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of
God (Rom. ii. 29).
Of the spirit of Judaism the Apostle himself be-
fore his conversion was a signal example. He as-
cribes to himself that character in various passages.
He declares in Gal. i. 13, 14 that his persecution
of the church was a fruit and evidence of this spirit,
and that in the violence of his zeal he outstripped
(rpo€xorroy) all his associates or comrades (cuvn-
Auci@rat) as a zealot ((nAwrhs) for the traditions
of the fathers. (See also Acts ix. 1 ff.; xxvi. 9; 1
Tim. i. 13, &.) Such Judaism possessed in the
eyes of a Jew the merit of both patriotism and
piety, and hence is portrayed as such in the heroes
of the Jewish apocryphal books. H.
JU’DAS (Ioddas [Judas]), the Greek form of
the Hebrew name JupAnH, occurring in the LXX.
and N. T. [Jupau.]
1, [Vat. Alex. Qovdas: Coluas.] 1 Esdr. ix.
23. [JupAH.]
2. The third son of Mattathias, «called Macca-
beeus”’ (1 Mace. ii. 4). [ MAcCABEEs. ]
3. The son of Calphi (Alpheus), a Jewish gen-
eral under Jonathan (1 Mace. xi. 70).
4. A Jew occupying a conspicuous position at,
Jerusalem at the time of the mission to Aristobu-
lus [AnrisToBULUs] and the Egyptian
Mace. i. 10). He has been identified wit
sene, conspicuous for his prophetic gifts (J¢
xiii. 11,§ 2; B.J. i. 3, § 5); and with Judas
beeus (Grimm ad loc.). Some again suppose
he is a person otherwise unknown.
5. A son of Simon, and brother of
Hyrcanus (1 Mace. xvi. 2), murdered by P.
meus the usurper, either at the same time (¢
B. C.) with his father (1 Mace. xvi. 15 ff), er sh
afterwards (Jos. Ant. xiii. 8, § 1: cf. Grimm
Mace. 1. ¢.). ae
6. The patriarch JupAn (Matt. i. at
B. F. W,
cfd
,
7. A man residing at Damascus, in “ the
which is called Straight,’ in whose house Sat
Tarsus lodged after his miraculous convers
(Acts ix. 11). The ‘Straight Street » ‘may
with little question identified with the « Street
Bazaars,” a long, wide thoroughfare, penetrat}
from the southern gate into the heart of the ci
which, as in all the Syro-Greek and Syro-Ron
towns, it intersects in a straight line. The
called “ House of Judas’ is still shown in an of
space called “ the Sheykh’s Place,” a few steps (
of the “Street of Bazaars: ” it contains & squi
room with a stone floor, partly walled off for a ton
shown to Maundrell (Karly Trav. Bohn, p. 4
as the “tomb of Ananias.” The house is an obj)
of religious respect to Mussulmans as well as Chri
ians (Stanley, S. g P. p. 412; Conyb. and Hoy
i. 102; Maundrell, /. c.; Pococke, ii. 119). EY)
* It is not certain, nor probable, that this Ju
(of whom nothing further is known) was at tl
time a Christian. None of Saul’s company wi
Christians, nor did they know that he had |
come one. Neither they, nor he, would probal
know of a Christian family to which they cor
conduct him, nor would such a family have then |
ceived him. He was probably led by his comps
ions to his intended stopping-place — possibly
public house. It is a fair inference from the nm
rative, that the host and the guest were both p.
sonally strangers to Ananias. Ss. W.)
JUDAS, suRNAMED BAR’sABAS ("Jodd)
6 émikaAovuevos BapoaBas [Lachm. Tisc
Treg. BapoaBBas]: Judas qui cognominabat|
Barsabas, [Cod. Amiat. Barsabbas}), a leadi,
member of the Apostolic church at Jerusale
(avnp tryovuevos ev Tots &deAdois), Acts xv. S|
and ‘perhaps a member of the Presbytery *(N
ander, Pl. g Tr. i. 123), endued with the gift
prophecy (ver. 32), chosen with Silas to accompal
St. Paul and St. Barnabas as delegates to t!
church at Antioch, to make known the deeree co.
cerning the terms of admission of the Gentile co!
mA
verts, and to accredit their commission and chara
ter by personal communications (ver. 27), Aft)
employing their prophetical gifts for the confirm!
tion of the Syrian Christians in the faith, Jud.
went back to Jerusalem, while Silas either remain!
at Antioch (for the reading Acts xv. 34 is unce}
tain; and while some MSS.. followed by the Vu
gate, add ydvos ‘Iovdas d5¢ eropedOn, the be
omit the verse altogether), or speedily return!
thither. Nothing further is recorded of Judas.
The form of the name Barsabas for Barsabba)
see above] — Son of Sabas, has led to several co
jectures: Wolf and Grotius, probably enoug,
suppose him to have been a brother of Joseph Pars
bas (Acts i. 23); while Schott (/sagog. § 103, |
=
a
JUDAS OF GALILEE
kes Sabas or Zabas to be an abbreviated
f Zebedee, regards Judas as an elder brother
es and John, and attributes to him the
le of Jude.’ Augusti,on the other hand
Cutholisch. Briefe, Lemgo, 1801-8, ii. 86),
es the opinion, though with considerable
ion, that he may be identical with the Apos-
das laxwBouv. EnV.
DAS OF GAL’ILEE (‘lovdas 6 Taar-
Judas Galileus), the leader of a popular
‘in the days of the taxing ’’ (2. e. the census,
he prefecture of P. Sulp. Quirinus, A. D. 6, A.
59), referred to by Gamaliel in his speech
the Sanhedrim (Acts v. 37). According
phus (Ant. xviii. 1, § 1), Judas was a Gaulon-
he city of Gamala, probably taking his name
lan from his insurrection having had its
Galilee. His revolt had a theocratic charac-
e watchword of which was “* We have no
ior master but God,’’ and he boldly de-
d the payment of tribute to Cesar, and
nowledgment of any foreign authority, as
against the principles of the Mosaic con-
n, and signifying nothing short of downright
His fiery eloquence and the popularity of
strines drew vast numbers to his standard,
iy of whom he was regarded as the Messiah
Homil. in Luc. xxv.), and the country was
me entirely given over to the lawless depre-
of the fierce and licentious throng who had
themselves to him; but the might of Rome
irresistible: Judas himself perished, and his
% were ‘dispersed,’ though not entirely
ed till the final overthrow of the city and
1 his fellow insurgent Sadoc, a Pharisee,
3 represented by Josephus as the founder of
h sect, in addition to the Pharisees, Sad-
and Essenes (Ant. xviii. 1. § 1,6; 2B. J. ii.
_ The only point which appears to have
tished his followers from the Pharisees was
ubborn love of freedom, leading them to de-
vorments or death for themselves or their
\ rather than call any man master.
Gaulonites, as his followers were called, may
eded as the doctrinal ancestors of the Zealots
carii of later days, and to the influence of
‘ts Josephus attributes all subsequent insur-
) of the Jews, and the final destruction of
yand Temple. James and John, the sons
is, headed an unsuccessful insurrection in
curatorship of Tiberius Alexander, A. D. 47,
‘m they were taken prisoners and crucified.
' years later, A. D. 66, their younger brother
m, following his father’s example, took the
a band of desperadoes, who, after pillaging
‘ory of Herod in the fortress of Masada,
te “gardens of Engaddi,’’ marched to Je-
, Occupied the city, and after a desperate
ook the palace, where he immediately as-
the state of a king, and committed great
vies. As he was going up to the Temple to
with great pomp, Menahem was taken
) partisans of Eleazar the high-priest, by
€ was tortured to death Aug. 15, A. D. 66
1, Hist. of Jews, ii. 152, 231; Joseph. 1. c.;
» Matt. T. xvii. § 25). 1
DAS ISCARIOT (‘Iovdas Ioxapidrns
tk and Luke, Lachm. Tisch. Treg. °I¢-
‘t Judas Isctriotes). He is sometimes
‘the son of Simon" (John vi. 71, xiii. 2,
JUDAS ISCARIOT 1495
26), but more commonly (the three Synoptic Gos-
pels give no other name), Iscariotes (Matt. x. 4;
Mark iii. 19; Luke vi. 16, e¢ al.). In the three
lists of the Twelve there is added in each case the
fact that he was the betrayer.
The name Iscariot has received many interpreta-
tions more or less conjectural.
(1.) From Krerroru (Josh. xy. 25), in the tribe of
Judah, the Heb. YPAPWYN, Isu K’xrorn, pas-
sing into "Ioxapimtns in the same way as ws
216 —Ish Tob, a man of Tob— appears in Jose-
phus (Anz. vii. 6, § 1) as, “IorwBos (Winer, Realwb.
s. y.). In connection with this explanation may be
noticed the reading of some MSS. in John vi. 71,
amd Kapidrov, and that received by Lachmann and
Tischendorf, which makes the name Iscariot belong
to Simon, and not, as elsewhere, to Judas only.
On this hypothesis his position among the Twelve,
the rest of whom belonged to Galilee (Acts ii. 7),
would be exceptional; and this has led to
(2.) From Kartha in Galilee (Kartan, A. V.,
Josh. xxi. 32; Ewald, Gesch. /sraels, v. 321).
(3.) As equivalent to "Ioaxapidrns (Grotius on
Matt. x. 4; Heumann, JJuscedl. Groning. iii. 598,
in Winer, Realwd.).
(4.) From the date-trees (kapiwrides) in the
neighborhood of Jerusalem or Jericho (Bartolocci,
Bibl. Rabbin. iii. 10, in Winer, @. c.; Gill, Comm.
on Matt. x. 4).
(5.) From SOTPON (—scorrea, Gill, J. c.),
a leathern apron, the name being applied to him as
the bearer of the bag, and = Judas with the apron
(Lightfoot, /or. Heb. in Matt. x. 4).
(6.) From NS 7DDN, ascara = strangling (an-
gina), as given after his death, and commemora-
ting it (Lightfoot, /. c.), or indicating that he had
been subject to a disease tending to suffocation pre-
viously (Heinsius im Swicer. Thes. s. v. *lovSas)-
This is mentioned also as a meaning of the name
by Origen, Tract. in Matt. xxxv.
Of the life of Judas, before the appearance of
his name in the lists of the Apostles, we know ab-
solutely nothing. It must be left to the sad vision
of a poet (Keble, Lyra Jnnocentium, ii. 13), or the
fantastic fables of an apocryphal Gospel (‘Thilo,
Cod. Apoc. N. T. Evang. Infant. ¢. 35) to por-
tray the infancy and youth of the traitor. What
that appearance implies, however, is that he had
previously declared himself a disciple. He was
drawn, as the others were, by the preaching of the
Baptist, or his own Messianic hopes, or the “ gra-
cious words’”’ of the new teacher, to leave his
former life, and to obey the call of the Prophet of
Nazareth. What baser and more selfish motives
may have mingled even then with his faith and
zeal, we can only judge by reasoning backward from
the sequel. Gifts of some kind there must have
been, rendering the choice of such a man not
strange to others, not unfit in itself, and the func-
tion which he exercised afterwards among the
Twelve may indicate what they were. The posi-
tion of his name, uniformly the last in the lists of
the Apostles in the Synoptic Gospels, is due, it
may be imagined, to the infamy which afterwards
rested on his name, but, prior to that guilt, it
would seem that he took his place in the group of
four which always stand last in order, as if posses-
sing neither the love, nor the faith, nor the devo-
tion which marked the sons of Zebedee and Jonah.
1496 JUDAS ISCARIOT
The choice was not made, we must remember,
without a prevision of its issue. ‘Jesus knew
from the beginning . . . . who should betray
Him” (John vi. 64); and the distinctness with
which that Evangelist records the successive stages
of the guilt of Judas, and his Master's discernment
of it (John xii. 4, xiii. 2, 27), leaves with us the
impression that he too shrank instinctively (Bengel
describes it as “singularis antipathia,’’ Gnomon
N. T. on John vi. 64) from a nature so opposite
to his own. We can hardly expect to solve the
question why such a man was chosen for such an
office. Either we must assume absolute fore-
knowledge, and then content ourselves with saying
with Calvin that the judgments of God are as a
great deep, and with Ullmann (Siindlosigk. Jesu,
p- 97) that he was chosen that the Divine purpose
might be accomplished through him; or else with
Neander (Leben Jesu, § 77) that there was a dis-
cernment of the latent germs of evil, such as be-
longed to the Son of Man, in his insight into the
hearts of men (John ii. 25; Matt. ix. 4; Mark
xii. 15), yet not such as to exclude emotions of
sudden sorrow or anger (Mark iii. 5), or astonish-
ment (Mark vi. 6; Luke vii. 9), admitting the
thought “with men this is impossible, but not
with God.’’ Did He in the depth of that insight,
and in the fullness of his compassion, seek to over-
come the evil which, if not conquered, would be
so fatal? It gives, at any rate, a new meaning
and force to many parts of our Lord's teaching, to
remember that they must have been spoken in the
hearing of Judas, and may have been designed to
make him conscious of his danger. The warnings
as to the impossibility of a service divided between
God and Mammon (Matt. vi. 19-34), and the de-
structive power of the ‘cares of this world, and
the deceitfulness of riches’? (Matt. xiii. 22, 23),
the pointed words that spoke of the guilt of un-
faithfulness in the “ unrighteous Mammon’ (Luke
xvi. 11), the proverb of the camel passing through
the needle’s eye (Mark x. 25),must have fallen on
his heart as meant specially for him. He was
among those who asked the question, Who then
can be saved? (Mark x. 26). Of him, too, we may
say, that, when he sinned, he was “ kicking against
the pricks,”’ letting slip his “ calling and election,”’
frustrating the purpose of his Master in giving him
so high a work, and educating him for it (comp.
Chrysost. Hom. on Matt. xxvi. xxvii., John vi.).
The germs (see Stier's Words of Jesus, infra)
of the evil, in all likelihood, unfolded themselves
gradually. The rules to which the Twelve were
subject in their first journey (Matt. x. 9, 10) shel-
tered him from the temptation that would have
been most dangerous to him. The new form of
life, of which we find the first traces in Luke viii.
3, brought that temptation with it. As soon as
the Twelve were recognized as a body, travelling
hither and thither with their Master, receiving
money and other offerings, and redistributing what
they received to the poor, it became necessary that
some one should act as the steward and almoner
of the small society, and this fell to Judas (John
xii. 6, xili. 29), either as having the gifts that
qualified him for it, or, as we may conjecture, from
his character, because he sought it, or, as some
have imagined, in rotation from time to time. The
Galilean or Judean peasant (we have no reason
for thinking that his station differed from that of
the other Apostles) found himself entrusted with
larger sums of money than before (the three hun-
member that like words were spoken of and to Pe
JUDAS ISCARIOT
dred denarii of John xii. 5, are spoken of ag
which he might reasonably have expected
with this there came covetousness, unfait
embezzlement. It was impossible after ¢
he could feel at ease with One who ass
clearly and sharply the laws of faithfulness,
unselfishness; and the words of Jesus,
not chosen you Twelve, and one of you is a dey’
(John vi. 70), indicate that even then,@ thou
the greed of immediate, or the hope of larger ga
kept him from “ going back,’’ as others did (Jo
vi. 66), hatred was taking the place of love, a
leading him on to a fiendish malignity.
In what way that evil was rebuked, what dis
pline was applied to counteract it, has been hinj
at above. The scene at Bethany (John xii. 1,
Matt. xxvi. 6-138; Mark xiv. 3-9) showed h
deeply the canker had eaten into his soul. 4
warm outpouring of love calls forth no sympat]
He utters himself, and suggests to others, the eo
plaint that it is a waste. Under the plea of cari
for the poor he covers his own miserable theft. —
The narrative of Matt. xxvi., Mark xiy. “el
this history in close connection (apparently in on
of time) with the fact of the betrayal. It lea!
the motives of the betrayer to conjecture (con
Neander, Leben Jesu, § 264). The mere love
money may have been strong enough to make h
clutch at the bribe offered him. He came, it n
be, expecting more (Matt. xxvi. 15); he will ti
that. He has lost the chance of dealing with |
three hundred denarii; it will be something to |
the thirty shekels as his own. It may have bi
that he felt that his Master saw through his hid¢
guilt, and that he hastened on a crisis to avoid '
shame of open detection. Mingled with this th
may have been some feeling of vindictiyeness|
vague, confused desire to show that he had poy
to stop the career of the teacher who had ai
him. Had the words that spoke of “the buri¢
of Jesus, and the lukewarmness of the people, é
the conspiracies of the priests led him at last
see that the Messianic kingdom was not as |
kingdoms of this world, and that his dream)
power and wealth to be enjoyed in it wasa de
sion? (Ewald, Gesch. /sraels, vy. 441-46.) Thi
may have been the thought that, after all, the }
trayal could do no harm, that his Master wo}
prove his innocence, or by some supernatural mia)
festation effect his escape (Lightfoot, Hor. Ai
p- 886, in Winer, and Whitby on Matt. xxvii. /
Another motive has been suggested (comp. Ne!
der, Leben Jesu, 1. ¢.; and Whately, Assays)
Dungers to Christian Faith, Discourse iii.) of |
entirely different kind, altering altogether the eb’
acter of the act. Not the love of money, ||
revenge, nor fear, nor disappointment, but poli,
a subtle plan to force on the hour of the trium}
of the Messianic kingdom, the belief that for t)
service he would receive as high a place as Pel
or James, or John; this it was that made him }
traitor. If he could place his Master in a posit)
from which retreat would be impossible, where |
would be compelled to throw himself on the peo}
and be raised by them to the throne of his fat/
David, then he might look forward to being fc
most and highest in that kingdom, with all |
desires for wealth and power gratified to the f
—_—
@ Awful as the words were, however, we must /
(Matt. xvi. 28).
JUDAS ISCARIOT
ious as this hypothesis is, it fails for that
easou.” It attributes to the Galilean peasant
lety in forecasting political combinations, and
ng stratagems accordingly, which is hardly
tible with his character and learning, hardly
tent either with the pettiness of the faults
Of the other
23 that have been assigned we need not care
on any one, as that which singly led him on.
is for the most part the result of a hundred
s rushing with bewildering fury through the
thich he had hitherto fallen.
of the criminal.
‘ing the days that intervened between the
rat Bethany and the Paschal or quasi-Pas-
athering, he appeared to have concealed his
ery. He went with the other disciples to
0 from Bethany to Jerusalem, and looked on
ted parable of the barren and condemned
Mark xi. 20-24), and shared the vigils in
At the Last Supper
resent, looking forward to the consummation
All is
He is admitted
His feet are washed, and for him
we the fearful words, “ Ye are clean, but not
He, it may be, receives the bread and the
yhich were the pledges of the new covenant.®
ome the sorrowful words which showed him
“One of you shall
Others ask, in their sorrow and con-
He too must ask the same
m, lest he should seem guilty (Matt. xxvi.
John only, and
h him Peter, and the traitor himself, under-
the meaning of the act which pointed out
After
re comes on him that paroxysm and insanity
anane (John xviii. 2).
guilt as drawing nearer every hour.
; as if he were still faithful.
feast.
is design was known.
me.”’
Mis it 1?”
He alone hears the answer.
: was the guilty one (John xiii. 26).¢
t as of one whose human soul was possessed
Spirit of Evil — « Satan entered into him ”’
cli. 27). The words, “ What thou doest,
‘Kly,”’ come as a spur to drive him on. The
isciples see in them only a command which
terpret as connected with the work he had
undertaken. Then he completes the sin
hich even those words might have drawn
ek. He knows that garden in which his
and his companions had so often rested
te weary work of the day. He comes, ac-
‘ied by a band of officers and servants (John
). with the kiss which was probably the
alutation of the disciples. The words of
‘np. the remarks on this hypothesis, in which
* followed (unconsciously perhaps) in the
sof Paulus, in Ersch u. Gruber’s Al)gem. En-
i, Judas.”
+ question whether Judas was a partaker of
Vs Supper is encompassed with many difficul-
‘h dogmatic and harmonistic. The generai
4s of patristic commentators gives an affirm-
At of modern critics a negative, answer. (Comp.
Yomm. on John xiii. 35.)
' combination of the narratives of the four
is not without grave difficulties, for which
‘Sts and commentators may be consulted. We
en that which seems the most probable result.
8 passage has often been appealed to, as illus-
1e difference between werauedcia and peravoia.
stionable, however, how far the N..'T. writers
» that distinction (comp. Grotius in Joc.).
© questionable is the notion above referred to,
“Matthew describes his disappointment at a
‘different from that which he had reckoned
JUDAS ISCARIOT 1497
Jesus, calm and gentle as they were, showed that
this was what embittered the treachery, and made
the suffering it inflicted more acute (Luke xxii
48).
What followed in the confusion of that night
the Gospels do not record. Not many students
of the N. T. will follow Heumann and Archhp.
Whately (Zssays on Dangers, 1. c.) in the hypoth-
esis that Judas was “ the other disciple’’ that
was known to the high-priest, and brouyht Peter
in (comp. Meyer on John xviii. 15). It is proba-
ble enough, indeed, that he who had gone out with
the high priest’s officers should return with them
to wait the issue of the trial. Then, when it was
over, came the reaction. ‘The fever of the crime
passed away. There came back on him the recol-
lection of the sinless righteousness of the Master
he had wronged (Matt. xxvii. 3). He repented,
and his guilt and all that had tempted him to it
became hateful.¢ He will get rid of the accursed
thing, will transfer it back again to those who with
it had lured him on to destruction. They mock
and sneer at the tool whom they have used, and
then there comes over him the horror of great
darkness that precedes self-murder. He has owned
his sin with “an exceeding bitter ecry,’”’ but he
dares not turn, with any hope of pardon, to the
Master whom he has betrayed. He hurls the
money, which the priests refused to take, into the
sanctuary (vads) where they were assembled. For
him there is no longer sacrifice or propitiation. ¢
He is “the son of perdition’”? (John xvii. 12).
“He departed and went and hanged himself”?
(Matt. xxvii. 5). He went “ unto his own place? /
(Acts i. 25).
We have in Acts i. another account of the cir-
cumstances of his death, which it is not easy to
harmonize with that given by St. Matthew. ‘There,
in words which may have been spoken by St. Peter
(Meyer, following the general consensus of inter-
preters), or may have been a parenthetical notice
inserted by St. Luke (Calvin, Olshausen, and oth-
ers), it is stated —
(1.) That, instead of throwing the money into
the Temple, he bought (é«rhaaro) a field with it.
(2.) That, instead of hanging himself, “ falling
headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all
his bowels gushed out.”
(3.) That for this reason, and not because the
priests had bought it with the price of blood, the
field was called Aceldama.
é It is characteristic of the wide, far-reaching sym-
pathy of Origen, that he suggests another motive for
the suicide of Judas. Despairing of pardon in this
life, he would rush on into the world of the dead, and
there (yuuvy 7H Wvxy) meet his Lord, and confess his
guilt and ask for pardon (Tract. in Matt. xxxv.:
comp. also Theophanes, Hom. xxvii., in Suicer, Thes.
8. V. Iovéas).
J The words {810s té70s in St. Peter’s speech con-
vey to our minds, probably were meant to convey to
those who heard them, the impression of some dark
region in Gehenna. Lightfoot and Gill (/n loc.) quote
passages from rabbinical writers who find that mean-
ing in the phrase, even in Gen. xxxi. 55, and Num.
xxiv. 25. On the other hand it should be remem-
bered that many interpreters reject that explanation
(comp. Meyer, in Joc.),e and that one great Anglican
divine (Hammond, Comment. on N. T. in loc.) enters
a distinct protest against it.
a* Meyer mentions some who reject the above explana-
‘tion respecting ldvos Té70s, though he gives his own mane,
tion to it.
1498 JUDAS ISCARIOT
It is, of course, easy to cut the knot, as Strauss
and De Wette have done, by assuming one or both
accounts to be spurious and legendary. Receiving
both as authentic, we are yet led to the conclusion
that the explanation is to be found in some un-
known series of facts, of which we have but two
fragmentary narratives. The solutions that have
been suggested by commentators and harmonigts
are nothing more than exercises of ingenuity et
to dovetail into each other portions of a dissected
map which, for want of missing pieces, do not fit.
Such as they are, it may be worth while to state
the chief of them.
As to (1) it has been said that there is a kind
of irony in St. Peter's words, “ This was all he
got.”?- That which was bought with his money is
spoken of as bought by him (Meyer in loc.).
As to (2) we have the explanations —
(a.) That amrfytaro, in Matt. xxvii. 5, includes
death by some sudden spasm of suffocation (angina
pectoris ?), such as might be caused by the over-
powering misery of his remorse, and that then came
the fall described in the Acts (Suicer, T’hes. s. v.
amdyxw; Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot, and
others). By some this has even been connected
with the name Iscariot, as implying a constitutional
tendency to this disease (Gill).
(b.) That the work of suicide was but half ac-
complished, and that, the halter breaking, he fell
(from a fig-tree, in one tradition) across the road,
and was mangled and crushed by the carts and
wagons that passed over him. This explanation
appears, with strange and horrible exaggerations,
in the narrative of Papias, quoted by Gécumenius
on Acts i., and in Theophylact on Matt. xxvii.
As to (3) we have to choose between the alterna-
tives —
(a.) That there were two Aceldamas.
DAMA. }
(b.) That the potter’s field which the priests had
bought was the same as that in which the traitor
met so terrible a death.
The life of Judas has been represented here in
the only light in which it is possible for us to look
on it, as a human life, and therefore as one of
temptation, struggle, freedom, responsibility. If
another mode of speaking of it appears in the N. T.;
if words are used which imply that all happened as
it had been decreed; that the guilt and the misery
were parts of a Divine plan (John vi. 64, xiii. 18;
Acts i. 16), we must yet remember that this is no
single, exceptional instance. All human actions are
dealt with in the same way. They appear at one
moment separate, free, uncontrolled ; at another
they are links in a long chain of causes and effects,
the beginning and the end, of which are in the
‘ thick darkness where God is,’’ or determined by
an inexorable necessity. No adherence to a philo-
sophical system frees men altogether from incon-
sistency in their language. In proportion as the’r
minds are religious, and not philosophical, the
transitions from one to the other will be frequent,
abrupt, and startling.
With the exception of the stories already men-
tioned, there are but few traditions that gather
round the name of Judas. It appears, however, in
a strange, hardly intelligible way in the history of
the wilder heresies of the second century. ‘The
sect of Cainites, consistent in their inversion of all
that Christians in general believed, was reported to
have honored him as the only Apostle that was in
possession of the true GNosIs, to have made him
[ ACEL-
JUDAS ISCARIOT —
the object of their worship, and to have hac
Gospel bearing his name (comp. Neander, Cha
History, ii. 153, Eng. transl.; Iren. adv. Hey,
35; Tertull. de Presc. c. 47).¢ For the gene
literature connected with this subject, especially
monographs on the motive of Judas and the mam
of his death, see Winer, Realwb. For a full tre
ment of the questions of the relation in which
guilt stood to the life of Christ, comp. Stier’s Wo
of the Lord Jesus, on the passages where Juda;
mentioned, and in particular vol. vii. pp. 40-
Eng. trans. E. H. P,
* Question I. What was the character of Ju
Iscariot ? es |
A. What was his intellectual character?
(a.) There are more signs in the Gospels ¢
Judas had a strong and sturdy intellect than ¢
some of the other disciples had. It may he gs
mised from John xii. 4-8 as compared with M
thew xxvi. 8-11 and Mark xiv. 4-7, that especit
in financial affairs he had a marked influence yj
his fellow apostles. He was appointed to super
tend the funds, and disburse the charities of,
retinue which accompanied the Messiah. At.
time (Luke viii. 1-3) this retinue needed a care
exact, and sharp-sighted treasurer. We may]
sume that Judas’s intellectual fitness for this of
was one reason for his appointment to it. §&
(as Rodatz) have supposed that each of the di
ples in his turn had the oversight of the mo
belonging to the retinue of Christ. But this n
conjecture is adverse to the Biblical impression..
(b.) Although the Gospels give us more inti
tions of shrewdness as characteristic of Judas t
as characteristic of the other disciples, they do
imply that he had so extensive a reach of min
some German theorists ascribe to him. Accor
to these theorists he was so sharp-sighted at
reason in a manner like the following: —
“It may be inferred from certain words of
Master [Matthew xix. 28] that he will vie
temporal throne, and exalt his twelve apostles t
his twelve princes; it may be inferred from cer
exhibitions of popular feeling [John xii. 12-19]
the masses of the Jews are now ready, and)
only an impulse and occasion to enthrone him;
betrayal will put the Messiah into such a posi
that he must declare himself; the Jewish rm
will at once resist his pretensions, but the pe
will at once stand up for him, and under his lea
ship will overcome the rulers; the betrayal will
be the means of introducing a new administra
highly advantageous to the state, of expediting
royal glory of the Master, and the prineely ho!
of the disciples; of pleasing by exalting the k
rather than of displeasing by degrading him.” |
We do not know enough to deny outright
such a plan, or at least some parts of it, may -
momentarily occurred to Judas; but the Go
do not make upon us the impression of his ha’
that kind of intellect which remains stead/as
such a comprehensive plan. i
B. What was the moral character of Judas
(a.) Some writers regard him as possess!!
merely cold and calculating spirit unsusceptib
the influences flowing from the virtues of the .
siah; as having full confidence in the super
aera
a * Mr. Norton gives reasons for doubting th
istence of such a sect (Genuineness of the Gospe
ed., iii. 231 ff).
ie
JUDAS ISCARIOT
s to his enemies and in his ability to extri-
imself from their stratagems; therefore as
g the traitorous scheme without malice as
; without love toward his Master, and with
| plan of making game of the Jewish rulers,
his thirty pieces of silver by the trick of the
il which he believed would be harmless to
while profitable to himself. But the intima-
f the Gospels are that Judas combined a
rength of feeling with his financial sagacity.
enmess of remorse, his bitter regrets, the
il emotions terminating in his fearful death
us that he was impressible to the motives of
ss; that he alternated suddenly from an ex-
it of avarice to an excitement of a sense of
and from both to an excitement of the sense
t and the fear of retribution.
Another class of writers represent Iscariot as
of benevolence and probity: see Question
Still another class (represented by Daub) re-
he traitor as a man who even before his
e upon the apostleship “had fallen irrevo-
, prey to evil,”’ had become “a hopelessly
n,”’ “a devil in the flesh,” an impersonation
-evil which has utterly cast off all humanity,”’
e. This supposition is refuted by the fact
sus, ever mindful of the fitnesses of things,
ed to Iscariot so responsible an office as that
bursar; also by the fact that Judas, so far
eing regarded by his fellow disciples as a
vas for a long time not suspected of any
leanor ; that the Apostles were surprised when
ure treason was announced at the Paschal
(Matt. xxvi. 21 ff; Mark xiv. 18 ff.; Luke
ff; John xiii. 11, 18, 23 ff.), and, even when
expelled from their company, thought that
sent forth on a religious or benevolent
(John xiii. 27-30), to gather provisions for
st-week, or to distribute charities among the
arhaps to provide some indigent families with
sufficient for enabling them to offer the fes-
crifices.
Another class of writers adopt an intermediate
re probable theory, that, although Judas had
gth, tact, and carefulness of spirit which
um to conduct the secular aftairs of the
Tetinue, he had no largeness of mind nor
3 of aim which fitted him for great exploits;
a firmness of soul which qualified him to
persecution, but led him to his terrible
; he was mean, sordid, miserly, but still not
le to the attractions of the opposite charac-
yhough engrossed with selfish aims which
tim at times frigid and relentless, he had
assionate nature which made him at other
tolent in self-reproach; he had enough of
entiment to know the right and put on the
ice of it; he could not have enjoyed for so
‘ime the confidence of the disciples unless
counterfeited their virtues, and he is im-
accused by John (xii. 6) of hypocritical
ons; although his powers and sensibilities
a singular degree disproportioned to each
‘et they did not place him beyond the reach
| for his improvement, nor leave him (as he
‘ten represented) an altogether exceptional
‘humanity. The sins of Judas were those
2rate intent; the sins of Peter were those of
lapse. Christ says to Peter (Matt. xvi. 23):
nou behind me, Satan ’’; he says, with more
te emphasis, of Judas (John vi. 70); “ Have
JUDAS ISCARIOT 1499
I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
still the sins of both Peter and Judas were human
and therefore when Peter speaks in Acts i. 16-22
of the traitor’s suicide he maintains a reticence
which indicates that the author of the denial did
not think it seemly to hurl any violent epithets
against the author of the betrayal. Even if (as
Meyer, Alford) we suppose that the 18th and 19th
verses of Acts i. belong to the speech of Peter, they
stand in significant contrast with his open denun-
ciations of other bad men; as for instance in the
second chapter of his Second Epistle. But the
internal evidence is (see Dr. Gill on Acts i. 15-20)
that those two verses were intercalated by Luke,
whose medical education would prompt him to such
a statement, and who with a mixture of severity
and derision suggests ideas like the following:
“« This man so eager in his pursuit of wealth ended
his pursuit in acquiring a piece of land, the very
name of which is infamous. What shall it profit
aman if he should gain the whole world and lose
his own soul? This man gained a contemptible
part of the world, and amid disgusting bruises of
his body, lost his soul.’’
Because our Lord addressed the loyal disciples in
a strain of rebuke similar to that which he applied
to Judas (compare Matt. xvi. 23 with John vi. 70;
also Matt. xxvi. 10, Mark xiv. 6-9 with John xii.
7, 8), some writers have inferred that Iscariot was
not eminently selfish. Some (as Goldhorn) have
denied that the Evangelists accuse him of cherishing
an avaricious temper, or of practicing embezzlement
for his own personal advantage. He has been
thought to be a kind of prototype of St. Crispin,
who is the tutelary saint of shoemakers, and who
with his brother Crispianus was martyred in A. D.
287, after having his hands and feet plunged into
molten lead. ‘This saint, like Iscariot, was called a
‘“ thief,’’ for in his benevolent zeal he had been in
the habit of purloining leather from the compara-
tively rich in order that he might make shoes of it
for the comparatively poor. But the supposition
that Judas Iscariot was. absorbed in such a Cris-
pinade is as idle as the medizval legend that the
twenty pieces of silver for which Joseph was sold
by his brethren found their way at last into the
Jewish Temple, were paid to Judas for his treason,
and were finally returned by him into the temple
treasury.
Question II. What were the motives inducing
Judas to betray his Lord ?
In his Essay on‘Judas Iscariot, Mr. De Quincey
says: ‘“Kverything connected with our ordinary
conceptions of this man, of his real purposes, and
of his ultimate fate, apparently is erroneous.” « It
must always be important to recall within the fold
of Christian forgiveness any one who has long been
sequestered from human charity, and has tenanted
a Pariah grave. In the greatest and most mem-
orable of earthly tragedies Judas is a prominent
figure. So long as the earth revolves, he cannot
be forgotten. If, therefore, there is a doubt affect-
ing his case, he is entitled to the benefit of that
doubt.’ We are indeed apt to err in supposing
that the entire character of Judas, and especially
his signal crimes, were essentially different from the
character and crimes of other bad men. We are
also apt to err in supposing that he had a clear and
definite view of the exact evils which would befall
the Messiah, and that he did not endeavor, like
other bad men, to palliate his crime by imagining
that its evil results would in some way o1 other be
1500 JUDAS ISCARIOT
prevented. (See Neander’s Leben Jesu, p. 679 f.
4e Aufl.) We are further apt to err in supposing
that Judas must have had a single solitary motive,
or else a self-consistent system of motives for his
treason. He seems to have had a spirit which was
driven hither and thither by a tumult of emotions,
some of which were at variance with others; to
have been like a merchant on the eve of bankruptcy
distracted with conflicting impulses; to have been
bewildered by the words and acts of Jesus; not to
have known exactly what to expect; to have been
at last surprised (Meyer on Matt. xxvi. 14-16)
that Jesus did not foil his adversaries and escape
the crucifixion.
(a.) It has been supposed that Judas was animated,
in a greater or less degree, by Jewish patriotism.
He has been called by some “ Ein braver Mann”;
he has been thought by others to have combined
certain selfish impulses with his patriotism and
benevolence. Jesus could not have made a mistake
in selecting him as a disciple and bursar; therefore
Judas must have been worthy of the selection. Mr.
De Quincey, who thinks that Judas as the purse-
bearer for the disciples had “ the most of worldly
wisdom, and was best acquainted with the temper
of the times,’’ and could not “have made any
gross blunder as to the wishes and secret designs
of the populace in Jerusalem,” (for * his official
duty must have brought him every day into minute
and circumstantial communication with an im-
portant order of men, namely, petty shop-keepers,”’
who “in all countries alike fulfill a great political
function,’’) supposes that Iscariot had reason to
hope not only for the rising of the Jewish populace
in behalf of the Messiah, but also perhaps for the
ultimate aid of the Romans in defending him
against the Jewish rulers. (See Theol. Essays, I.
147-177; see also above, Quest. I. A. (a.).) But as
the intellect of Judas fitted him for small though
dexterous manceuvres rather than for adhering stead-
fastly to any great political scheme, so his heart
was more ready to grasp some petty contracted
stratagem of selfishness, than to persevere in any
large plan of patriotism. Besides, if he had en-
gaged in the betrayal under the influence of this
wide-reaching plan, he probably would not at last
have summed up the history of it by the words
which excluded the semblance of an apology: “I
have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent
blood,’”? Matt. xxvii. 4; nor probably would the
considerate Jesus have uttered against the ‘“ ]8st”’
man, “the son of perdition,’ those significant
words, *‘ Good were it for that man if he had never
been born,’ John xvii. 11; Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark
xiv. 21; nor probably would Luke have character-
ized the thirty pieces of silver as “ the reward of
iniquity,’ Acts i. 18, like Balaam’s “ wages of un-
righteousness,” 2 Peter ii. 15; nor probably would
Peter have applied to Judas those fearful predic-
tions of the Psalms, Acts i. 16, 20, as Matthew
applied the solemn words of Zechariah, Matt. xxvii.
9, 10; nor would the beloved disciple have exhibited
such an involuntary outflow of indignation against
the traitor as appears in his Gospel xii. 6, xiii. 27-
30, xiv. 22 (see Meyer), vi. 70, 71; nor perhaps
would the synoptists, in giving their catalogue of
the Apostles, have uniformly placed at the foot of the
list the name of “ Judas Iscariot who also betrayed
him,’’ Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 19; Luke vi. 16.
(b.) It is a more plausible theory that Iscariot was
impelled to his crime by a desire to avoid the’shame
of being so frequently and pointedly rebuked by
JUDAS ISCARIOT
the Messiah. Although he was willing to se
kiss for thirty pieces of silver, yet he was a ;
and must have had some wish to avoid the 1
mands which were becoming more and more go
and pointed. ey,
(c.) Connected with the preceding was his
to avert from himself the persecutions and <
evils which were to come on the disciples.
if, in his calculation of chances, he did solace
self with the possibility of driving the Messia
to the temporal throne, still he must haye }
prevailing fear that the new kingdom was n
be speedily established. It appears far more |
able that he was influenced by an aim to ear
gratitude of the Jews by delivering the Savio
their custody, than by an aim to earn the grat
of the Saviour and the disciples by hastening
elevation to thrones. Especially does it appez
when we reflect that during the hours of the
preceding his formation of the traitorous pur
he had probably heard, or heard of, those fe
words of Christ which portended violent che
in the Jewish state, and the troublous times o!
Apostles (see Matt. xxiv. and xxv.; Mark
Luke xxi.; see also (e.) below). |
(d.) One of the motives which strengthen
the others for the treason was probably the trai
dissatisfaction with the principles of the new!
dom (Neander’s Leben Jesu, p. 679 f.). He
more and more distinctly, and the scene rec
in John xii. 1-9 confirmed him in the belief,
the spiritual kingdom would yield him but am
living. It was to require a habit of lowly selfd
and was to be characterized by services to the.
For these services he had no taste. ; !
(e.) Mingled with his aversion to spiritual |
was his vindictive spirit impelling him to
some undefined sort of injury to the Messiah. |
cording to the most plausible hypothesis, he
been chagrined by the fact that, although
almoner of the disciples, he yet had a lower
than Peter, James, and especially John in
esteem of his Master; his revenge, haying |
repeatedly inflamed by slights and censures
set all on fire when he was reprimanded, an
generous woman applauded, at the feast 0
unction on the evening after Tuesday; stun
that disgrace, he formed his plan of the bett
he may not have determined the exact tin)
executing that plan, but having been still i
irritated at the Paschal supper on the evenin’
lowing Thursday, and having been goaded
the mandate “what thou doest do quickly,” I
not sleep as the other disciples did on Thu
night, but then precipitated himself into his}
(Meyer and others suppose that he hen form
purpose of the crime). On Tuesday, durin}
Saviour’s last visit to the Temple, the Jewish
had been violently incensed against him b!
speeches recorded in Matt. xxii. and xxiil.,
xii., and Luke xx. On the evening after tha:
when Judas was irritated by the reprimand |
Master, he would naturally think of the Jev
to the heart by the same reprover, and Wo)
tempted to conspire with them against the e
of these reprimands. This was the critical
for him to turn ‘“State’s Evidence,” and t
hands with the Sanhedrim as Pilate joined }
with Herod. oo
(f.) Another of the motives working it
traitor’s mind was avarice. Three hundred ¢
had been kept out of his purse two days belt
JUDAS ISCARIOT
(John xi. 1-9), and this needless loss inten-
3 miserly as well as retaliatory spirit. It has
jected (even by Neander) that he could not
se influenced by so small a reward as
: dollars. It is true that the words “ eighteen
‘in American coinage represent the value
y shekels of silver at the time of Josephus;
aust be remembered that eighteen dollars
iz to the American standard represent a far
amount of purchasing power than was rep-
| by the thirty silverlings of Josephus. For
e this sum Judas did not regard one kiss
y great work. Besides, an avaricious man
more affected by a small gain than a large
| little in the hand also is more attractive
than much in the prospect. Even if he
leavored to encourage or excuse himself by
gleams of hope that he would acquire wealth
editing the Messianic reign, these fitful
could not relieve his prevailing expectation
e new reign would leave him poor; and
hekels of silver paid down were a surer good
e spiritual honors of the uncertain kingdom.
‘the tumultuous rush of his evil thoughts
tor was under the special power of avarice,
, and distaste for the spiritualities of the
Ys kingdom is intimated in Scriptures like
owing: Luke xxii. 3; John vi. 12 and 70,
xiii. 2, 10, 11, 27.
tion III. Why did Christ select and retain
is one of the Apostles ?
may consider the call of Judas as made by
id as made by God. ,
tegarding it, as made merely by the man
theologians have maintained, with more or
tinctness, the following theories: —
At the first Christ understood the financial
5, but not the thievish or treacherous ten-
of Iscariot. ‘These were not discovered
hey were developed in the passion week, or
‘not until it was too late to eject him from
viour’s family. The reasons for retaining
ferent from those for originally appointing
[he traitor would have been irritated by the
m, and would have precipitated the delivery
s to his enemies before the full acconiplish-
ff the Messianic work. ‘ That Jesus knew
ne beginning that Judas was a thoroughly
m, and yet received him among the twelve
sether impossible.’’ Schenkel’s Character
is portrayed, vol. ii. p. 218; see also Ull-
Siindlosigkeit Jesu, Sect. 8; Winer’s Real-
», art. Judas.
From the first Christ was perfectly certain of
itor’s miserly and dishonest aims; but he
1¢ necessity of being delivered up to be cruci-
>must have some instrument for being given
the power of his enemies; he singled out
as that instrument, and the discipleship as
nience for that work.
A more plausible account than either of the
ng is: The Messiah perceived Iscariot’s
is talents, economical habits and other to us
vn qualifications for the discipleship; he per-
also the disqualifications which were less
ent in Iscariot’s earlier than in his later life,
y became more and more aggravated as the
» hardened his heart in resisting the influence
Master; when the appointment was made
ier Apostles do not appear to have disap-
of it or wondered at it, many to us unknown
stances conspiring to justify it; while the
JUDAS ISCARIOT 150]
Saviour knew the evil tendencies of Judas and ex-
pected that these germs of iniquity would unfold
themselves in embezzlement and treason (John ii.
25, vi. 64, 70; Matt. ix. +; Mark ii. 8), still he
encouraged in himself a hope that he might coun-
teract those wrong proclivities, and that the sordid
spirit would be refined and elevated by the apostol-
ical office — by the honors of it (Matt. xix. 28;
Luke xxii. 30), by the powers belonging to it (Luke
xi. 19), by the personal instructions given to the
occupants of it (especially such instructions as Matt.
vi. 19-34, xiii. 22, 23; Mark viii. 36, x. 25; Luke
xvi. 11), by the indefinable endearments of being
“with Jesus’? (Mark iii. 14 compared with Acts
ijleeAetesiv.c 1as.Philei. 23* Col. fih-3..4 20)
Thess. iv. 17; see Dr. N. E. Burt’s Hours among
the Gospels, xxviii.); while the Saviour could not
fully believe that his efforts would “be successful in
reforming the traitor, still he could not doubt that
they would be successful in improving the character
of other men — that the patience, forbearance, forti-
tude, caution, gentleness, persevering love mani-
fested in his treatment of the purse-bearer (as in
washing the traitor’s feet, and in giving him the
sweetened bread) would be a useful example to the
church, that his own character would be set off
with more distinctness by its contrast with that of
Judas — good contrasted with evil, moral strength
amid physical weakness illustrated by moral weak-
ness amid physical strength — and that such a con-
fession as “I have betrayed the innocent blood ”’
would retain through all time a marked historical
importance, and would be a symbol of the triumph
of virtue over vice. Could the Redeemer have
cherished any degree of anticipation that he might
win Iscariot to a life of virtue, and at the same
time have believed that he should not succeed?
The human mind often cherishes a feeble expecta-
tion of favorable results, and at the same time
believes on the whole that the results will be un-
favorable; makes untiring efforts for a good, and
in one view of it faintly expects to succeed, but in
another view of it fully anticipates a failure. Amid
this conflict of hopes and fears, called by the Latins
spes insperata, one man ‘against hope believed in
hope,’ Rom. iv. 18, and other men “against hope”
have disbelieved and labored ‘in hope.”’
B. Regarding the call of Judas to the apostle-
ship, as made by God, theologians have used it for
a test of their speculations on the nature of moral
government, etc. In reality there is no other kind
of objection to the fact that the Most High in his
providence allowed Judas to be one of ‘the jfirst
preachers of the Gospel, than to the fact that he
has in his providence allowed other unfit men to be
eminent preachers of it, or that he has allowed un-
worthy men to sit on the bench of justice, or to
reign on the throne which, even although they were
“ordained of God,’ they have tarnished. The
mystery here is the old mystery of moral evil: see
Olshausen on Matthew xxvii. 3-10. As men differ
in their speculations in regard to the general sub-
ject of sin and moral government, they differ, of
course, in regard to the sin of Judas as related to
that government.
(a.) Some maintain that Iscariot was called to his
office on the ground of his constitutional fitness
and without any prevision of his treason, sin being
“altogether arbitrary and inconsequential,”’ and
thus incapable of being foreknown by any mind.
(6.) Others maintain, that his treason was fore-
known, but was not included in the divine plan
1502 JUDAS ISCARIOT
just as all other sin is said to be foreseen, but not
predetermined ; and just as many vile men are prov-
identially called to occupy offices which it is fore-
seen they will disgrace.
(c.) Others maintain that his treason was com-
prehended in the divine plan (as may be inferred
from John xiii. 18-26, Acts i. 16-20, Acts iv. 28;
see Meyer on Matt. xxvi. 14-27, John vi. 70); but
still the sin was included in this plan not directly,
but incidentally ; the plan was adopted not in any
degree on account of the sin, but in despite of it,
and Judas himself was appointed to his office not
because the appointment was directly a good or a
means of good, but because it was incidental to
those means of good which were directly predeter-
mined.
(d.) Others maintain, that the appointment and
conduct of Judas were parts of the plan of God,
just as directly as the movements of matter are
parts of that plan. Of these divines, one class
assign various uses for which the appointment was
designed, and these are all the uses which in fact
result from it; another class regard the reasons for
the appointment as shrouded in a mystery which
does not admit an investigation.
QuxrsTion IV. — How can we reconcile the ap-
parent discrepancies in the Biblical narratives of
Judas ?
A. One of these discrepancies relates to the
manner of the betrayal. According to Matthew
xxvi. 48-50, Mark xiv. 44-46, Luke xxii. 47, 48,
the Saviour was pointed out to his captors by Judas
tenderly embracing him. According to John xviii.
4-8 the Saviour came forward and voluntarily made
himself known to the captors while Judas was
standing with them. One of the various methods
in which the two accounts may be harmonized, is
the following: Judas had stipulated to designate
the Messiah by a kiss; the Messiah, as soon as he
saw his captors approaching, advanced to meet
them; they, noticing his approach, halted (per-
haps in amazement); Judas went forward, gave
the significant embrace, returned, and stood with
the captors; Jesus continued his walk toward them,
and when sufficiently near, addressed them in the
words cited by John. The fact of the kiss had
been mentioned by the Synoptists, and had thus
become generally known before John wrote; there-
fore he did not allude to it. The fact’ of Christ’s
own subsequent announcement of himself may not
have been so generally known, therefore John made
it prominent. (See Tholuck and Meyer on John
Xviil. 4-7.)
A less probable version is, that Judas, in order
to fulfill his engagement, gave the promised sign
after Jesus had announced himself. Another is,
that the sign was given twice; at first was not ob-
served (for it was night) by the captors, and was
therefore given the second time.
B. The most important of the alleged discrepan-
cies relate to the last developments of Judas.
It is said in Matthew xxvii. 6, 7, that the chief
priests bought the Potter’s Field; but it is said in
Acts i. 18, that Judas bought it with the thirty
silverlings. Among the various allowable methods
of reconciling these passages, the following is
adopted by the majority of the best interpreters:
the word ékerfaaro may denote not only “ pur-
chased,’”’ but also ‘caused to be purchased,”
“gave occasion for the purchase,* and thus we
glean from the two accounts the connected narra-
tive that in consequence of Judas's treachery and | order, and instead of being inserted) betw
JUDAS ISCARIOT
the eighteen dollars obtained by it, the chief.
some time after his death purchased the fi
Blood. This field is sometimes thought to |
identical field on which Judas died. But
not so informed by the Evangelists. The field
was purchased may have been on the Hill 6
Council over the Valley of Hinnom, and j
have been called the Field of Blood for two re
first, it was purchased with “the price of bl)
secondly, with the money obtained fron
‘whose bloody end was so notorious’? (Ha
Comm. on Acts i. 19). |
It is said in Matthew xxvii. 5, that Judas bh
himself; and in Acts i. 18 that “falling he:
he burst asunder (cracked open) in the mids|
all his bowels gushed out.’’ Several of the ‘
legends in regard to Judas have been sugges|
these narratives: see Hoffmann, Leben ol
den Apokryphen, § 77. We cannot affirn!
there is a contradiction between the state
when there is a plausible hypothesis on whic
two can be reconciled. ‘There are several hypo
on which these two statements can be harme
One of these hypotheses which is in strikin
formity with an old tradition, and is in it:
credible that some of the most decided ratio
(as Fritzsche) have adopted it in the main, j)
Matthew describes the beginning, and Luk
|
end of the death-scene; that the traitor susp
himself on a bough which hung oyer a pre
and the rope broke, or the bough broke, 0)
one, unwilling to have such a spectacle bal
during the holy week, cut the rope or the |:
and the traitor fell with such physical resi
Luke describes. Travellers in Palestine exy?i
the Valley of Hinnom have been impo
the probability of this hypothesis; see esp,
Hackett’s Jdlustrations of Scripture, pp. 26
No jury in the world would hesitate to ad
hypothesis stmilar to the preceding for the (
ciliation of two apparently conflicting testi
given in court.
Partly on account of these imagined disc)
cies, it has been supposed (without any ey!
evidence, however), not only by such crit
Strauss and Renan, but also by more conseit
scholars, that either Matthew xxvii. 3-10, (e
that Acts i. 18, 19, must be spurious. Prot
ton (in his Genuineness of the Gospels, able
edition, pp. 488-441) gives the following (0
other reasons for rejecting Matthew xxvii. 3-)
(1.) “At first view this account of Jud
the aspect of an interpolation. It is insertei0
to disjoin a narrative, the different parts of jl¢
when it is removed, come together as if Bt
been originally united.’ But the same n’
said of numerous passages not only in the Gpe
but also in the Epistles, and in the Old Test
(2.) “« Whether it be or be not an re me
is clearly not in a proper place.’”’ “As the au
is now placed, it is said that in the morning
was affected with bitter remorse, because |/§
that ‘Jesus was condemned;’ but no con
tion had yet been passed upon him by the ™
governor,”’ etc. Some commentators (as Fri¢h
would here reply that the “ condemnation ” k
of in Matt. xxvii. 3, is the condemnation \¢
Sanhedrim, and this had taken place befor’ @
was sent to Pilate, and before Judas repent b
the more plausible reply is that Matthew's”
tive of the traitor’s death is out of the hu"
7
JUDAS ISCARIOT
d the 11th verses, should,-for preserving the
nce of time, be inserted between the 30th
the 81st verses of his xxviith chapter; as
3 narrative of the supper at Bethany is out
» historical order, and instead of being in-
| between the 2d and 9th verses, should, for
‘ving the sequence of time, be inserted at the
f his 12th chapter. Deviations from the exact
of time are so frequent in the Biblical narra-
as to warrant no suspicion that a paragraph
deviating is spurious. Sometimes they are
ned not for “trajections ” but for historical
nations, as John’s narrative of the unction
3-10) may have been designed to explain the
e of Judas’s treason, and prepare the reader
ie otherwise unaccountable assertion in John
[2 (see Question II. (e.) above).
) The account of Matthew “represents Judas
wing had an interview with the chief priests
the elders (that is, with the Sanhedrim) in
‘emple,”’ but Matthew could not have de-
xd the Sanhedrim as holding a council in the
» of Caiaphas, and proceeding thence to the
sof Pilate, and also as being in the Temple,
s Judas returned them their money,” etc. ‘To
some writers would reply, that the Sanhedrim
mned Jesus in the Temple which “ was the
ar place for holding the assemblies of the
sil”; and they condemned him early in the
jing, “soon after five, a time which St. John
1 naturally describe by zpwta, because earlier
‘sunrise, +pw?, though much later than the
' of the day, and therefore coincident with the
when preparations usually began for the morn-
sacrifice," and when the priests must neces-
* be at the Temple (Greswell’s 42d Dissertation).
‘he more plausible reply is that after Jesus had
condemned by the Roman governor, some,
ips many, of the priests returned to the “ inner
” or “holy place”’ of the Temple; and Judas
eing allowed to step within the “court of the
"8, came to the entrance of it, and threw his
{tings into it, perhaps upon the floor.
) “In the conclusion of the account found in
/hew's Gospel there is an extraordinary misuse
\yassage of Zechariah, which the writer professes
ote from Jeremiah,’’ and the words of which
(ltogether inapplicable to the purpose for which
! are used in Matthew xxvii. 9, 10.
regard to the word Jeremiah used instead of
€ariah, some critics have supposed that it was
i ror not of Matthew but of the copyist. There
important external evidence for this supposi-
(and it may appear a singular attempt to save
enuineness of an entire paragraph by giving
1e genuineness of one word in it. But where
/re date or proper name is obviously wrong,
lis more reason for questioning its genuineness
there would be if the doubtful word were
estive of a moral idea or religious sentiment.
¢cidental error is the more easily committed and
‘ooked where the copyist is not guided by any
*ssion on his heart. Dr. Henderson says:
' gustine mentions, that in his time some MSS.
Ned the name of "Iepeufov. It is also omitted in
NSS. 33, 157; in the Syriac, which is the most
nt of all the versions; in the Polyglott Persic,
‘na Persic MS. in my possession, bearing date
\, 1057; in the modern Greek; in the Verona
uVereelli Latin MSS., and in a Latin MS. of
Li Brug. The Greek MS. 22 reads Zayapiov,
30 do the Philoxenian Syriac in the margin,
JUDE, OR JUDAS 1503
and an Arabic MS. quoted by Bengel. Origen and
Eusebius were in favor of this reading.’’ Prof.
Henderson mentions the conjecture that "Ipiou was
written by some early copyist instead of Zpiov, and
thus the mistake of “ Jeremiah ’’ for ‘ Zechariah ”
was easily transmitted. See Henderson’s Com-
mentary on Zechariah, xi. 12, 13; also Robinson’s
Harmony, p. 227.
In regard to the propriety of the citation of
Matthew from Zechariah we may remark, that the
entire book from which the citation was made is
one of the obscurest in the Bible, and our difficulties
in determining its precise import should make us
modest in asserting that the Evangelist has made
a wrong use of it. It is not true, however, that
we can discover no propriety in the quotation.
Among the various methods of explaining it, one
is the following: The prophet is speaking of him-
self as a type of Christ, and of his opposers as types
of Christ’s opposers. In this typical style he pre-
dicts the sufferings of Christ, and also the malice
of Christ’s opposers. As the chief priests and
Judas were among the most conspicuous enemies
of Christ, the prophet may be considered as typi-
eally referring in the most conspicuous manner to
them. He describes himself as appraised by his
foes at a “splendid” (2. e. despicable) price, thirty
pieces of silver (the sum paid for a common slave,
Exodus xxi. 32), and this money was given to the
potter for his field. The [vangelist, fixing his eye
upon the salient points of the prophecy and quoting
ad sensum rather than ad literam, says that Jesus
was appraised at the same contemptible price, and
this was given to the potter for his field. The
events described by Zechariah are thus typical and
in this sense prophetical of the events described by
Matthew. ‘There is no more reason for regarding
Matthew’s quotation as spurious than for regarding
many other quotations in the New Testament as
such. ‘This is a common style of the New Testa-
ment writers. Even De Wette in his old age con-
ceded: “The entire Old Testament is a great
prophecy, a great type of Him who was to come,
and has come.’’ —“ The typological comparison,
also, of the Old Testament with the New was by
no means a mere play of fancy; nor can it be
regarded as altogether the result of accident, that
the evangelical history, in the most important
particulars, runs parallel with the Mosaic.” (See
the passage cited in Fairbairn’s Typology, i. 34.
See also pp. 342, 334.)
Another and kindred explanation of the passage
is this: As Psalms lxix. 25 and cix. 8 contain
prophecies of the generic or ideal righteous man
of whom Christ is the antitype, so they contain
prophecies of the generic or ideal unrighteous man
of whom according to Acts i. 16-20 Judas is an
antitype, and this prophecy of Zechariah may be
interpreted as thus generic or ideal in its reference
to the Messiah and his persecutors.
EK. A. P.
JUDE, or JU’DAS, LEBBE’US and
THADDEUS (‘Iovdas “IaxdéBov: Judas Ja-
cobi: A. V. “Judas the brother of James’’), one
of the Twelve Apostles; a member, together with
his namesake ‘Iscariot,’ James the son of Al-
pheus, and Simon Zelotes, of the last of the three
sections of the apostolic body. The name Judas
only, without any distinguishing mark, occurs in
the lists given by St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; and
| in John xiv. 22 (where we find “ Judas not Iscariot”
1504 JUDE, OR JUDAS
JUDAS, THE LORD'S BROTH
‘among the Apostles), but the Apostle has been| the author of which expressly calls himself be
generally identified with ‘ Lebbeus whose surname
was Thaddeus”’ (AcBBatos 6 érixAnOels @addatos),
Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18, though Schleiermacher
(Crit. Essay on St. Luke, p. 93) treats with scorn
any such attempt to reconcile the lists. In both
the last quoted places there is considerable variety
of reading; some MSS. having both in St. Matt.
and St. Mark AeBBaios, or @adbatos alone; others
introducing the name ’IovSas or Judas Zelotes in
St. Matt., where the Vulgate reads Thaddeus alone,
which is adopted by Lachmann in his Berlin edition
of 1832. ‘This confusion is still further increased
. by the tradition preserved by Eusebius (/. E. i.
13) that the true name of Thomas (the twin) was
Judas (Iovdas 6 kal Owuas), and that Thaddeus
was one of the ‘“ Seventy,’’ identified by Jerome in
Matt. x.'with “Judas Jacobi’? [THADDEUS]; as
well as by the theories of modern scholars, who
regard the “Levi”? (Aevls 6 rod ’AAdatov) of
Mark ii. 14, Luke v. 27, who is called « Lebes”
(AeBns) by Origen (Cont. Cels. 1. i. § 62), as the
same with Lebbeeus. The safest way out of these
acknowledged difficulties is to hold fast to the
ordinarily received opinion that Jude, Lebbseus, and
Thaddeus, were three names for the same Apostle,
who is therefore said by Jerome (in Jatt. x. to
have been “trionymus,”’ rather than introduce con-
fusion into the apostolic catalogues, and render
them erroneous either in excess or defect.
The interpretation of the names Lebbzeus and
Thaddeus is a question beset with almost equal
difficulty. ‘The former is interpreted by Jerome
“‘hearty,’’ corculum, as from ob cor, and Thad-
dzeus has been erroneously supposed to have a cog-
nate signification, homo pectorosus, as from the
Syriac TS), pectus (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 235,
Bengel; Jatt. x. 3), the true signification of TW
being mamma (Angl. teat), Buxtorf, Lew. Taln.
2565. Winer (Realwd. s. v.) would combine the
two and interpret them as meaning Herzenskind.
Another interpretation of Lebbzeus is the young lion
(leunculus) as from N29, leo (Schleusner, s. v.),
while Lightfoot and Baumg.-Crusius would derive
it from Lebba, a maritime town of Galilee men-
tioned by Pliny (ist. Nat. v. 19), where, however,
the ordinary reading is Jebba. Thaddzeus appears
in Syriac under the form Adai, and Michaelis ad-
mits the idea that Adai, Thaddeus, and Judas,
may be different representations of the same word
(iv. 370), and Wordsworth (Gr. Test. in Matt.
x. 3) identifies Thaddzeus with Judas, as both from
2)
TTT, to “ praise.” Chrysostom, De Prod. Jud.
l. i. c. 2, says that there was a “ Judas Zelotes”’
among the disciples of our Lord, whom he identifies
with the Apostle. In the midst of these uncer.
tainties no decision can be arrived at, and all must
rest on conjecture.
Much difference of opinion has also existed from
the earliest times as to the right interpretation of
the words ’Iovdas “IaxéBov. The generally re-
ceived opinion is that there is an ellipse of the word
adeApds, and that the A. V. is right in translating
“‘ Judas the brother of James.’’ This is defended
by Winer (Realwd. s. v.; Gramm. of N. T. Dict.,
Clark’s edition, i. 203), Arnaud (Recher. Crit. sur
Ep. de Jude), and accepted by Burton, Alford,
Tregelles, Michaelis, etc. This view has received
strength from the belief that the “ Epistle of Jude,”
of James,’’ was the work of this Apostle. B
as will be seen hereafter, the arguments in
of a non-apostolic origin for this epistle are
as to lead us to assign it to another author
mode of supplying the ellipse may be consi¢
independently; and since the dependent ger
almost universally implies the filial relation, a
so interpreted in every other case in the apo
catalogues, we may be allowed to follow the Pe
and Arabic versions, the Benedictine edito
Chrysostom, Hom. XXX/I., in Matt. x, 9,
the translation of Luther, as well as nearly al
most eminent critical authorities, and render
words “Judas the son of James,’ that is, ¢
“James the son of Alpheus,’ with whom |
coupled, Matt. x. 3; or some otherwise unk
person.
The name of Jude only occurs once in the G
narrative (John xiv. 22),*where we find him ta
part in the last conversation with our Lord,
sharing the low temporal views of their Mas
kingdom, entertained by his brother Apostles.
Nothing is certainly known of the later his
of the Apostle. There may be some truth in
tradition which connects him with the founda
of the church at Edessa; though here again t
is much confusion, and doubt is thrown over
account by its connection with the worthless fic
of « Abgarus king of Edessa’? (Euseb. #. 2
13; Jerome, Comment. in Matt. x.) [THADD&
Nicephorus (//. LZ. ii. 40) makes Jude die a nat
death in that city after preaching in Palesi
Syria, and Arabia. The Syrian tradition speak
his abode at Edessa, but adds that he went th
to Assyria, and was martyred in Pheenicia or
return; while that of the west makes Persia:
field of his labors and the scene of his martyrd
The tradition preserved by Hegesippus, w
appears in Eusebius, relative to the descendant
Jude, has reference, in our opinion, to a diffe
Jude. See next article. KE. \
JU’DAS, THE LORD’S BROTH)
Among the brethren of our Lord mentioned+by
people of Nazareth (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi
occurs a “ Judas,’’ who has been sometimes id¢
fied with the Apostle of the same name; a th’
which rests on the double assumption that "Io
"Iax@Bou (Luke vi. 16) is to be rendered “Ji
the brother of James,’ and that “the sons)
Alpheus ’’ were “ the brethren of our St)
is sufficiently refuted by the statement of St. d
vii. 5, that “not even his brethren believed
Him.” It has been considered with more F
ability that he was the writer of the epistle w!
bears the name of “Jude the brother of Jam’
to which the Syriac version incorporated with!
later editions of the Peshito adds “ and of ie
(Origen in Matt. xiii. 55; Clem. Alex. Aduml)
Alford, Gk. Test., Matt. xiii. 55). [JupE, Epis!
OF; JAMES. |]
Eusebius gives us an interesting tradition!
Hegesippus (H. L. iii. 20, 32) that two grand
of Jude, “ who according to the flesh was called
Lord’s brother’? (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 5), were seized |
carried to Rome by orders of Domitian, whost?
prehensions had Leen excited hy what he had h*
of the mighty power of the kingdom of Chi
but that the Emperor having discoyered by '!
answers to his inquiries, and the appearance of 11
hands, that they were poor men, supporting {1a
=
_ JUDE, EPISTLE OF
yy their labor, and having learnt the spiritual
of Christ's kingdom, dismissed them in con-
and ceased from his persecution of the
, whereupon they returned to Palestine and
leading place in the churches, “as being at
ne time confessors and of the Lord’s family ”
8% waptupas duod Kal amd yéveos bvras
yptov), and lived till the time of Trajan.
orus (i. 23) tells us that Jude’s wife was
Mary. Bi. Ve
DE, EPISTLE OF. I. /ts Authorship. —
iter of this epistle styles himself, ver. 1,
the brother of James’ (43eA@ds "laxdBou),
s been usually identified with the Apostle
Lebbzeus or ‘Thaddeus, called by St. Luke,
Tovdas "laxdéBov, A. V. “ Judas the brother
es.” It has been seen above [JupAs Lres-
that this mode of supplying the ellipse,
not directly contrary to the usus loqguendi,
ay the least, questionable, and that there are
reasons for rendering the words “ Judas the
James:”° and inasmuch as the author ap-
ver. 17, to distinguish himself from the
s, and bases his warning rather on their
ty than on his own, we may agree with
t critics in attributing the epistle to another
Jerome, Tertullian, and Origen, among
jents, and Calmet, Calvin, Hammond, Hiin-
nge, Vatablus, Arnaud, and Tregelles, among
derns, agree in assigning it to the Apostle.
er it were the work of an Apostle or not, it
m very early times been attributed to “the
brother ’’ of that name (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark
aview in which Origen, Jerome, and (if
the Adumbrationes be rightly assigned to
Jemens Alexandrinus agree; which is im-
n the words of Chrysostom (Hom. 48 in
confirmed by the epigraph of the Syriac
s, and is accepted by most modern com-
ors, Arnaud, Bengel, Burton, Hug, Jessien,
sen, 'regelles, etc. The objection that has
lt by Neander (Pl. und Tir. i. 392), and
that if he had been “ the Lord’s brother ”
ld have directly styled himself so, and not
“the brother of James,’’ has been antici-
by the author of the ‘“ Adumbrationes ”
1, Analect. Ante-Nicen. i. 330), who says,
who wrote the Catholic Epistle, brother of
8 of Joseph, an extremely religious man,
he was aware of his relationship to the
id not call himself His brother; but what
? ‘Jude the servant of Jesus Christ’ as his
ut ‘brother of James.’"” We may easily
that it was through humility, and a true
f the altered relations between them ard
10 had been “declared to be the Son of
th power . . . . by the resurrection from
1” Cf. 2 Cor. v. 16), that both St. Jude and
tes forbhore to call themselves the brethren
+ The arguments concerning the author-
the epistle are ably summed up by Jessien
thent. Ep. Suc. Lips. 1821), and Arnaud
* Critiq. sur Ep. de Jude, Strasb: 1851,
ed Brit. and For. kv. Rev. Jul. 1859);
agh it is by no means clear of difficulty,
t probable conclusion is that the author was
ie of the brethren of J esus, and brother of
aot the Apostle the son of Alphzeus, but
‘op of Jerusalem, of whose dignity and au-
/n the church he avails himself to introduce
2 to his readers.
95
JUDE, EPISTLE OF 1505
Il. Genuineness and Canonicity. — Although the
Epistle of Jude is one of the so-called Antilego-
men, and its canonicity was questioned in the
earliest ages of the church, there never was any
doul.t of its genuineness among those by whom it
was known. It was too unimportant to be a for-
gery; few portions of Holy Scripture could, with
reverence be it spoken, have been more easily
spared; and the question was never whether it was
the work of an impostor, but whether its author
was of sufficient weight to warrant its admission
into the Canon.
This question was gradually decided in its favor,
and the more widely it was known the more gen-
erally was it received as canonical, until it took its
place without further dispute as a portion of the
volume of Holy Scripture.
The state of the case as regards its reception by
the church is briefly as follows: —
It is wanting in the Peshito (which of itself
proves that the supposed Evangelist of Edessa could
not have been its author), nor is there any trace of
its use by the Asiatic churches up to the com-
mencement of the 4th century; but it is quoted as
apostolic by Ephrem Syrus (Opp. Syr. i. p. 136).
The earliest notice of the epistle is in the famous
Muratorian Fragment (circa A. Dp. 170) where we
read “ Epistola sane Jude et superscripti Johannis
dus in Catholic&é’’ (Bunsen, Analect. Ante-Nic.
i. 152, reads “ Catholicis ’’) * habentur.”’
Clement of Alexandria is the first father of the
church by whom it is recognized (Pcedag. 1. iiis
c. 8, p. 239, ed. Sylburg.; Stromut. L. iii. c. 2, p.
431, Adumbr. 1. c.). Eusebius also informs us
(H. L. yi. 14) that it was among the books of Ca-
nonical Scripture, of which explanations were giver.
in the Aypotyposes of Clement; and Cassiodorus
(Bunsen, Analect. Ante-Nic. i. 330-333) gives some
notes on this epistle drawn from the same source.
Origen refers to it expressly as the work of the
Lord’s brother (Comment. in Mait. xiii. 55, 56, t.
x. § 17): “ Jude wrote an epistle of but few verses,
yet filled with vigorous words of heavenly grace.”
He quotes it several times (/omil. in Gen. xiii.;
in Jos. vii.; in Lzech. iv.; Comment. in Matt. t.
xiii, 27, xv. 27, xvii. 30; in Jounn. t. xiii. § 37; in
ftom. 1. iii. § 6, v. § 1; De Princip. 1. iii. c. 2, § 1),
though he implies in one place the existence of
doubts as to its canonicity, “if indeed the Epistle
of Jude be received"? (Comment. in Mutt. xxii. 23,
t. xvii. § 30).
Eusebius (H. £. iii. 25) distinctly classes it with
the Autilegomena, which were nevertheless recog-
nized by the majority of Christians; and as-
serts (ii. 23) that, in common with the Epistle of
James, it was ‘deemed spurious’ (vodeverar),
though together with the other Catholic ipistles
publicly read in most churches.
Of the Latin Fathers, Tertullian once expressly
cites this epistle as the work of an Apostle (de /Lud.
Mulieb. i. 3), as does Jerome, “ from whom (Enoch)
the Apostle Jude in his epistle has given a quota-
tion”? (in Tit. c. i. p. 708), though on the other hand
he informs us that in consequence of the quota-
tion from this apocryphal book of Enoch it is re
jected by most, adding, that “ it has obtained such
authority from antiquity and use, that it is now
reckoned among Holy Scripture” (Cat +l. Serip-
tor. ‘ecles.). He refers to it as the work of an
Apostle (Lpist. ad Pwuulin. iii.).
The epistle is also quoted by Malchion, a pres-
byter of Antioch, in a letter to the bishops of Alex-
1506 JUDE, EPISTLE OF
andria and Rome (Euseb. 7. F. vii. 80), and by
Palladius, the friend of Chrysostom (Chrys. Opp.
t. xiii., Dial. cc. 18, 20), and is contained in the
Laodicene (A. D. 863), Carthaginian (897), and so-
called Apostolic Catalogues, as well as in those
emanating from the churches of the East and West,
with the exception of the Synopsis of Chrysostom,
and those of Cassiodorus and Ebed Jesu.
Various reasons might be assigned for delay in
receiving this epistle, aud the doubts long preva-
lent respecting it. The uncertainty as to its author,
and his standing in the church, the unimportant
nature of its contents, and their almost absolute
identity with 2 Pet. ii., and the supposed quota-
tion of apocryphal books, would all tend to create
a prejudice against it, which could be only over-
come by time, and the gradual recognition by the
leading churches of its genuineness and canonicity.
At the Reformation the doubts on the canonical
authority of this epistle were revived, and have
been shared in by modern commentators. They
were more or less entertained by Grotius, Luther,
Calvin, Berger, Bolten, Dahl, Michaelis, and the
Magdeburg Centuriators. It has been ably defended
by Jessien, de Authentia kp. Judae, Lips. 1821.
Il. Zime and Place of Writing. — Here all is
conjecture. The author being not absolutely cer-
tain, there are no external grounds for deciding the
point; and the internal evidence is but small. The
question of its date is connected with that of its
relation to 2 Peter (see below, § vi.), and an earlier
or later period has been assigned to it according as
it has been considered to have been anterior or pos-
terior to that epistle. From the character of the
errors against which it is directed, it cannot be
placed very early; though there is no sufficient
ground for Schleiermacher’s opinion that ‘in the
last time” (év écxatw xpdvw, ver. 18; Gh ol
John ii. 18, éoxdrn Spa éori) forbids our pla-
cing it in the apostolic age at all. Lardner places
it between A. D. 64 and 66, Davidson before A. b.
70, Credner A. D. 80, Calmet, Estius, Witsius, and
Neander, after the death of all the Apostles but
John, and perhaps after the fall of Jerusalem;
although considerable weight is to be given to the
argument of DeWette (Linleit. in N. T. p. 300),
that if the destruction of Jerusalem had already
taken place, some warning would have been drawn
from so signal an instance of God’s vengeance on
the “ ungodly.”
There are no data from which to determine the
place of writing. Burton however, is of opin-
~ jon that inasmuch as the descendants of ‘Judas
the brother of the Lord,’ if we identify him with
the author of the epistle, were found in Palestine,
he probably “ did not absent himself long from his
native country,’’ and that the epistle was published
there, since he styles himself “the brother of
James,”’ ‘an expression most likely to be used in
a country where James was well known’? (ccles.
Hist. i. 334).
IV. For what Readers designed.— The readers
are nowhere expressly defined. The address (ver.
1) is applicable to Christians generally, and there
is nothing in the body of the epistle to limit its
reference; and though it is not improbable that the
author had a particular portion of the church in
view, and that the Christians of Palestine were the
immediate objects of his warning, the dangers de-
scribed were such as the whole Christian world was
exposed to, and the adversaries the same which had
everywhere to be guarded against.
JUDE, EPISTLE OF
V. Its Object, Contents, and Style.— The
of the Epistle is plainly enough announced, |
“it was needful for me to write unto you ar
hort you that ye should earnestly contend {
faith that was once delivered unto the saints
reason for this exhortation is given ver. 4,
stealthy introduction of certain “ ungodly
turning the grace of our God into lasciyiot
and denying the only Lord God and our
Jesus Christ.” The remainder of the epi
almost entirely occupied by a minute depict:
these adversaries of the faith — not heretical
ers (as has been sometimes supposed), whic
stitutes a marked distinction between this |
and that of St. Peter — whom in a torrent of j
sioned invective he describes as stained with
ural lusts, like “the angels that kept not the
estate’? (whom he evidently identifies wit
‘“«sons of God,’’ Gen. vi. 2), and the inhabita
Sodom and Gomorrah — as despisers of all
mate authority (ver. 8) — murderers like (
covetous like Balaam — rebellious like Korah
11) — destined from of old to be signal monu
of the Divine vengeance, which he confin
reference to a prophecy current among the
and traditionally assigned to Enoch (vy. 14,
The epistle closes by briefly reminding the
ers of the oft-repeated prediction of the A)
— among whom the writer seems not to ran]
self— that the faith would be assailed by
enemies as he has depicted (vv. 17-19), exh
them to maintain their own steadfastness |
faith (vv. 20, 21), while they earnestly sou
rescue others from the corrupt example of!
licentious livers (vv. 22, 23), and comm
them to the power of God in language which!
bly recalls the closing benediction of the ep!
the Romans (vv. 24, 25; cf. Rom. xvi. 25,
This epistle presents one peculiarity, wh
we learn from St. Jerome, caused its authc
be impugned in very early times — the su!
citation of apocryphal writings (vv. 9, 14, ‘
The former of these passages, containil
reference to the contest of the archangel
and the Devil “about the body of Moses
supposed by Origen to have been founded!
Jewish work called the « Assumption of
CAvddnwts Mwoéws), quoted also by eu!
(ii. 629). Origen’s words are express, ‘!
little work the Apostle Jude has made ment
in his epistle”? (de Princip. iii. 2, i. p. 138
some have sought to identify the book wi
TID FIT, « The death of Moses,”
is, however, proved by Michaelis (iv. 382) {|
modern composition. Attempts have als
made by Lardner, Macknight, Vitringa, and
to interpret the passage in a mystical sel)
reference to Zech. iii. 1, 2; but the similarit
distant to afford any weight to the idea.
is, on the whole, little question that the ¥
here making use of a Jewish tradition, bi
Deut. xxxiv. 6, just as facts unrecorded int
ture are referred to by St. Paul (2 Tim.
Gal. iii. 19); by the writer of the Epistle)
Hebrews (ii. 2, xi. 24); by St. James (¥. 1
St. Stephen (Acts vii. 22, 23, 30).
As regards the supposed quotation fn
Book of Enoch, the question is not so clear | {
St. Jude is making a citation from a work [°
in the hands of his readers — which is the ?
of Jeronie (J. c.) and Tertullian (who was ir?
Z
JUDE, EPISTLE OF
s inclined to receive the Book of Enoch as} St. Jude was not first sent to the Christians of
ical Scripture), and has been held by many
n critics —or is employing a traditionary
cy not at that time committed to writing (a
‘which the words used, “ Enoch prophesied
” érpophrevoev * + * "Evay Aéywy, Seem
to favor), but afterwards embodied in the
phal work already named [ENocH, THE
or]. This is maintained by Tregelles
e’s /ntvod. 10th ed., iv. 621), and has been
yy Cave, Hofmann (Schriftheweis, i. 420),
oot (ii. 117), Witsius, and Calvin (cf. Jerom.
ent. in Eph. c. v. p. 647, 648; in Tit. c. 1,
‘main body of the epistle is well character-
r Alford (Gr. Test. iv. 147) as an impassioned
ve, in the impetuous whirlwind of which the
is hurried along, collecting example after ex-
of Divine vengeance on the ungodly; heap-
ithet upon epithet, and piling image upon
and as it were laboring for words and images
enough to depict the polluted character of
entious apostates against whom he is warning
urch; returning again and again to the sub-
s though all language was insufticient to give
quate idea of their profligacy, and to express
ring hatred of their perversion of the doc-
of the Gospel.
epistle is said by De Wette (Zinleit. in N. T.
) to be tolerably good Greek, though there
me peculiarities of diction which have led
It (Hinlett. i. 314) and Bertholdt (vi. 3194)
gine an Aramaic original.
Relition between the Epistles of’ Jude and
r.— lt is familiar to all that the larger por-
this epistle (ver. 3-16) is almost identical
uage and subject with a part of the Second
of Peter (2 Pet. ii. 1-19). In both, the
ul enemies of the Gospel are described in
0 similar as to preclude all idea of entire
idence. This question is examined in the
PrErer, Sxeconp EPpIsTLE oF.
aight be expected from the comparatively
rtant character of the epistle, critical and
val editions of it have not been numerous.
‘ay specify Arnaud, Recherches Crit. sur
te de Jude, Strasb. and Par. 1851; Laur-
Not. Crit. et Commentar. in Ep. Jud.,
ye, 1818; Scharling, Jacob. et Jud. Ep.
cComment., Haynie, 1841; Stier, On the
+ of James and Jude; Herder, Briefe
* Brider Jesu, Lemgo, 1775; Augusti,
t, Benson, and Macknight, on the Catholic
* TVs
Is impossible in a limited space to discuss
tions between this epistle and the Second
eter; but it may be assumed that an at-
consideration of them will show that the
itles could not have been written independ-
Less certain, and yet probable, is the con-
that the Epistle of St. Jude was the earlier
two. If this be accepted, then the date
leath of St. Peter in A. p. 68 becomes a
Int in determining the date of the Epistle
Jude, and the question of date is thus
within narrow limits, as the whole contents
pistle prove it to have been comparatively
oxtremely unlikely that two epistles so sim-
130 nearly of the same date should have been
d primarily to the same readers. It may
' be argued negatively that the Epistle of
JUDE, EPISTLE OF 1507
Asia
Minor. As the earliest testimony to the epistle
comes from Alexandria, it has been suggested that
“gypt may have been the original destination of
the zpistle.
The expression in the first paragraph of section
V., in the preceding article, “ these adversaries of
the faith — not heretical teachers (as has been
sometimes supposed ) which constitutes a marked dis-
tinction between this epistle and that of St. Peter”
— is not easily understood in connection with the
statement in VI., “In both the heretical enemies of
the Gospel are described in terms so similar as to
preclude all idea of entire independence.” Certainly
the terms in both epistles are quite similar, and must
refer to the same class of persons. It is plain enough
that they were persons within the church; “men
crept in unawares” (Jude 4), “ spots in your feasts
of charity, when they feast with you” (12). St.
Peter expressly calls them teacher's (ii. 1); St. Jude
describes their teaching and its effects.
The analysis of the epistle may be given some-
what more fully, since notwithstanding its warmth
and glow, it is most thoroughly planned and care-
fully arranged. After the salutation (1, 2), and the
reason for writing (3, 4), follows an argument for
the certain punishment of the ungodly from a series
of historical examples (5, 6,7). The application
of this is made in the following verse, and then, in
contrast, an example is given of godly conduct (9)
and a further application (10). After this follows
a denunciation of the ungodly by a series of ex-
amples (11), and by five comparisons (12, 13).
The certain punishment of the ungodly is then
further shown by prophecy; first, the prophecy of
Enoch, as the most ancient possible, and its appli-
cation (14-16), then as the most recent, thus show-
ing perfect accord in all time, the prophecy of the
Apostles, with its application (17-19). This con-
cludes the argumentative part of the epistle, and
then follows an exhortation to the faithful, (@.) in
regard to their own spiritual welfare (20, 21), and
(6.) in regard to those corrupted by the ungodly
(22, 23). The epistle closes with a benediction
(24) and doxology (25).
There is nothing in the epistle to indicate that
the author identified “the angels that kept not
their first estate’’ (6) with the “sons of God”
mentioned in Gen. vi. 2. This was an interpreta-
tion current in the church of the second century;
but the sin of the angels here mentioned must have
occurred before man was placed upon the earth.
In regard to the quotation from Enoch, the re-
mark above made, that it does not appear that St.
Jude quoted from any book, is very just. It is
certain that he could not have made use of onr
present ‘book of Enoch,” as that work bears de-
cisive internal evidence of not having been written
before the middle of the second century. In the
article ENOCH, THE BOOK OF, a great variety of
opinions will be found given on this matter. The
only ground however, on which it seems possible
to assign an earlier date to this volume than to the
writings of the New Testament, is that of its having
been subsequently largely altered and interpolated
— a supposition which makes it to have been orig-
inally a different book from that which we now
have. Without denying the possibility of there
having been another more ancient “book of Enoch”’
from which the present one has been formed, it is
sufficient to say that such a supposition deprives it
of all interest in the, present connection, and it
1£08 JUDE, EPISTLE OF
remains that St. Jude could not have quoted from
the book as we now have it. Such suppositions
however, are always cumbrous, useless, and unsatis-
factory, in the absence of any proof, and it is far
more agreeable to the ordinary laws of evidence to
consider the whole book as a forgery of the second
century — a period when works of this character
abounded. ¥. G.
* Literature. — For references to the more im-
portant general commentaries which include the
Epistle of Jude, see the addition to Joun, Frrsv
EpistLe or. The following special works may also
be noted: H. Witsius, Comm. in kpist. Jude,
Lugd. Bat. 1703, 4to, reprinted in his M/eletematu
Leidensia, Basil. 1739. C. F. Schmid, Odserva-
tiones super Ep. cath. S. Jude, Lips. 1768. Semler,
Paraphrasis in Epist. ii. Petri, et Epist. Jude,
cum Vet. Lat. Translationis Varietate, Notis, etc.
Hale, 1784. H.C. A. Hinlein, Ap. Jude, Grece,
Comm. critico et Annot. perpet. illustrata, 2d ed.
Erlang. 1799, 3d ed. 1804. Schneckenburger,
Scholien, u.s. w. in his Beitrdge zur Einl. ins
N. T., Stuttg. 1832, p. 214 ff. De Wette, Kurze
Erklérung d. Briefe d. Petrus Judas u. Jakobus,
Leipz. 1847, 3¢ Ausg. bearb. yon B. Brickner,
1865 (Bd. iii. Th. i. of his Kurzgef. exeget. Handb.).
Huther, Krit. exeget. Handbuch iib. d. 1. Brief d.
Petrus, d. Brief d. Judas u. d. 2. Brief d. Petrus,
Gott. 1852, 3e Aufl. 1867 (Abth. xii. of. Meyer’s
Kommentar). M. F. Rampf, Der Brief Jude,
hist. krit. exeget. betrachtet, Sulzb. 1854. Fron-
miller, Die Briefe Petri u. d. Brief Juda theol.-
homilet. bearbeitet, Bielefeld, 1859, 2e Aufl. 1862
(Theil xiv. of Lange’s Bibelwerk); translated, with
additions, by J. I. Mombert, New York, 1867 (part
of vol. ix. of Lange’s Comm.). Wiesinger, Der
zweite Brief des Apost. Petrus u.d. Brief d. Judas
erklart, Konigsb. 1862 (Bd. vi. Abth. iii. of Olshau-
sen’s Bibl. Comm.). Theod. Schott, Der zweite
Brief Petri u. d. Brief Judé erklért, Erlang. 1863.
Holtzmann, German transl. and brief notes, in
Bunsen's Bibelwerk, vol. iv. (1864), p. 630 ff, comp.
vol. viii. p. 590. In English, some of the old Puritan
divines expatiated at great leneth on this epistle,
as W. Perkins (66 sermons), W. Jenkyn, and T.
Manton (Lond. 1658). Jenkyn’s Lapusition, 2
parts, Lond. 1652-54, 4to, has been several times
reprinted (Lond. 1656; Glasgow, 1783; Lond. 1839 ;
Edinb. 1863). Practical expositions have also been
given by W. Muir (1822), EK. Bickersteth (1846),
and W. Macgillivray (1846); see Darling’s Cyclop.
Bibliographica, (Subjects), col. 1728. In our own
country we have Barnes’s Notes (/pistles of James,
Peter, John, and Jude, New York, 1847); The
Second Epistle of Peter, the Epistles of John and
Judas, and the Revelation, translated from the
Greek, with notes (by the Rey. John Lillie), New
York, 1854, 4to (Amer. Bible Union); and the
Rey. Frederic Gardiner’s The Last of the Epistles ;
a Commentary on the Epistle of St. Jude, Boston,
1856, with Excursus, and an Appendix on the
similarity between this epistle and the Second of
St. Peter (abridged from his art. in the Bibl. Sacra
for January, 1854).
On the critical questions relating to the epistle
one may consult, in addition to the Introductions
to the New Testament by De Wette, Reuss, Bleek,
Davidson, and others, J. C. G. Dahl, De ad@evria
Epistt. Petrine posteriovis et Jude, Rost. 1807;
« The expression ANTS SMW) (Num. xxv. 14)
ig remarkable, and seems to mean the patriarchal
JUDGES 4
L. A. Arnaud, Kasai crit. sux lauthenti
Pépitre de Jude, Strasb. 1835; F. Brun, -
crit. a Vepitre de Jude, Strasb. 1842; a
Ritschl, Veber die im Briefe des Judas ¢;
terisirten Antinomisten, in the Theol. Stud. u
1861, pp. 103-118. See also, especially «
relation of the 2d Epistle of Peter to that of
the literature under PETER, SECoND Epis
* JUDE’A. [Jupza.]
* JU’DETH. [Juprru, 2.]
JUDGES. The administration of justice
early eastern nations, as amongst the Arabs
desert to this day, rests with the patr
seniors; ¢ the judges being the heads of tri
of chief houses in a tribe. Such from their e
position would haye the requisite leisure, we
able to make their decisions respected, and 1
the wider intercourse of superior station
decide with fuller experience and riper refl
Thus in the book of Job (xxix. 7, 8, 9) the
archal magnate is represented as going fort
the gate’? amidst the respectful silence of
princes, and nobles (comp. xxxii. 9). The
chiefs of individual tribes are mentioned on’
occasions, one as late as the time of David,
serving importance in the commonwealth |
vii. 2, 10, 11, xvii. 6, or 17 in Hebigeas,
18; Josh. xxii. 14; so perh. Num. xvi. 2, x:
Whether the princes of the tribes mention
Chr. xxvii. 16, xxviii. 1, are patriarchal he
merely chief men appointed by the king to ,
is not strictly certain; but it would be for
all ancient eastern analogy to suppose thi
forfeited the judicial prerogative, until redu(
overshadowed by the monarchy, which in .
time is contrary to the tenor of history. —
the oppression of Egypt the nascent peopl)
necessarily have few questions at law to plea
the Egyptian magistrate would take eogniz
theft, violence, and other matters of polici
the question put to Moses shows that “a |)
and “a judge’’ were connected even then
popular idea (Ex. ii. 14; comp. Num. x
When they emerged from this oppressi'
national existence, the want of a machinery
cature began to press. The patriarchal,sen
not instantly assume the function, haying }
been depressed by bondage till rendered unf|
not having become experienced in such })
nor having secured the confidence of their
men. Perhaps for these reasons Moses at fi
the whole burden of judicature upon hims
at the suggestion of Jethro (Ex. xviii. 14
stituted judges over numerically eraduated *
of the people. ‘These were chosen for the
fitness, but from Deut. i. 15, 16, we may 1
they were taken from amongst those t
primogeniture would have assigned it. —
offenses of public magnitude, criminal ease!
appear to have been distinguished from civ’
duty of teaching the people the. knowledg
law which pertained to the Levites, doub®
cluded such instruction as would assist t!
ment of those who were thus to decide a)!
to it. The Levites were thus the ultimat
of ordinary jurisprudence, and perhaps the
ing’ aforesaid may merely mean the ex!"
the law as applicable to difficult cases
senior of a subdivision of the tribe (comp. P
' 38, Judg. v. 3, 15).
i
JUDGES
JUDGES 1509
xe. Beyond this, it is not possib.e to indicate | tendence was interrupted at Joshua's death is not
vision of the provinces of deciding on points
as distinct from points of fact. The judges
ned as standing before Joshua in the great
blies of the people must be understood as the
sors to those chosen by Moses, and had doubt-
en elected with Joshua's sanction from among
me general class of patriarchal seniors (Josh.
4, xxii. 14, xxiv. 1).
, judge was reckoned a sacred person, and
d even from verbal injuries. Seeking a de-
at law is called “ enquiring of God” (Ex.
15). The term “ gods” is actually applied
ges (Kix. xxi. 6; comp. Ps. Ixxxii. 1, 6). The
was told, “ thou shalt not be afraid of the
f men, for the judgment is God’s;”’ and thus,
, human instrumentality was indispensable,
uurce of justice was upheld as divine, and the
- of its administration only sank with the
eof religious feeling. In this spirit speaks
xxii., —a lofty charge addressed to all who
»; comp. the qualities regarded as essential at
clear. A simple way would have been for the
existing judges in every own, etc., to choose their
own colleagues, as vacancies fell, from among the
limited number of persons who, being heads of
families, were competent. Generally speaking, the
reputation for superior wealth, as some guarantee
against facilities of corruption, would determine the
choice of a judge, and, taken in connection with
personal qualities, would tend to limit the choice
to probably a very few persons in practice. The
supposition that judicature will always be provided
for is carried through all the books of the Law (see
Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. pass.; Lev. xix. 15; Num. xxxv.
24; Deut. i. 16, xvi. 18, xxv. 1). And all that
we know of the facts of later history confirms the
supposition. The Hebrews were sensitive as regards
the administration of justice; nor is the free spirit
of their early commonwealth in anything more
manifest than in the resentment which followed the
venal or partial judge. The fact that justice re-
posed on a popular basis of administration largely
stitution of the office, Ex. xviii. 21, and the | contributed to keep up this spirit of independence,
admonition of Deut. xvi. 18-20. But besides
aered dignity thus given to the only royal
ion, which, under the Theocracy, lay in human
, it was made popular by being vested in those
led public feeling, and its importance in the
seye appears from such passages as Ps. lxix.
gmp. exix. 23), Ixxxii., exlviii. 11; Prov. viii.
xi. 4, 5, 23. There could have been no con-
uble need for the legal studies and expositions
: Levites during the wanderings in the wilder-
while Moses was alive to solve all questions,
while the law which they were to expound
206 wholly delivered. The Levites, too, had a
e of cattle to look after in that wilderness like
2st, and seem to have acted also, being Moses’
wibe, as supports to his executive authority.
hen few of the greater entanglements of prop-
sould arise before the people were settled in
possession of Canaan. ‘Thus they were dis-
ed in smaller matters, and under Moses’ own
for greater ones. When, however, the com-
ment, “judges and officers shalt thou make
in alll thy gates’’ (Deut. xvi. 18), came to be
ed in Canaan, there were the following sources
which those officials might be supplied : Ist,
G Officio judges, or their SuCCeSSOrs, aS chosen
voses; 2dly, any surplus left of patriarchal
*s when they were taken out (as has been
1 from Deut. i. 15, 16) from that class; and
the Levites. On what principle the non-
ical judges were chosen after Divine superin-
this term is used for want of a better; but as
ls privileges of race, the tribe of Levi and house
ton were the only aristocracy, and these, by their
‘ion as regards holding land, were an aristocracy
anlike what has usually gone by that name.
\ number of words —e. g. Sot), “wy, TI]
‘Specially in the book of Job) =e — are some-
rendered prince’ in the A. V.: the first most
’ uniformly 80, which seems desiznative of the
eminence of high birth or position ; the next,
| €xpresses active and official authority. Yet as
NP) was most likely, nay, in the earlier annals,
1, to be the “Ww, we must be careful of ex-
¥ from the person called by the one title the
.
wy
“—
“4 .
which is the ultimate check on all perversions of
the tribunal. The popular aristocracy @ of heads
of tribes, sections of tribes, or families, is found to
fall into two main orders of varying nomenclature,
and rose from the capite censt, or mere citizens,
upwards. The more common name for the higher
order is ‘ princes,’ and for the lower, “ elders ”’
(Judg. viii. 14; Ex. ii. 14; Job xxix. 7, 8, 9; Ezr
x. 8). These orders were the popular element of
judicature. On the other hand the Levitical body
was imbued with a keen sense of allegiance to God
as the Author of Law, and to the Covenant as his
embodiment of it, and soon gained whatever forensic
experience and erudition those simple times could
yield; hence they brought to the judicial task the
legal acumen and sense of general principles which
complemented the ruder lay element. Thus the
Hebrews really enjoyed much of the virtue of a
system which allots separate provinces to judge and
jury, although we cannot trace any such line of
separation in their functions, save in so far as has
been indicated above. To return to the first or
popular branch, there is reason to think, from the
general concurrence of phraseology amidst much
diversity, that in every city these two ranks of
‘¢ princes ’’ and “elders ’’® had their analogies, and
that a variable number of heads of families and
groups of families, in two ranks, were popularly
recognized, whether with or without any form of
election, as charged with the duty of administering
justice. Succoth¢ (Judg. viii. 14) may be taken
qualities denoted by the other. Of the two remaining
terms, 2T, expressing princely qualities, approaches
most nearly to Nowa, and 23, expressing prom-
inence of station, to “wy.
¢ The princes and elders here were together 77.
The subordination in numbers, of which Ten is the
base of Ex. xviii. and Deut. i. 16, strongly suggests
that 70-+7 were the actual components ; although
they are spoken of rather as regards functions of ruling
generally than of judging specially, yet we need not
separate the two, as is clear from Deut. i. 16. Such
division of labor assuredly found little place in primi
tive times. No doubt these men presided “in the
gate.” The number of Jacob’s family (with which
Succoth was traditionally connected, Gen. xxxiii. 17)
1510
as an example.
Moses’ choice would have left their successors when
the tribe of Gad, to which Succoth pertained (Josh.
xiii. 27), settled in its territory and towns: and
what would be more simple than that the whole
number of judges in that tribe should be allotted
to its towns in proportion to their size? As such
judges were mostly the headmen by genealogy,
they would fall into their natural places, and sym-
metry would be preserved. The Levites also were
apportioned on the whole equally among the tribes;
and if they preserved their limits, there were prob-
ably few parts of Palestine beyond a day’s journey
from a Levitical city.
One great hold which the priesthood had, in
their jurisdiction, upon men’s ordinary life was the
custody in the Sanctuary of the standard weights
and measures, to which, in cases of dispute, reference
was doubtless made. It is, however, reasonable to
suppose that in most towns sufficiently exact models
of them for all ordinary questions would be kept,
since to refer to the Sanctuary at Shiloh, Jerusalem,
etc., in every case of dispute between dealers would
be nugatory (Ex. xxx. 13; Num. iii. 47; Ez. xly.
12). Above all these, the high-priest in the ante-
regal period was the resort in difficult cases (Deut.
xvii. 12), as the chief jurist of the nation, and who
would in case of need be perhaps oracularly directed ;
yet we hear of none acting as judge save Eli: ¢ nor
is any judicial act recorded of him; though perhaps
his not restraining his sons is meant to be noticed
as a failure in his judicial duties. Now the judicial
authority of any such supreme tribunal must have
wholly lapsed at the time of the events recorded in
Judg. xix.o It is also a fact of some weight,
negatively, that none of the special deliverers called
judges was of priestly lineage, or even became as
much noted as Deborah, a woman. This seems to
show that any central action of the high-priest on
national unity was null, and of this supremacy, had
it existed in force, the judicial prerogative was the
main element. Difficult cases would include cases
of appeal, and we may presume that, save so far as
the authority of those special deliverers made itself
felt, there was no judge in the last resort from
Joshua to Samuel. Indeed the current phrase of
those deliverers that they “judged” Israel during
their term, shows which branch of their authority
was most in request, and the demand of the people
for a king was, in the first instance, that he might
“judge them,” rather than that he might “ fight
their battles” (1 Sam. viii. 5, 20).
These judges were 15 in number: 1. Othniel;
2. Ehud; 3. Shamgar; 4. Deborah and Barak;
5. Gideon; 6. Abimelech; 7. Tola; 8. Jair; 9.
Jephthah; 10. Ibzan; 11. Elon; 12. Abdon; 13.
Samson; 14. Eli; 15. Samuel. Their history is
related under their separate names, and some re-
JUDGES
having been 70 on their coming down into Egypt (Gen.
xlvi. 27), may have been the cause of this number
being that of the “elders” of that place, besides the
sacred character of the factor 7. See also Ex. xxiv. 9.
On the other hand, at Ramah about 80 persons occu-
pied a similar place in popular esteem (1 Sam. ix. 22:
see also ver. 18, and vii. 17).
@ The remark in the margin of the A. V. on 1 Sam.
iv. 18, seems improper. It is as follows: ‘ He seems
to have been a judge to do justice only, and that in
Southwest Israel.” When it was inserted, the func-
tion of the high-priest, as mentioned above, would
seem to have been overlooked. That function was
certuinly designed to be general, not partial; though
Evidently the ex officio judges of | marks upon the first thirteen,
/probably, as hinted above, its execution was /
JUDGES
contained jn
book of Judges, are made in the following
The chronology of this period is discussed
CHRONOLOGY (vol. i. p. 444).
This function of the priesthood, being, j
be presumed, in abeyance during the period of
judges, seems to have merged in the monan
The kingdom of Saul suffered too severely fi,
external foes to allow civil matters much pro.
nence. Hence of his only two recorded judi|
acts, the one (1 Sam. xi. 13) was the mere ren.
sion of a penalty popularly demanded; the ot}
the pronouncing of a sentence (ibid. xiy. 44, )
which, if it was sincerely intended, was overn|
in turn by the right sense of the people. In }.
vid’s reign it was evidently the rule for the k
to hear causes in person, and not merely be)
sively, or even by deputy (though this might;
be included),¢ the “ fountain of justice” to
people. For this purpose, perhaps, it was ae
tively ordained that the king should “ write hii,
copy of the Law,’ and “ read therein all the dj
of his life’? (Deut. xvii. 18, 19). The same cls
of cases which were reserved for Moses would pr}
,
ably fall to his lot; and the sch Th
teks
course ready to assist the monarch. This is f.
ther presumable from the fact that no officer ar:
ogous to a chief justice ever appears under |
kings. It has been supposed that the subject.
of all Israel to David’s sway caused an tite |
such cases, and that advantage was artfully tal]
of this by Absalom (2 Sam. xy. 1-4); but the 1}
at which cases were disposed of can hardly hy
been slower among the ten tribes after David |
become their king, than it was during the previl)
anarchy. It is more probable that during Davi)
uniformly successful wars wealth and populat)
increased rapidly, and civil cases multiplied fs
than the king, occupied with war, could attend
them, especially when the summary process ¢
tomary in the East is considered. Perhaps —
arrangements, mentioned in 1 Chr. xxiii. 4, x)
29 (comp. v. 82, “rulers”? probably includ!
judges), of the 6000 Levites acting as “offic.
and judges,’ and amongst them specially “ Chei,
niah and his sons;”’ with others, for the tra
Jordanic tribes, may have been made to meet })
need of suitors. In Solomon's character, whi
reign of peace would surely be fertile in civil qu)
tions, the “ wisdom to judge” was the fitting fi
quality (1 K. iii. 9; comp. Ps. Ixxii. 1-4). As
judge Solomon shines “ in all his glory ” (1K.
16, &c.). No criminal was too powerful for |
justice, as some had been for his father’s (2 Sa)
iii. 89; 1 K. ii. 5, 6, 338, 34). The examples :
direct royal exercise of judicial authority are 2 "
i. 15, iv. 9-12, where sentence is summarily e:
cuted,? and the supposed case of 2 Sam. xiv. 1
adequate.
b It ought not to be forgotten that in some ca
of “blood” the * congregation” themselves eres
judge” (Num. xxxv. 24), and that the appeal i
Judg. xx. 4-7 was thus in the regular course of ¢i)
stitutional law. 4
e See 2 Sam. xv. 3, where the text gives probal
a better rendering than the margin. m4
d The cases of Amnon and Absalom, in which |
notice was taken of either crime, though set down 5
Michaelis (Laws of Moses, bk. i. art. x.) a8 instan}
of justice forborne through politic consideration of
criminal’s power, seem rather to be examples of mi
na.
t
JUDGES
enunciation of 2 Sam. xii. 5 6. is, though
mally judicial, yet in the same spirit. Sol-
similarly proceeded in the cases of Joab and
i (1 K. ii. 34, 46; comp. 2 K. xiv. 5, 6).
likely that royalty in Israel was ultimately
rable to the local independence connected
he judicature of the ‘princes "’ and “ elders ’’
territory and cities of each tribe. The ten-
of the monarchy was doubtless to centralize,
2 read of large numbers of king’s officers ap-
d to this and cognate duties (1 Chr. xxiii. 4,
19-32). If the general machinery of justice
een, as is reasonable to think, deranged or
ad during a period of anarchy, the Levites
d the fittest materials for its reconstitution.
to some extent detached, both locally, and
cial duties, exemptions, etc., from the mass
population, they were more easily brought to
ady routine which justice requires, and, what
less important, were, in case of neglect of
more at the mercy of the king (as shown in
se of the priests at Nob, 1 Sam. xxii. 17).
‘it is probable that the Levites generally
»ded the local elders in the administration
tice. But subsequently, when the Levites
ew from the kingdom of the ten tribes, judi-
ders probably again filled the gap. Thus
onducted the mock trial of Naboth (1 K.
13). There is in 2 Chr. xix. 5, &., a spe-
tice of a reappointment of judges by Jehosh-
ind of a distinct court, of appeal perhaps, at
em, composed of Levitical and of lay ele-
_ In the same place (as also in a previous
‘Chr. xxvi. 32) occurs a mention of “the
matters’ as a branch of jurisprudence. The
of the prerogative having a constant ten-
oencroach, and needing continual regulation,
ay have grown probably into a department,
iat like our exchequer.
‘more change is noticeable in the pre-Baby-
period. ‘The * princes’? constantly appear
werful political body, increasing in influence
vileges, and having a fixed centre of action
‘salem; till, in the reign of Zedekiah, they
9 exercise some of the duties of a privy
ixvili. 21; Jer. xxvi. 10, 16).
fs” are probably the heads of great houses ®
th and Benjamin, whose fathers had once
te pillars of local jurisdiction; but who,
i the attractions of a court, and probably
der the constant alarm of hostile invasion,
| gradually residents in the capital, and
an oligarchy, which drew to itself, amidst
wing weakness of the latter monarchy, what-
‘or was left in the state, and encroached on
*reign attribute of justice. The employ-
| offices of trust and emolument would tend
18, either of government or of personal charac-
David. His own criminality with Bathsheba
derfluous to argue, since the matter was by
nterference removed from the cognizance of
aw.
‘m Num. iv. 3, 23, 30, it would seem that after
| of age the Levites were excused from the
of the tabernacle. This was perhaps a pro-
‘eant to favor their usefulness in deciding on
f law, since the maturity of a judge has hardly
T that age, and before it they would have been
o their lay coadjutors.
t some of the heads of such houses, however,
0 their proper sphere, seems clear from Jer.
; and especially a collective jurisdiction (2.
These:
JUDGES 1511
also in the same way, and such chief families would
probably monopolize such employment. Hence
the constant burden of the prophetic strain, de-
nouncing the neglect, the perversion, the corrup-
tion, of judicial functionaries (Is. i. 17, 21, v. 7, x.
2, xxvili. 7, lvi. 1, lix. 4; Jer. ii. 8, v. 1, vii. 5,
xxi. 12; Ez. xxii. 27, xlv. 8,9; Hos. v. 10, vii. 5,
7; Amos v. 7, 15, 24, vi. 12; Hab. i. 4, &e.). Still,
although far changed from its broad and simple
basis in the earlier period, the adininistration of
justice had little resembling the set and rigid sys-
tem of the Sanhedrim of later times.c [See
SANHEDRIM.] This last change arose from the
fact that the patriarchal seniority, degenerate and
corrupted as it became before the Captivity, was by
that event broken up, and a new basis of judica-
ture had to be sought for.
With regard to the forms of procedure little
more is known than may be gathered from the
two examples, Ruth iv. 2, of a civil, and 1 K. xxi.
8-14, of a criminal character;¢ to which, as a
specimen of royal summary jurisdiction, may be
added the well-known “judgment” of Solomon.
Boaz apparently empancis as it were the first ten
‘elders’? whom he meets “in the gate,’ the well-
known site of the oriental court, and cites the
other party by ‘Ho, such an one; ’’ and the people
appear to be invoked as attesting the legality of
the proceeding. The whole affair bears an extem-
poraneous aspect, which may, however, be merely
the result of the terseness of the narrative. In
Job ix. 19, we have a wish expressed that a “ time
to plead’ might be ‘set’? (comp. the phrase of
Roman law, diem dicere). In the case of the in-
voluntary homicide seeking the city of refuge, he
was to make out his case to the satisfaction of its
elders (Josh. xx. 4), and this failing, or the con-
gregation deciding against his claim to sanctuary
there (though how its sense was to be taken does
not appear), he was not put to death by act of
public justice, but left to the “avenger of blood”
(Deut. xix. 12). The expressions between “ blood
and blood,’’ between “plea and plea’’ (Deut. xvii.
8), indicate a presumption of legal intricacy arising,
the latter expression seeming to imply something
like what we call’ a “ cross-suit.."" We may infer
from the scantiness, or rather almost entire absence
of direction as regards forms of procedure, that the
legislator was content to leave them to be provided
for as the necessity for them arose, it being impos-
sible by any jurisprudential devices to anticipate
chicane. It is an interesting question how far
judges were allowed to receive fees of suitors; Mi-
chaelis reasonably presumes that none were allowed
or customary, and it seems, from the words of 1
Sam. xii. 3, that such transactions would have been
regarded as corrupt. There is another question
how far advoeates were usual. ‘There is no reason
xxvi. 17, where “elders of the land” address an
“assembly of the people.’? Still, the occasion is not
judicial.
¢ The Sanhedrim is, by a school of Judaism once
more prevalent than now, attempted to be based on
the 70 elders of Num. xi. 16, and to be traced through
the 0. T. history. Those 70 were chosen when judi-
cature had been already provided for (Ex. xviii. 25),
and their office was to assist Moses in the duty of
governing. But no influence of any such body is
traceable in later times at any crisis of history. They
seem in fact to have left no successors.
d The example of Susannah and the elders is to
suspicious an authority to be cited.
1512 JUDGES, BOOK OF
to think that until the period of Greek influence,
when we meet with words based on guyvfyopos and
mapdkAntos, any professed class of pleaders ex-
isted. Yet passages abound in which the pleading
of the cause of those who are unable to plead their
own, is spoken of as, what it indeed was, a noble
act of charity; and the expression has even (which
shows the popularity of the practice) become a
basis of figurative allusion (Job xvi. 21; Prov.
xxii. 23, xxiii. 11, xxxi. 9; Is. i. 17; Jer. xxx. 13,
l. 34, li. 36). The blessedness of such acts is
forcibly dwelt upon, Job xxix. 12, 13.
There is no mention of any distinctive dress or
badge as pertaining to the judicial officer. A staff
or sceptre was the common badge of a ruler or
prince, and this perhaps they bore (Is. xiv. 5;
Am. i. 5, 8). They would, perhaps, when officia-
ting, be more than usually careful to comply with
the regulations about dress laid down in Num. xv.
38, 39; Deut. xxii. 12. The use of the “ white
asses’’ (Judg. v. 10), by those who ‘sit in judg-
ment,’’ was perhaps a convenient distinctive mark
for them when journeying where they would not
usually be personally known.
For other matters relating to some of the forms
of law, see OATHS, OFFICERS, WITNESSES.
Het,
JUDGES, BOOK OF (OUD W: Kp
rat: liber Judicum). I. Title. —The period of
history contained in this book reaches from Joshua
to Eli, and is thus more extensive than the time
of the Judges. A large portion of it also makes
no mention of them, though belonging to their
time. But because the history of the Judges oc-
cupies by far the greater part of the narrative, and
is at the same time the history of the people, the
title of the whole book is derived from that por-
tion. The book of Ruth was originally a part of
this book. But about the middle of the fifth cen-
tury after Christ it was placed in the Hebrew copies
immediately after the Song of Solomon. In the
LXX. it has preserved its original position, but as
a separate book.
II. Arrangement. — The book at first sight may
be divided into two parts —i.-xvi.,and xyvii.—xxi.
A. i-xvi. — The subdivisions are: (a.) iii. 5,
which may be considered as a first introduction,
giving a summary of the results of the war carried
on against the Canaanites by the several tribes on
the west of Jordan after Joshua’s death, and form-
ing a continuation of Josh. xii. Jt is placed first,
as in the most natural position. It tells us that
the people did not obey the command to expel the
people of the land, and contains the reproof of them
bya prophet. (b.) ii. 6-iii. 6. This is a second
introduction, standing in nearer relation to the fol-
lowing history. It informs us that the people fell
into. idolatry after the death of Joshua and his
generation, and that they were punished for it by
being unable to drive out the remnant of the in-
habitants of the land, and by falling under the
hand of oppressors. A parenthesis occurs (ii. 16-
19) of the highest importance as giving a key to
the following portion. It is a summary view of
the history: the people fall into idolatry; they are
then oppressed. by a foreign power; upon their
repentance they are delivered by a judge, after
whose death they relapse into idolatry. (c.) ili. 7-
xvi, The words, -‘and the children of Israel did
evil in the sight of the Lord,’ which had been
already used in ii, 11, are employed to introduce
i
JUDGES, BOOK OF
the history of the 13 judges comprised in
book. An account of six of these 13 is give
greater or less length. The account of the
maining seven is very short, and merely atta
to the longer narratives. These narratives aj
follows: (1.) The deliverance of Israel by (
niel, iii. 7-11. (2.) The history of Ehud, anc
31) that of Shamgar, iii. 12-31. (38.) The d
erance by Deborah and Barak, iv.-y. (4)
whole passage is vi-x. 5. The history of Gi
and his son Abimelech is contained in vi.-ix.,
followed by the notice of Tola, x. 1, 2, and.
x. 8-5. This is the only case in which the his
of a judge is continued by that of his child
But the exception is one which illustrates the
son taught by the whole book. Gideon’s si
making the ephod is punished by the destruc
of his family by Abimelech, withthe help of
men of Shechem, who in their turn become
instruments of each other’s punishment. Ina
tion to this, the short reign of Abimelech yw
seem to be recorded as being an unauthorized
ticipation of the kingly government of later ti
(5.) x. 6-xii. The history of Jephthah, x. 6:
7; to which is added the mention of Ibzan, xii
10; Elon, 11, 12; Abdon, 13-15. (6.) The his
of Samson, consisting of twelve exploits, and f
ing three groups connected with his love of t
Philistine women, xiii.-xvi. We may obsery
general on this portion of the book, that |
almost entirely a history of the wars of del
ance; there are no sacerdotal allusions in it;
tribe of Judah is not alluded to after the tim
Othniel; and the greater part of the judges be
to the northern half of the kingdom. |
B. xvii.-xxi.— This part has no formal cor
tion with the preceding, and is often called an
pendix. No mention of the judges occurs i
It contains allusions to “the house of God,
ark, and the high-priest. The period to whicl
narrative relates is simply marked by the expres
‘when there was no king in Israel” (xix. 1
xviii. 1). It records (a) the conquest of Lais
a portion of the tribe of Dan, and the estal
ment there of the idolatrous worship of Jeh
already instituted by Micah in Mount Ephi
The date of this occurrence is not marked, b
has been thought to be subsequent to the tin
Deborah, as her song contains no allusion t
northern settlements of the tribe of Dan. (0)
almost total extinction of the tribe of Benjami
the whole people of Israel, in consequence of |
supporting the cause of the wicked men of Gil
and the means afterwards adopted for preventin
becoming complete. The date is in some 4)
marked by the mention of Phinehas, the gran)
of Aaron (xx. 28), and by the proof of the uma
ity still prevailing among the people.
Ill. Design. We have already seen that
is an unity of plan in i—xvi., the clew to wh
stated in ii. 16-19. There can be little dou!
the design to enforce the view there expressed.
the words of that passage must not be presse
closely. 1t is a general view, to which the fac
the history correspond in different degrees.
the people is contemplated as a whole; the }!
are spoken of with the reverence due to (
instruments, and the deliverances appear cont,
But it would seem that the people were mm
stance under exactly the same eircumstances
the judges in some points fall short of the |
Thus Gideon, who in some respects IS the
|
r
JUDGES, BOOK OF
it of them, is only the head of his own tribe,
s to appease the men of Ephraim by concilia-
uiguage in the moment of his victory over
idianites; and he himself is the means of
away the people from the pure worship of
In Jephthah we find the chief of the land
ead only, affected to some extent by personal
3 (xi. 9); his war against the Ammonites
ined to the east side of Jordan, though its
robably also freed the western side from their
e, and it is followed by a bloody conflict
Again, Samson’s task was simply
gin to deliver Israel ’’ (xiii. 5); and the oc-
} which called forth his hostility to the Phil-
are of a kind which place him on a different
This shows that
sage in question is a general review of the
ve history of Israel during the time of the
the details of which, in their varying aspects,
phraim.
com Deborah or Gideon.
en faithfully as the narrative proceeds.
existence of this design may lead us to expect
e have not a complete history of the times —
We have
which is clear from the book itself.
counts of parts of the nation at.any one time.
uy easily suppose that there were other inci-
f a similar nature to those recorded in xvii.-
And in the history itself there are points
are obscure from want of fuller information,
1e reason for the silence about the tribe of
(see also viii. 18, ix. 26).
at the number of the judges is not complete;
re is no reason for this opinion. Bedvn (1
xii. 11) is possibly the same as Addon.
(Gesch. ii. 477) rejects the common explan-
hat the word is a contracted form of Ben-
@. Samson. And Jael (v. 6) need not be
ne of an unknown judge, or a corruption of
s Ewald thinks, but is probably the wife of
“The days of Jael’’ would carry the
of Israel up to the time of the victory over
and such an expression could hardly be
t too great an honor at that time (see v.
JAEL. |
Materials— The author must have found
parts of his book in a definite shape: e. g.
rds of the prophet (ii. 1-5), the song of
4 (v.), Jotham’s parable (ix. 7-20; see also
18, xv. 7, 16). How far these and the rest
aaterials came to him already written is a
of doubt. Stithelin (Krit. Untersuch. p.
inks that iii. 7-xvi. present the same man-
diction throughout, and that there is no
_ Suppose written sources. So Hiivernick
ung, i. 1, pp. 68 ff., 107) only recognizes
+ of documents in. the appendix. Other
however, trace them throughout. Bertheau
dges, pp. xxviii-—xxxii.) says that the differ-
the diction in the principal narratives,
with the fact that they are united in one
ints to the incorporation of parts of previous
» Thus, according to him, the author found
‘tance of iv. 2-24 already accompanying the
‘Deborah; in vi-ix. two distinct authorities
1—a life of Gideon, and a history of
and its usurper; in the account of Jeph-
Aistory of the tribes on the east of Jordan
Yed, which meets us again in different parts
‘entateuch and Joshua; and the history of
is taken from a longer work on the Philis-
3. Ewald’s view is similar (Gesch. i. 184
36 ff).
elation to other Books.— (A.) To Joshua. —
Some suppose
JUDGES, BOOK OF 1513
Josh. xv.—xxi. must be compared with Judg. i. in
order to understand fully how far the several tribes
failed in expelling the people of Canaan. Nothing
is said in ch. i. about the tribes on the east of Jor-
dan, which had been already mentioned (Josh. xiii.
13), nor about Levi (see Josh. xiii. 33, xxi. 1-42).
The carrying on of the war by the tribes singly is
explained by Josh. xxiv. 28. The book begins with
a reference to Joshua’s death, and ii. 6-9 resumes
the narrative, suspended by i.-ii. 5, with the same
words as are used in concluding the history of
Joshua (xxiv. 28-31). In addition to this the fok
lowing passages appear to be common to the two
books: compare Judg. i. 10-15, 20, 21, al, aU,
with Josh. xv. 14-19, 18, 63, xvii. 12, xvi. 10. A
reference to the conquest of Laish (Judg. xviii.)
occurs in Josh. xix. 47.
(B.) To the books of Samuel and Kings. — We
find in i. 28, 30, 33, 35, a number of towns upon
which, “ when Israel was strong,” a tribute of bond-
service was levied; this is supposed by some to
refer to the time of Solomon (1 K. ix. 13-22).
The conduct of Saul towards the Kenites (1 Sam.
xv. 6), and that of David (1 Sam. xxx. 29), is ex-
plained by i. 16. A reference to the continuance
of the Philistine wars is implied in xiii. 5. ‘The
allusion to Abimelech (2 Sam. xi. 21) is explained
by ch. ix. Chapters xvii—xxi. and the book of Rutb
are more independent, but they have a general
reference to the subsequent history.
The question now arises whether this book
forms one link in an historical series, or whether it
has a closer connection either with those that pre-
cede or follow it. We cannot infer anything from
the agreement of its view and spirit with those of
the other books. But its form would lead to the
conclusion that it was not an independent book
originally. The history ceases with Samson,
excluding Eli and Samuel; and then at this point
two historical pieces are added — xvii.—xxi. and the
book of Ruth, —independent of the general plan and
of each other. This is sufficiently explained by
Ewald’s supposition that the books from Judges te
2 Kings form one work. In this case the histories
of Eli and Samuel, so closely united between them-
selves, are only deferred on account of their closa
connection with the rise of the monarchy. And
Judg. xvii.—xxi. is inserted both as an illustration of
the sin of Israel during the time of the Judges, in
which respect it agrees with i—xvi., and as present-
ing a contrast with the better order prevailing in
the time of the kings. Ruth follows next, as
touching on the time of the judges, and contain-
ing information about David’s family history which
does not oceur elsewhere. The connection of these
books, however, is denied by DeWette (Linleit.
§ 186) and Thenius (Kurzgef. exeg. Handb., Sam.
p. xv.; Adnige. p.i.). Bertheau, on the other hand,
thinks that one editor may be traced from Genesis
to 2 Kings, whom he believes to be Ezra, in agree-
ment with Jewish tradition.
VI. Date.— The only guide to the date of this
book which we find in ii. 6-xvi. is the expression
‘unto this day,’’ the last occurrence of which (xy.
19) implies some distance from the time of Samson.
But i. 21, according to the most natural explana-
tion, would indicate a date, for this chapter at
least, previous to the taking of Jebus by David (2
Sam. v. 6-9). Again, we should at first sight sup-
pose i. 28, 30, 33, 35, to belong to the time of
the judges; but these passages are taken by most
modern critics as pointing to the time of Solomoy
1514 JUDGES. BOOK OF
(cf. 1 K. ix. 21). i.-xvi. may therefore have been
originally, as Ewald thinks (Gesch. i. 202, 203), the
commencement of a larger work reaching down to
above a century after Solomon (see also Davidson,
Introduction, 649, 650). Again, the writer of the
appendix lived when Shiloh was no longer a relig-
ious centre (xviii. 31); he was acquainted with the
regal form of government (xvii. 6, xviii. 1). There
is some doubt as to xviii. 830. It is thought by
some to refer to the Philistine oppression. But it
seems more probable that the Assyrian captivity is
intended, in which case the writer must have lived
after 721 B.c. The whole book therefore must
have taken its present shape after that date. And
if we adopt Ewald’s view, that Judges to 2 Kings:
form one book, the final arrangement of the whole
must have been after the thirty-seventh year of
Jehoiachin’s captivity, or B. C. 562 (2 K. xxv. 27).
Bertheau’s suggestion with respect to Ezra brings
it still lower. But we may add, with reference to
the subject of this and the two preceding sections,
that, however interesting such inquiries may be,
they are only of secondary importance. Few per-
sons are fully competent to conduct them, or even
to pass judgment on their discordant resuits. And
whatever obscurity may rest upon the whole mat-
ter, there remains the one important fact that we
have, through God’s providence, a continuous his-
tory of the Jewish people, united throughout by
the conviction of their dependence upon God and
government by Him. ‘This conviction finds its
highest expression in parts of the Pentateuch, the
Psalms, and the Prophets; but it was confirmed by
the events of the history — although, at times, in
a manner which gave room to Faith to use its power
of perception, and allowed men in those days, as
well as in these, to refuse to recognize it.
VII. Chronology. — The time commonly as-
signed to the period contained in this book is 299
years. But this number is not derived directly
from it. The length of the interval between Josh-
ua’s death and the invasion of Cushan-rishathaim,
and of the time during which Shamgar was judge,
is not stated. The dates which are given amount
to 410 years when reckoned consecutively; and
Acts xiii. 20 would show that this was the compu-
tation commonly adopted, as the 450 years seem to
result from adding 40 years for Eli to the 410 of
this book.¢ Buta difficulty is created by xi. 26, and
in a still greater degree by 1K. vi. 1, where the
whole period from the Exodus to the building of
the Temple is stated at 480 years (440, LXX.).
One solution questions the genuineness of the date
in 1 Kings. Kennicott pronounces against it
(Diss. Gen. 80, § 3), because it is omitted by Ori-
gen when quoting the rest of the verse. And it is
urged that Josephus would not have reckoned
592 years for the same period, if the present read-
ing had existed in his time. But it is defended
a * It should be stated that the order of the Greek
in the oldest manuscripts (A B C and the Sinaitic MS.)
assigns the 450 years in Acts xiii. 19, 20 to the period
of the quasi possession of the promised land before the
conquest, and not to that of the administration of the
judges. This order places kai wera tTavTa after mev-
mxovra and before éwxe. The translation then is:
«¢ He gave them their land as a possession about four
hundred and fifty years; and, after that, he gave [to
them] judges until Samuel the prophet.” Lachmann,
Tregelles, Luthardt (Reuter’s Repertorium, 1855, p. 205),
Green (Course of Developed Criticism, p. 109), Words-
worth (in /oc.), and others adopt this reading. In this
JUDGES, BOOK OF
by Thenius (ad loc.), and is generally ado;
partly on account of its agreement with Koy;
chronology. Most of the systems therefore sh
the time of the judges by reckoning the dat
inclusive or contemporary. But all these com!
tions are arbitrary. And this may be said of I
scheme, which is one of those least open to o
tion. He reckons the dates successively as {
Jair, but makes Jephthah and the three follo
judges contemporary with the 40 years of the
istine oppression (cf. x. 6-xili. 1); and by comy
ing the period between the division of the
and Cushan-rishathaim into 10 years, and
Philistine wars to the death of Saul into 3
arrives ultimately at the 480 years. Ewald
Bertheau have proposed ingenious but unsatisfa
explanations — differing in details, but both
upon the supposition that the whole period
the Exodus to Solomon was divided into 12
erations of 40 years; and that, for the period ¢
judges, this system has become blended wit
dates of another more precise reckoning. O
whole, it seems safer to give up the attempt |
certain the chronology exactly. The suce
narratives give us the history of only parts ¢
country, and some of the occurrences may
been contemporary (x. 7). Round numbers
to have been used —the number 40 occurs
times; and two of the periods are without
date. On this difficult subject see also Curc
oGy, vol. i. p. 444 f.
VIII. Commentaries. — The following |
taken from Bertheau (Kurzgef. exeg. Handb.
T. (Lief. vi.], Das Buch der Richter u. fut [
1845]), to whom this article is principally ind
(1.) Rabbinical: In addition to the well-k
commentaries, see R. Tanchumi Hierosol. ad
Vet. Test. commentarti Arabici specimen unt
annotationibus ad aliquot loca libri Judd., e
Fr. Schnurrer, Tubing. 1791, 4to; R. Tan
Hierosol. Comment. in prophetas Arab. spe
(on Judg. xiiii-xxi.), ed. Th. Haarbriicker,
1842, 8vo. (2.) Christian. Victor. Strigel, 4
in libr. Judd., Lips. 1586; Serrarius, Comme
libros Jos. Judd., ete., 1609; Critict Sacra, t
Lond. 1660; Sebast. Schmidt, Jn libr, Jude
gentor. 1706, 4to; Clerici Vi T. libri his
Amstelod. 1708, fol.; J. D. Michaelis, De
Uebers. des A. T. Gittingen, 1772; Dathe,
hist. Lat. vers. 1784; Laeget. Handb. d.
[St. 2, 3]; Maurer, Comment. gramm. crit. |
pp. 126-153; Rosenmiilleri Scholia [pars x1.
ii. Lipsie, 1835; Gottl. Ludw. Studer, Das
der Richter grammat. und histor. erklart,
There are many separate treatises on ¢h. vy.
of which is found in Bertheau, p. 80.
E. R.
* Other references. — Among the olde
mentators (see above) are also J. Drusius, 4
LN a
case, adding together the years from the b
Isaac (regarded as the pledge of the possession’
of Canaan) to that of Jacob (60), the age of Ji
going into Egypt (130), the sojourn in Egypt
required by Gal iii. 17), and the time of the '
ing in the wilderness (47), we have as the re
years between Isaac and the judges. Meyer 8
fidently that this form of the text is corrupt (
gesch. p. 231, ed. 1854) ; but it is singular that §
of the best authorities agree in this variatio!
fuller details on this question see the writer
mentary on the Acts, pp. 127 f. and 214 f
,
JUDGMENT, DAY OF
wa Josue Jud. et Sam. Commentarius,
1618; J. Bonfrére, Josua, Judices et Ruth
ntario tllustrratt, Par. 1631; J. A. Osiander,
in Judices, Tubing. 1682. For a fuller
Winer, Handb. d. theol. Lit. i. 202 f.;
, Cyclop. Bibliographica (Subjects), col.
Later writers: T. S. Rordam, Libri Judicum
secundum versionem Syriaco-Heanplarem,
ce Musei Britannici nunc primum editi,
fase. Havniz, 1859-61, accompanied by a
ion and notes. QO. F. Fritzsche, Liber
n secundum LXX. Interpretes — Triplicem
Conformationem recensuit, Lectionis Va-
enotavit, Interpret. Vet. Lat. Fragmenta
Turici, 1867, valuable as a contribution to
ual criticism of the Septuagint version.
Teber den Verfiasser des Buches der Rich-
wangen, 1859. Kamphausen, Archies, in
's Bibelwerk, vol. ii. (1859), a new ver-
th brief notes; and on the chronology
Bunsen attempts, to very little purpose,
rate from Egyptian history), Bibelwerk, i.
xxiii.—celiii. C. F. Keil, Josua, Richter u.
n the Bibl. Comm. of Keil and Delitzsch,
-356 (1863), transl. by J. Martin in Clark's
heol. Libr. (Edin. 1865). Paulus Cassel,
u. Ruth (Theil v. of Lange’s Bibelwerk,
yp. 1-197). He enumerates and charac-
the most important Jewish expositors of
yk. Chr. Wordsworth, Holy Bible with
vol. ii. pt. i. pp. 75-157 (1865). This
adheres very strictly to the typical principle
pretation as applied both to the persons and
its mentioned in Judges. Joh. Bachmann,
ich der Richter, mit besonderer Riicksicht
Gesch. seiner Ausleyung u. s. w. (1868),
. This volume contains only the first three
3. It promises in its spirit, comprehensive-
d scholarship to be a work of the first order.
ach, Richter, Buch der, in Herzog’s Real-
xiii. 29-32, a valuable article. See the
mgen in das A. T. by Bleek (pp. 341-355)
il (pp. 153-163, 2e Aufl.) for outlines of the
Mf criticism on this book, and for their own
s Tepresentatives of somewhat different Bibli-
ols. Hengstenberg, Die Zeit der Richter,
luthentie des Pent. ii. 116-148. J.N. Tiele,
l. des A. T. pp. 39-58 (1839). Stihelin,
uchungen iib. den Pentateuch, die Biicher
Richter, etc. (1843). Milman, History of
ws, new ed., i. 282-318 (N. Y. 1864).
, Jewish Church, i. 315-426 (Amer. ed.).
apitulation of the contents of the hook is
sketched and suggestive. He assigns to the
of the judges a position in Hebrew history
to that of the Middle Ages in Christian
as to the prevalent moral degeneracy com-
the two epochs, though relieved in both
‘many single examples of heroism in behalf
on and of the public welfare. G. Rawlinson,
sal Evidences (Bampton Lectures for 1859),
f, 295 f. (Amer. ed.). Kitto, Daily Bible
tions, Morning Series, vol. ii. (Porter’s ed.),
neipal monographs on ch. v. (the Song of
1) have been mentioned under BARAK
ed.). For practical and homiletic uses, see
'y Bishop Hall; Contemplations on the Old
ks. ix., 5, xi. H.
al DAY OF. [Resur-
N,
GMENT-HALL. The word Pretorium
JUDGMENT HALL 1515
(IIpa:réptoy) is so translated five times in the A. V.
ot the N. T.; and in those five passages it denotes
two different places.
1. In John xviii. 28, 33, x'x. 9, it is the residence
which Pilate oceupied when he visited Jerusalem
tv which the Jews brought Jesus from the house
of Caiaphas, and within which He was examined
by Pilate, and scourged and mocked by the soldiers,
while the Jews were waiting without in the neigh-
borhood of the judgment-seat (erected on the Pave-
ment in front of the Praetorium), on which Pilate
sat when he pronounced the final sentence. The
Latin word pretorium originally signified (see
Smith’s Dict. of Ant.) the general's tent in a
Roman cainp (Liv. xxviii. 27, &.); and afterwards
it had, among other significations, that of the palace
in which a governor of a province lived and admin-
istered justice (Cie. Verr. ii. 4, § 28, &c.). The
site of Vilate’s prietorium in Jerusalem has given
rise to much dispute, some supposing it to be the
palace of king Herod, others the tower of Antonia;
but it has been shown elsewhere that the latter was
probably the Praetorium, which was then and long
afterwards the citadel of Jerusalem. [J eRUSALEM,
p. 1326 «a.] This is supported by the fact that, at
the time of the trial of Christ, Herod was in Jeru-
salem, doubtless inhabiting the palace of his father
(Luke xxiii. 7). It appears, however, from a pas-
sage of Josephus (B. /. ii. 14, § 8), that the Roman
governor sometimes resided in the palace, and set
up his judgment-seat in front of it. Pilate cer-
tainly lived there at one time (Philo, Leg. in
Caium, 38, 39). Winer conjectures that the pro-
curator, when in Jerusalem, resided with a body-
guard in the palace of Herod (Josh. B. J. ii. 15,
§ 5), while the Roman garrison occupied Antonia.
Just in like manner, a former palace of Hiero be-
came the pretorium, in which Verres lived in
Syracuse (Cic. Very. ii. 5, § 12).
2. In Acts xxiii. 35 Herod’s judgment-hall or
pretorium in Ceesarea was doubtless a part of that
magnificent range of buildings; the erection of
which by king Herod is described in Josephus (Ané.
xv. 9, § 6; see also B. J. i. 21, §§ 5-8).
3. ‘The word “ palace,’’ or “ Ceesar’s court,’’ in
the A. V. of Phil. i. 13, is a translation of the
same word pretorium. The statement in a later
part of the same epistle (iv. 22) would seem to
connect this przetorium with the imperial palace at
Rome; but no classical authority is found for so
designating the palace itself. The praetorian camp,
outside the northern wall of Rome, was far from the
palace, and therefore unlikely to be the praetorium
here mentioned. An opinion well deserving con-
sideration has been advocated by Wieseler, and by
Conybeare and Howson (Life of St. Paul, ch. 26),
to the effect that the pretorium here mentioned
was the quarter of that detachment of the Pre-
torian Guards which was in immediate attendance
upon the emperor, and had barracks in Mount
Palatine. It will be remembered that St. Paul, on
his arrival at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16), was delivered
by the centurion into the custody of the praetorian
prefect.
* Prof. Lightfoot at present (/pistle to the Phi-
lippians, pp. 86, 97 ff, Lond. 1868) understands
mpaitwpie (Phil. i. 13) in the sense of ‘“ pra-
torians,”’ and not “ pretorian camp”’ as formerly
(Journ. of Class. and Sacr. Philol. iv. 58 ff).
—
a * On the genuineness of that passage, see vol i
p. 385, note a (Amer. ed.). H.
1516 JUDGMENT-SEAT
With this direct personal sense we might expect
the dative without éy, as in the other clause (comp.
also Acts iv. 16, vii. 18; 1 Tim. iv. 15). But with
the local sense as the direct one and the personal
as indirect (as in Ewald’s “im ganzen Preetorium
unter den kriegern,’’ see his Sendschriben des Ap.
Paulus, p. 441), the variation of construction is
natural. See Meyer’s note on this passage; also
the art. CasAr’s HousEHOLD (Amer. ed.).
4. The word pretorium occurs also in Matt.
xxvii. 27, where it is translated “common hall”
[A. V. marg. “ governor’s house”’], and in Mark
xv. 16. In both places it denotes Pilate’s residence
in Jerusalem. W. T. B.
* JUDGMENT-SEAT, the translation (A.
V.) in various passages of Bjua, and once of
Kpithpiov- [GABBATHA ; JUDGMENT-HALL 5
PrarortuM.] Some critics adopt this sense of
kpithpiov in 1 Cor. vi. 2, 4 (see Meyer in luc., and
comp. James ii. 6, A. V.).
JU’DITH. 1. cya [see below]: "Iov8i0;
[Alex. Iov@iv: Judith]).“ The daughter of Beeri
the Hittite,’ and wife of Esau (Gen. xxvi. 3+).
[AHOLIBAMAH. |
2. [Iovdia; Vat. Sin. Alex. Tovde6 ; Ald.
"Iovdh0, ‘Iovdel@.] The heroine of the apocryphal
book which bears her name, who appears as an
ideal type of piety (Jud. viii. 6), beauty (xi. 21),
courage, and chastity (xvi. 22 ff). Her supposed
descent from Simeon (ix. 2) and the manner in
which she refers to his cruel deed (Gen. xxxiv. 25 ff.),
mark the conception of the character, which evi-
dently belongs to a period of stern and perilous
conflict. ‘The most unscrupulous daring (xiil.) is
combined with zealous ritualism (xii. 1 ff), and
faith is turned to action rather than to supplication
(viii. 31 ff.). Clement of Rome (/p. i. 55) assigns
to Judith the epithet given to Jael (Iovdel@ 7
parapla) ; and Jerome sees in her exploit the image
of the victory of the Church over the power of evil
(Ep. Ixxix. 11, p. 508; “Judith . . . in typo Ec-
clesize diabolum capite truncavit;”’ cf. Ep. xxii. 21,
p- 105).
The name is properly the feminine form of
STAT, Judeus (cf. Jer. xxxvi. 14, 21). In the
passage of Genesis it is generally taken as the cor-
relative of Judah, i. e. “praised.” Beve we
* In the A. V. ed. 1611 and other early editions
the name of the heroine of this book is uniformly
spelt Judeth, as in the Genevan version. This
orthography was doubtless derived from the Aldine
edition, which reads ’Iovd/@ in the heading, and
often, though not uniformly, in the text of the
book. A.
JU’DITH, THE BOOK OF, like that of
Tobit, belongs to the earliest specimens of historical
fiction. The narrative of the reign of “ Nebuchad-
nezzar king of Nineveh” (i. 1), of the campaign
of Holofernes, and the deliverance of Bethulia,
through the stratagem and courage of the Jewish
heroine, contains too many and too serious difficul-
ties, both historical and geographical, to allow of
the supposition that it is either literally true, or
even carefully moulded on truth. The existence
a The theory of Volkmar (Das vierte Buch Ezra, p.
6; Theol. Jahrb. 1856, 1857) that the book of Judith | ness of the First Epistle of Clement (§ 6).
refers to the period of the Parthian war of Trajan, need
ve
% 4
y \
: es
a:
te
JUDITH, THE BOOK OF.
of a kingdom of Nineveh and the reign of a
chadnezzar ate in themselves inconsistent 1
date after the return; and an earlier date
cluded equally by internal evidence and |
impossibility of placing the events in harm
connection with the course of Jewish history.
latter fact is seen most clearly in the e
varieties of opinion among those crities wh
endeavored to maintain the veracity of the
Nebuchadnezzar has been identified with Can
Xerxes, Esarhaddon, Kiniladan, Merodach B:
etc., without the slightest show of probabilit:
apart from this, the text evidently alludes
position of the Jews after the exile, when the 1
‘|was rebuilt (v. 18, 19, iv. 8) and the hiera
government established in place of the ki
(xv. 8, 4 yepovola tev vidy Iopahr; ef.
Samaria; viii. 6, rpoodBBatov, mpouunvioy
after the Return the course of authentic |
absolutely excludes the possibility of the ocer
of such events as the book relates. This
mental contradiction of facts, which underl
whole narrative, renders it superfluous to e)
in detail the other objections which may be
against it (e. g. iv. 6, Joacim; ef. 1 Cl
Joseph. Ant. x. 8, § 6, JOACIM). |
2. The value of the book is not, howev
sened by its fictitious character. On the e
it becomes even more valuable as exhibiting a
type of heroism, which was outwardly embo
the wars of independence. The self-sacrificin
and unscrupulous bravery of Judith were th
ities by which the champions of Jewish f
were then enabled to overcome the power ol
which seemed at the time scarcely less fori
than the imaginary hosts of Holofernes.
peculiar character of the book, which is ex
in these traits, affords the best indication
date; for it cannot be wrong to refer its 0
the Maccabzan period, which it reflects n
in its general spirit but even in smaller trai’
impious design of Nebuchadnezzar finds a.
in the prophetic description of Antiochus (I
31 ff.), and the triumphant issue of Judith’s
must be compared not with the immediate
of the invasion of Apollonius (as Berthold
2553 ff.), but with the victory which the
pictured to himself as the reward of faitl
while it seems certain that the book is to be,
to the second century B. c. (175-100 B.
attempts which have been made to fix i
within narrower limits, either to the time
war of Alexander Janneeus (105-4 B. ©.,-
or of Demetrius II. (129 B. c., Ewald), rest
inaccurate data. It might seem more nat
a mere conjecture) to refer it to an earlier
170 B. c., when Antiochus Epiphanes ™
first assault upon the Temple.@ a
3. In accordance with the view which !
given of the character and date of the bo
probable that the several parts may have 8
symbolic meaning. Some of the names can |
have been chosen without regard to their!
tion (e. g. Achior = Brother of Light;
Jewess; Bethulia = ming, the virgir
hovah), and the historical difficulties of thi
of Nebuchadnezzar disappear when he is })
ol
Pen ane Se ae eee ae
only be noticed in passing, as it assumes the |
‘JUDITH, THE BOOK OF
Scriptural type of worldly power. But it
aps, a mere play of fancy to allegorize the
narrative, as Grotius has done (Prol. in
vho interprets Judith of the Jewish nation
dof outward help, Bethulia (TM-OS" 2)
Temple, Nebuchadnezzar of the Devil, and
nes (WT) D457, lictor senpentis) of An-
his emissary; while Joacim, the high-
conveys, as he thinks, by his name the
ce that ‘God will rise up”’ to deliver this
wo conflicting statements have been pre-
as to the original language of the book.
speaks of it together with Tobit as ‘“ not
rin Hebrew even among the Apocrypha ”’
Hebrew collection (Ap. ad Afric. § 13,
jap eXovol avTa [of ‘EBpato:] Kal év
pos ‘EBpaicrl, as am avtay paddyres
yey), DY which statement he seems to im-
t the book was originally written in Greek.
, on the other hand, says that ‘among the
vg the book of Judith is read among the
rapha [Apocrypha] . . . and being written
Chaldee language is reckoned among the
3” (Pref. ad Jud.). The words of Origen
wever, somewhat ambiguous, and there can
e doubt that the book was written in Pales-
the national dialect (Syro-Chaldaic), though
(Hinl. ii. § 3) and Eichhorn (Lin. in d.
327) maintain the originality of the -present
text, on the authority of some phrases which
» assigned very naturally to the translator or
a
‘he text exists at present in two distinct
ons, the Greek (followed by the Syriac) and
tin. The former evidently is the truer rep-
tive of the original, and it seems certain
1e Latin was derived in the main from the
by a series of successive alterations. Jerome
es that his own translation was free (‘‘ magis
1e sensu quam verbum e verbo transferens ”’ ) +
culiarities of the language (Fritzsche, p. 122)
hat he took the old Latin as the basis of his
‘though he compared it with the Chaldee
‘hich was in his possession (‘ sola ea que in-
itia integra in verbis Chaldeeis invenire potui
sexpressi’’). The Latin text contains many
serrors, which seem to have arisen in the
stance from false hearing (Bertholdt, Hind.
+3 @ 9g. X.5, kal uptav Kafapay, Vulg. et
et caseum, i.e. Kah TUPOU}; xvi. 3, OTL Els
Sodas abrod, Vulg. qui posuit castra sua,
‘Qets; xvi. 17, kal KAadcovta év aicOjdet,
At wrantur et sentiant); and Jerome remarks
‘had been variously corrupted and interpolated
his time. At present it is impossible to
Ane the authentic text. In many instances
tin is more full than the Greek (iv. 8-15, v.
) VY. 22-24, vi. 15 ff., ix. 6 ff.), which however
as peculiar passages (i. 13-16, vi. 1, &c.).
there the two texts do not differ in the details
inarrative, as is often the case (e. g. 1, 3 ff,
ammet is, vii. 2 ff., x. 12 ff., xv. 11, xvi.
jley yet differ in language (e. g. ¢. xv., etc.),
‘Names (¢. g. viii. 1) and numbers (e. g. i. 2);
tion which clearly point to an Aramaic original :
‘ present Greek text offers instances of mis-
si 9, xv. 8, i. 8; ef. v. 15, 18 (Vaihinger, in
t
JUDITH, THE BOOK OF 151%
and these variations can only be explained by going
back to some still more remote source (cf? Bertholdt,
inl. 2568 ff.), which was probably an earlier Greek
copy.2
6. The existence of these various recensions of
the book is a proof of its popularity and wide cir-
culation, but the external evidence of its use is
very scanty. Josephus was not acquainted with it,
or it is likely that he would have made some use
of its contents, as he did of the apocryphal addi-
tions to Esther (Jos. Ant. xi. 6, §1 ff). The first
reference to its contents occurs in Clem. Rom. (£p
i. 55), and it is quoted with marked respect by
Origen (Sel. in Jerem. 23: cf. Hom, ix.in Jud. 1),
Hilary (in Psal. exxy. 6), and Lucifer (De non
pare. p. 955). Jerome speaks of it as “reckoned
among the Sacred Scriptures by the Synod of Nice,”
by which he probably means that it was quoted in
the records of the Council, unless the text be cor-
rupt. It has been wrongly inserted in the cata-
logue at the close of the Apostolic Canons, against
the best authority (cf. Hody, De Bibl. Text. 646 a),
but it obtained a place in the Latin Canon at an
early time (cf. Hilar. Prol. in Ps. 15), which it
commonly maintained afterwards. [CANOoN.]
7. The Commentary of Fritzsche (Kurzgefass-
tes Kxey. Handbuch, Leipzig, 1853) is by far the
best which has appeared; within a narrow compass
it contains a good critical apparatus and scholarlike
notes. By RAW.
* Literature. — Besides the Introductions and
other general works referred to under the art. Aroc-
RYPHA, the following essays and treatises may be
noted: Reuss, art. Judith in Ersch and Gruber’s
Allgem. Encykl., Sect. ii. Theil xxviii. pp. 98-103.
Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Real-Encykl. vii. 135-142.
Ginsburg, in Kitto’s Cycl. of Bibl. Lit., 8d ed., ii.
692-696. «G. B.” in the Journ. of Sacer. Lit. for
July, 1856, pp. 342-363, and B. H. Cowper, The
Book of Judith and its Geography, ibid. Jan. 1861,
pp. 421-440. O. Wolff (Cath.), Das Buch Judith
als geschichtliche Urkunde vertheidigt u. erkldrt,
Leipz. 1861, of little or no value. The most elabo-
rate and remarkable among the recent. publications
relating to the book is that of Volkmar, Hundb. d.
Einl. in die Apokryphen, ler Theil, 1° Abth. Judith,
Tiib. 1860. He maintains that the book was com-
posed in the first year of the reign of Hadrian, near
the end of A. D. 117 or the beginning of 118, and
that it describes, under the disguise of fictitious
names, the war of Trajan against the Parthians
and Jews, and the triumph of the latter in the
death of Lusius Quietus, the general of Trajan
and governor of Judea. Nebuchadnezzar stands
for Trajan; Nineveh is Antioch “ the great,’’ as the
chief city under the Roman sway in the Fast; and
Assyria accordingly stands for Syria as the repre-
sentative of the power which oppressed the Jews,
the region where that power was concentrated.
«“ Arphaxad the king of the Medes’’ represents the
Parthian Arsacide; Ecbatana is Nisibis, Holo-
fernes Lucius Quietus, and the beautiful widow
Judith symbolizes Judsea in her desolation, but
still faithful to Jehovah, and destined to triumph
over her enemies. This explanation is carried out
into detail with great learning and ingenuity. It
Herzog’s Encykl. s. v ; Fritasche, inl. § 2; De Wette.
‘ Einl. § 308, c.). r
b Of modern versions the English follows the Greek
and that of Luther the Latin text.
1518 _ JUEL
was first proposed by Volkmar in Zeller's Theol.
Jahrb. for 1856, p. 362 ff., and more fully set forth
in an article in the same periodical, 1857, pp. 441-
498; comp. his articles on the Parthian-Jewish war
of Trajan, in the Rheinisches Museum f. Philol.
and the Zeitschr. f. Alterthumskunde for 1858. His
view has been accepted by Baur, Hitzig (Hilgen-
feld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860, pp. 240-250),
and Schenkel. Strong objections to it have been
urged by Hilgenfeld, Zedischr. f. wiss. Theol. 1858,
j. 270-281, and 1861, iv. 835-385; R. A. Lipsius,
ibid. 1859, ii. 39-121, and in the Literarisches
Centralblatt f. Deutschland, 1861, coll. 695-610;
Ewald, Jahrb. f. Bibl. wiss. xi. 226-231, and (ott.
Gelehr'te Anzeigen, 1861, ii. 693-710; and L. Dies-
tel, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1862, pp. 781-784.
See also Ewald’s Gesch. d. Volkes Israet, 3° Ausg.
iv. 618-625 (541 ff., 2e Aufl.). On the different
forms of the Judith-legend in Jewish tradition, see
Jellinek’s Bet ha-Midrasch, vols. i., ii. (1853 f.),
and Lipsius, Jiidische Quellen zur Judithsage, in
Hilgenfeld’s Zettschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1867, x. 337-
366. A
JU’EL (lovfa; [Vat. Touva, but joined with
the following word:] Johel). 1. 1 Esdr. ix. 34.
[UEL. |
2. ({Vat. Ouna, but joined with the preceding
word:] Jesse.) 1 Esdr. ix. 85. (JOEL, 13.]
JU’LIA (IovaAla: [Juliam, ace.]),a Christian
woman at Rome, probably the wife, or perhaps the
sister of Philologus, in connection with whom she
is saluted by St. Paul (Rom. xvi. 15). Origen sup-
poses that they were master and mistress of a
Christian household which included the other per-
sons mentioned in the same verse. Some modern
critics have conjectured that the name may be that
of a man, Julias. - Wet:
JU’LIUS (IovaAros: [Jeulius]), the courteous
centurion of ‘ Augustus’ band,’’ to whose charge
St. Paul was delivered when he was sent prisoner
from Cxsarea to Rome (Acts xxvii. 1, 8). [CEN-
TURION. |
Augustus’ band has “been identified by some
commentators with the Italian band (Acts x. 1);
by others, less probably, with the body of cavalry
denominated Sebasteni by Josephus (Ant. xix. 9,
§ 2, &.). Conybeare and Howson (Life of St.
Paul, ch. 27) adopt in the main Wieseler’s opinion,
that the Augustan cohort was a detachment of the
Pretorian Guards attached to the person of the
Roman governor at Caesarea; and that this Julius
may be the same as Julius Priscus (Tacit. Hist. ii.
92, iv. 11), sometime centurion, afterwards prefect
of the Pretorians. [ITALIAN BAND, Amer. ed.]
| Wir, ot.
JUNIA (Iovvias, 7. e. JUNIAS: [Juniam,
ace.]),a Christian at Rome, mentioned by St. Paul
as one of his kinsfolk and fellow-prisoners, of note
among the Apostles, and in Christ before St. Paul
(Rom. xvi. 7). Origen conjectures that he was
possibly one of the seventy disciples. Hammond
also takes the name to be that of a man, Junias,
which would be a contraction (as Winer observes)
of Junilius or Junianus. [ANDRONICUS.] Chrys-
ostom, holding the more common, but perhaps less
probable, hypothesis that the name is that of a
woman, Junia, remarks on it, “ How great is the
devotion of this woman, that she should be counted
worthy cf the name of Apostle!’ Nothing is}
known of the imprisonment to which St. Paul
JUPITER
refers: Origen supposes that it 18 that bon
from which Christ makes Christians free. —
WwW.
JUNIPER (O55, from D3, ay
Gesen. p. 1317: paduév, murdv, 1K. xix,
juniperus). It has been already stated [Cu
that the oxycedrus or Pheenician juniper wa:
tree whose wood, called “ cedar-wood,”’ was on
by the law to be used in ceremonial purific
(Lev. xiv. 4; Num. xix. 6). The word, how
which is rendered in A. V. juniper, is be
doubt a sort of broom, Genzsta monosperma,
nista retam of Forskal, answering to the A
Rethem, which is also found in the desert of |
in the neighborhood of the true juniper (Robi
ii. 124). It is mentioned as affording shad
Elijah in his flight to Horeb (1 K. xix. 4) 5)
as affording material for fuel, and also, in ext
cases, for human food (Ps. exx. 4; Job xxx. 4
is very abundant in the desert of Sinai, and al
shade and protection, both in heat and stor
travellers (Virg. Georg. ii. 434, 436). Its”
are very bitter, and would thus serve as food
in extreme cases; but it may be doubted wh
WW (Job xxx. 4) is to be restricted to roots
or to be taken in a wider sense of produet
thus include the fruit, which is much like
sheep, and may thus have sometimes serve
human food (Ges. p. 1484). The roots are}
valued by the Arabs for charcoal for the |
market. Thus the tree which afforded sha
Elijah may have furnished also the “coals
ashes for baking the cake which satisfied his hi
(1 K. xix. 6; see also Ps. cxx. 4, “coals of
per’). The Rothem is a leguminous plant
bears a white flower. It is found also in
Portugal, and Palestine. Its abundance il
Sinai desert gave a name toa station of the I
ites, Rithmah (Num. xxxiii. 18, 19; Burekl
Syria, pp. 483, 587; Robinson, i. 203, 205;
Lindsay, Letters, p. 183; Pliny, H. N. xxiv. £
Balfour, Plants of the Bible, p. 50; Stanley,
P. pp. 20,79, 521; [Thomson, Land and
ii. 436 ff.; and especially Tristram, Nat. Hi
the Bible, p. 339 f. (Lond. 1867). —H.]J)-
H.W.
JU’PITER (Zets, LXX. [and N. Tr:
ter]). Among the chief measures which Anti
Epiphanes took for the entire subversion ¢
Jewish faith was that of dedicating the Tem
Jerusalem to the service of Zeus Olympius (2 |
vi, 2), and at the same time the rival Tem
Gerizim was dedicated to Zeus Xenius (Jt
Hospitalis, Vulg.). The choice of the first ¢)
is easily intelligible. The Olympian Zeus wi
national god of the Hellenic race (Thueyd. iii
as well as the supreme ruler of the heathen \
and as such formed the true opposite to Jel
who had revealed Himself as the God of 4br
The application of the second epithet, “ thi
of hospitality” (cf. Grimm, on 2 Mace. L,
more obscure. i
|
In 2 Mace. vi. 2 it is explain
the clause, “as was the character of those
dwelt in the place,” which may, however, |
ironical comment of the writer (cf. Q. Curt.
8), and not a sincere eulogy of the hospital
the Samaritans (as Ewald, Gesch. iv. 339 n.)-
Jupiter or Zeus is mentioned in one passé
the N. T., on the occasion of St. Paul's vi
Lystra (Acts xiv. 12, 13), where the expt’
_ JUSHAB-HESED
et, which was before their city,’’ means that
ple was outside the city.“ Dae. We
he Lystrians on that occasion called Bar-
Jupiter (ver. 12), because Paul being “the
eaker’’ and therefore Mercury, the god of
ce,-they supposed the other visitor must be
, whom they specially worshipped. ‘They had a
n also that these two gods had once travelled
suise among them (see Ovid, et. vili. 611).
heen suggested too that Barnabas may have
he older man of the two, and more im-
than Paul in his personal appearance (comp.
x. 1, 10). H.
SHAB-HE’SED (TORT AW: 'Ago-
Vat. ApoBacox;] Alex. AgoBacod: [Comp.
er ed:] Josabhesed), son of Zerubbabel (1
i. 20). It does not appear why the five chil-
| this verse are separated from the three in
Bertheau suggests that they might be by
ent mother, or possibly born in Judea after
urn, whereas the three others were born at
n. The name of Jushab-hesed, i.e. ‘+ Lov-
idness is returned,” taken in conjunction
yat of his father and brothers, is a striking
ion of the feelings of pious Jews at the re-
om Captivity, and at the same time a good
ition of the nature of Jewish names.
AY CSE:
YTUS (lodaros: (Justus, “just ’’]). Schoett-
lor. Hebr. in Act. Ap.) shows by quotations
rabbinical writers that this name was not
ul among the Jews. 1. A surname of Joseph
Barsabas (Acts i. 23). ([JoskrnH BARsA-
A Christian at Corinth, with whom St.
odged (Acts xviii. 7). The Syr. and Arab.
‘itus, while the Vulg. combines both names
Justus.
aul did not lodge with Justus at this time,
wing left the synagogue preached at the house
tus, which being near the synagogue was so
the more convenient for that, purpose (ver. 8).
ight that appears, he abode still with Aquila
}) after this separation from the Jews. Nor is
; spoken of asa Christian, but as a Jewish
yte (ceBouevov tov Oedv), though evidently
d more sympathy with Paul than with the
and no doubt soon became a believer. H.
A surname of Jesus, a friend of St. Paul
v.11). (Jesus, p. 1347.]
TTAH (711,° i. e. Jutah;> also
‘and in xxi. 16, 1112) [ewtended, inclined]:
. Alex. lerra; Tavi, Alex. omits: Jota, Jeta),
In the mountain region of Judah, in the
vorhood of Maon and Carmel (Josh. xv. 55).
allotted to the priests (xxi. 16), but in the
gue of 1 Chr. vi. 57-59, the name has es-
In the time of Eusebius it was a large
teropolis ( Onomasticon, “Jettan”’). A vil-
alled Yutta was visited by Robinson, close to
and Kwrmul (Bibl. Res. 1st ed. ii. 195, 628),
doubtless represents the ancient town.
The name Jupiter also occurs in the A. V. in
‘ix. 85, where “ the image [of the goddess Arte-
hich fell down from Jupiter’ is the translation
‘Stomerods. A.
11s — with one t-— is the form given in Hahn’s
KADESH, KADESH BARNEA 1519
Reland (Pal. p. 870) conjectures that Jutta is
the wdaAis "Iovda (A. V. “a city of Juda’’) in the
hill country, in which Zacharias, the father of John
the Baptist, resided (Luke i. 39).
feasible, is not at present confirmed by any positive
evidence. «
But this, though
[Jupa, Crey or, Amer. ed.]
K.
KAB/ZEBL (SSDP [see below]: [in
Josh.,] BaroeAenaA, Alex. KacOenA, [Comp. KaB-
ona, Ald. KaBoehaA: in 2 Sam.,] KaBeoena,
[Vat. KaraBeo@na, Comp. Ald. KaBacanA; in 3
Chr.,] KaBacafaA: Cabseel), one of the “cities”
of the tribe of Judah; the first named in the enu-
meration of those next Edom, and apparently the
farthest south (Josh. xv. 21).
the word signifies ‘collected by God,’’ and may be
compared with JOKTHEERL, the name bestowed by
the Jews on an Edomite city.
rable as the native place of the great hero BENAIAH-
ben-Jehoiada, in connection with whom it is twice
mentioned (2 Sam. xxiii. 20; 1 Chr. xi. 22). After
Taken as Hebrew,
Kabzeel is memo-
the Captivity it was reinhabited by the Jews, and
appears as JEKABZEEL.
It is twice mentioned in the Onomasticon — as
KaBoeha and Capseel; the first time by Eusebius
only, and apparently confounded with Carmel, un-
less the conjecture of Le Clerc in his motes on the
passage be accepted, which would identify it with
the site of Elijah’s sleep and vision, between Beer-
sheba and Horeb. No trace of it appears to have
been discovered in modern times.
* KA/DES (Kdédns: Vulg. omits), Jud. i. 9,
perhaps the same as KaAprsH (see below), or
KEDESH, Josh. xv. 23.
KA’DESH, KA’DESH BAR’NEA [Hed.
Barne‘a] (wom, YIID Wiz [see in the art.
and notes]: Kdadns [Fz. xlvii. 19, Rom. Vat. Ka-
d4u], Kddns Bapyh, Kadns rod Bapyn [Num.
xxxiv. 4; Cades, Cadesbarne}). This place, the
scene of Miriam's death, was the farthest point to
which the Israelites reached in their direct road to
Canaan; it was also that whence the spies were
sent, and where, on their return, the people broke
out into murmuring, upon which their strictly penal
term of wandering began (Num. xiii. 3, 26, xiv.
29-33, xx. 1; Deut. ii. 14). It is probable that
the term ‘ Kadesh,”’ though applied to signify a
‘‘city,”’ yet had also a wider application to a region,
in which Kadesh-Meribah certainly, and Kadesh-
Barnea probably, indicates a precise spot. ‘Thus
Kadesh appears as a limit eastward of the same
tract which was limited westward by Shur (Gen..
xx. 1). Shur is possibly the same as Sihor, which
is before Egypt” (xxv. 18; Josh. xiii. 3; Jer. ii.
18), and was the first portion of the wilderness on,
{ (kdun peylarn), 18 miles southward of | which the people emerged from the passage of the
Red Sea. [Snur.] ‘Between Kadesh and Bered”
is another indication of the site of Kadesh as an
eastern limit (Gen. xvi. 14), for the point so fixed
is “the fountain on the way to Shur” (vy. 7), and
text of xv. 55; Michaelis and Walton insert a dagesh,
but it was apparently unknown to any of the old
translators, in whose versions (with the exception of
the Alex. LXX.), whatever shape the word assumes, it
retains a single t.
1520 KADESH
the range of limits is narrowed by selecting the
western one not so far to the west, while the eastern
one, Kadesh, is unchanged. Again, we have Ka-
desh as the point to which the foray of Chedor-
laomer “returned ’’—a word which does not im-
ply that they had previously visited it, but that it
lay in the direction, as viewed from Mount Seir
and Paran mentioned next before it, which was
that of the point from which Chedorlaomer had
come, namely, the North. Chedorlaomer, it seems,
coming down by the eastern shore of the Dead Sea,
smote the Zuzims (Ammon, Gen. xiv. 5; Deut. ii..
20), and the Emims (Moab, Deut. ii. 11), and the
Horites in Mount Seir, to the south of that sea,
unto “ E]-Paran that is by the wilderness.”’ He
drove these Horites over the Arabah into the e¢-
Tih region. Then “returned,” 7. e. went north-
ward to Kadesh and Hazazon Tamar, or Engedi
(comp. Gen. xiv. 7; 2 Chr. xx. 2). In Gen. xiv. 7
Kadesh is identified with En-Mishpat, the “ foun-
tain of judgment,” and is connected with Tamar,
or Hazazon Tamar, just as we find these two in the
comparatively late book of’ Ezekiel, as designed to
mark the southern border of Judah, drawn through
them and terminating seaward at the ‘“ River ‘to
(or toward) the Great Sea.’ Precisely thus stands
Kadesh-Barnea in the books of Numbers and Joshua
(comp. Ez. xlvii. 19, xlviii. 28; Num. xxxiv. 4;
Josh. xv. 3). Unless then we are prepared to nniake
a double Kadesh for the book of Genesis, it seems
idle with Reland (Palestina, p. 114-17) to distin-
guish the “ En-Mishpat, which is Kadesh,” from
that to which the spies returned. For there is an
identity about all the connections of the two, which,
if not conclusive, will compel us to abandon all
possible inquiries. This holds especially as regards
Paran and Tamar, and in respect of its Leing the
eastern limit of a region, and also of being the first
point of importance found by Chedorlaomer on
passing round the southern extremity of the Dead
Sea. In a strikingly similar manner we have the
limits of a route, apparently a well-known one at
the time, indicated by three points, Horeb, Mount
Seir, Kadesh-Barnea, in Deut. i. 2, the distance
between the extremes being fixed at ‘11 days’
journey,” or about 165 miles, allowing 15 miles to
an average day’s journey. This is one element for
determining the site of Kadesh, assuming of course
the position of Horeb ascertained. The name of
the place to which the spies returned is ‘ Kadesh”’
simply, in Num. xiii. 26, and is there closely con-
nected with the “wilderness of Paran;”’ yet the
«wilderness of Zin’’ stands in near conjunction,
as the point whence the “search ”’ of the spies
commenced (ver. 21). Again, in Num. xxxii. 8,
we find that it was from Kadesh-Barnea that the
mission of the spies commenced, and in the re-
hearsed narrative of the same event in Deut. i. 19,
and ix. 23, the name ‘“ Barnea’’ is also added:
@ Another short article of Jerome’s, apparently
referred to by Stanley (S. § P. 93 note), as relating
likewise to En-mishpat, should seem to mean some-
thing wholly different, namely, the well of Isaac and
Abimelech in Gerar: gpéap Kpicews eis Ett vov éoTe
Kaun Bypdav (puteus judicis) kadouvpevn ev tH Tepa-
TUK).
b There is a remarkable interpolation in the LXX.,
or (as seems less probable) omission in the present
Heb. text of Num. xxxiii. 86, where, in following the
various stages of the march, we find respectively as
follows .—
KADESH
Thus far there seems no reasonable doubt
identity of this Kadesh with that of Genesis.
in Num. xx., we find the people encamped
desh after reaching the wilderness of Zin.
question whether this was a second visit (su
the Kadesh identical with that of the spi
continued occupancy, see WILDERNEss
DERING. The mention of the ‘“ wilderness |
is in favor of the identity of this place with
Num. xiii. The reasons which seem to haye
a contrary opinion are the absence of water
and_the position assigned — “in the utte
the “border”? of Edom. Yet the m
seems to have arisen, or to have been more
on account of their having encamped ther
expectation of finding water; which affords
presumption of identity. Further, “ the wi
of Zin along by the coast of Edom” (Num
3; Josh. xv.) destroys any presumption to 1
trary arising from that position. Jerome
knows of but one and the same Kadesh—
Moses smote the rock,’’ where ‘ Miriam’
ment,’’ he says, ‘‘ was still shown, and where Ch
laomer smote the rulers of Amalek.’’ ;
Jerome gives a distinct article on Kddons,
THN THS Kpioews, Vives En-mishpat, a!
perhaps in order to record the fountain as
local fact. The apparent ambiguity of the]
first, in the wilderness of Paran, or in Par.
secondly in that of Zin, is no real incre
difficulty. For whether these tracts were con
ous, and Kadesh on their common bord
into each other, and embraced a common :
to which the name * Kadesh,’’ in an
sense, might be given, is comparatively uni
It may, however, be observed, that the
of Paran commences, Num. x. 12, wher
Sinai ends, and that it extends to the pot
in ch. xiii. the spies set out, though the on
tive identification of Kadesh with it is that
26, when on their return to rejoin Moses they ec
“to the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh.” Pax
then was evidently the general name of the g)
tract south of Palestine, commencing soon a
Sinai, as the people advanced northwards—
perhaps now known as’ the desert et- Tih. Het
when the spies are returning southwards they ret
to Kadesh, viewed as in the wilderness of Par
though, in the same chapter, when starting nol
wards on their journey, they commence fromt
of Zin. It seems almost to follow that the wil
ness of Zin must have overlapped that of a
the north side; or must, if they were p
lay respectively east and west, have had a fart
extension northwards than this latter. In. |
designation of the southern border of the Israel
also, it is observable that the wilderness of Zi
mentioned as a limit, but nowhere that of Par
(Num. xxxiv. 8, Josh. xv. 1), unless the ee
HEBREW.
“a T2a UN) Wa PSs yO)
wa? Sw "
GREEK. .
Kat armpay ex Teoway TaBep kat rapevipadon
EPH KD 2iv, Kal airjpav €k TS épyjuov Sty, Kal ‘a
Badov cis THY épnuov Papay> avTH éoTt Kadys-
The LXX. would make them approach the wilder
of Sin first, and that of Paran secondly, thus rover
the effect of the above observations.
7
KADESH
nael “in the wilderness of Paran” (Gen.
) indicates that, on the western portion of
thern border, which the story of Hagar indi-
; his dwelling-place, the Paran nomenclature
be allowed, in the dearth of positive testi-
to follow great natural boundaries in sug-
an answer to the question of the situation
e adjacent or perhaps overlapping wilder-
it will be seen, on reference to Kiepert’s map
yinson, vol. i.; see also Russegger’s map of
ne region), that the Arabah itself and the
westward of it are, when we leave out the
nly so-called Sinaitic peninsula (here con-
as corresponding in its wider or northerly
to “the wilderness of Sinai’’), the two
f the whole region most strongly partitioned
1 and contrasted with one another. On this
| plateau is indeed superimposed another, no
arly marked out, to judge from the map, as
from the former as this from the Arabah;
is higher ground, it will be further seen,
ly corresponds with “the mountain of the
es.’ ‘lhe Arabah, and its limiting barrier
ground @ on the western side, differ by about
500 feet in elevation at the part where Rob-
advancing from Petra towards Hebron,
“d that barrier by the pass el-Khirdr. At
W. angle of the Arabah the regularity of
wrier is much broken by the great wadies
converge thither; but from its edge at el-
y the great floor stretches westward, with no
aterruption of elevation, if we omit the super-
d plateau, to the Egyptian frontier, and
ard to Rhinocolura and Gaza. Speaking of
rently from the point of view at e/-Khirar,
on (ii. 586, 587) says it is “‘not exactly a table-
ut a higher tract of country, forming the
the several steps or offsets into which the
of the mountains in this part is divided.”
w known as the wilderness e¢- Zih. A general
tion of it occurs in Robinson (i. 261, 262),
r with a mention of the several travellers
ul then previously visited it: its configura-
given, 7b. 294. If this et-7%h region rep-
the wilderness of Paran, then the Arabah
neluding all the low ground at the southern
uthwestern extremity of the Dead Sea; may
or the wilderness of Zin. ‘The superimposed
has an eastern border converging, towards
th, with that of the general elevated tract
th it stands, 7. e. with the western barrier
ad of the Arabah, but losing towards its
or northern extremity its elevation and pre-
s,in proportion as the general tract on which
ls appears to rise, till, near the S. W. curve
Dead Sea, the higher plateau and the general
opear to blend. ‘The convergency in question
rom the general tract having, on its eastern
@. where it is to the Arabah a western limit,
*r running more nearly N. and S. than that
superimposed plateau, which runs about
f.and W.S. W. This highest of the two
a1which this terrace stands is described by
as (Holy City, i. 463, 464), who approached it
led, at least throughout a portion of its course,
Beyanénh.
2re are three nearly parallel passes leading to
level: this is the middle one of the three.
‘t (Reise, ii. 441-3) appears to have taken the
th; Bertou that on the W. side, e/- Yemen.
96
KADESH 1521
from Iebron — the opposite direction to that in
which Robinson, mounting towards Hebron by the
higher pass es-Sufah,> came upon it — as “a
gigantic natural rampart of lofty mountains, which
we could distinctly trace for many miles ¢ E. and
W. of the spot on which we stood, whose precipitous
promontories of naked rock, forming as it were
hastions of Cyclobean architecture. iutted forth in
irregular masses from the mountain-barrier into the
southern wilderness, a confused chaos of chalk.’ 4
Below the traveller lay the Wady Murreh, running
into that. called e/-Fikreh, identifying the spot with
that described by Robinson (ii. 587) as “a formid-
able barrier supporting a third plateau ”’ (reckoning
apparently the Arabah as one), rising on the other,
i. e. northern side of the Wady el-Fikreh. But
the southern face of this highest plateau is a still
more strongly defined wall of mountains. The
Israelites must probably have faced it, or wandered
along it, at some period of their advance from the
wilderness of Sinai to the more northern desert of
Paran. There is no such boldly-marked line of
cliffs north of the et-Tih and el-Odjmeh ranges,
except perhaps Mount Seir, the eastern limit of the
Arabah. ‘There is a strongly marked expression in
Deut. i. 7, 19, 20, “« the mountain of the Amorites,”’
which, besides those of Seir and Hor, is the only
one mentioned by name after Sinai, and which is
there closely connected with Kadesh Barnea. The
wilderness (that of Paran) “great and terrible,”
which they passed through after quitting Horeb
(vv. 6, 7, 19), was “ by the way of”’ this ‘ moun-
tain of the Amorites.’”* ‘ We came,”’ says Moses,
‘¢to Kadesh Barnea; and I said unto you, ye are
come unto the mountain of the Amorites.’’ Also
in ver. 7, the adjacent territories of this mountain-
region seem not obscurely intimated; we have the
Shefelah (plain’’) and the Arabah (“ vale’’),
with the “hills”? (“hill-country of Judah’’) be-
tween them; and “the South’’ is added as that
debatable outlying region, in which the wilderness
strives with the inroads of life and culture. There
is no natural feature to correspond so well to this
mountain of the Amorites as this smaller higher
plateau superimposed on et- Tih, forming the water-
shed of the two great systems of wadies, those north-
westward towards the great Wady el-Arish, and
those northeastward towards the IWady Jerafeh
and the great Wady el-Jeib. Indeed, in these con-
verging wady-systems on either side of the ‘“‘ moun-
tain,’’ we have a desert-continuation of the same
configuration of country, which the Shefelah and
Arabah with their interposed water-shedding high-
lands present further north. And even as the name
ARABAH is plainly continued from the Jordan
Valley, so as to mean the great arid trough between
the Dead Sea and Elath; so perhaps the Shefelah
(“vale ’’) might naturally be viewed as continued
to the “river of Egypt.’’ And thus the “ mountain
of the Amorites ’’ would merely continue the moun-
tain-mass of Judah and Ephraim, as forming part
of the land “which the Lord our God doth give
unto us.””. The southwestern angle of this higher
plateau, is well defined by the bluff peak of Jebel
’Ardif, standing in about 30° 22’ N., by 34° 30’
ce This is only the direction, or apparent direction,
of the range at the spot, its general one being as above
stated. See the maps.
d So Robinson, before ascending, remarks (ij. 585)
that the hills consisted of chalky stone and con-
glomerate.
Baan
Tool KADESH
E. Assuming the region from Wady Feiran to
the Jebel Mousa as a general basis for the position
of Horeb, nothing farther south than this ./ebel
’Ardif appears to give the necessary distance from
it for Kadesh, nor would any point on the west
side of the western face of this mountain region
suit, until we get quite high up towards Beer-sheba.
Nor, if any site in this direction is to be chosen, is
it easy to account for “the way of Mount Seir”’
being mentioned ag it is, Deut. i. 2, apparently as
the customary route “from Horeb” thither. But
if, as further reasons will suggest, Kadesh lay prob-
ably near the 8. W. curve of the Dead Sea, then
‘Mount Seir’’ will be within sight on the E.
during all the latter part of the journey “from
Horeb”’ thither. This mountain region is in
Kiepert’s map laid down as the territory of the
Azdzimeh, but is said to be so wild and rugged
that the Bedouins of all other tribes avoid it, nor
has any road ever traversed it (Robinson, i. 186).
Across this then there was no pass; the choice of
routes lay between the road which, leading from
Elath to Gaza and the Shefelah, passes to the
west of it, and that which ascends from the northern
extremity of the Arabah by the Ma‘aleh Akrabbim
towards Hebron. ‘The reasons for thinking that
the Israelites took this latter course are, that if they
had taken the western, Beer-sheba would seem to
have been the most natural route of their first at-
tempted attack (Robinson, i. 187). It would also
have brought them too near to the land of the
Philistines, which it seems to have been the Divine
purpose that they should avoid. But above all, the
features of the country, scantily as they are noticed
in Num., are in favor of the eastern route from the
Arabah and Dead Sea.
One site fixed on for Kadesh is the ’ Ain es-Shey-
abeh on the south side of this “ mountain of the
Amorites,’’ and therefore too near Horeb to fulfill
the conditions of Deut. i. 2. Messrs. Rowlands and
Williams (Holy City, i. 463-68) argue strongly in
favor of a site for Kadesh on the west side of this
whole mountain region, towards Jebel Helal, where
they found ‘a large single mass or small hill of
solid rock, a spur of the mountain to the north of
it, immediately rising above it, the only visible
naked rock in the whole district.” They found
salient water rushing from this rock into a basin,
but soon losing itself in the sand, and a grand
space for the encampment of a host on the S. W.
side of it. In favor of it they allege, (1) the name
Kaddés or Kides, pronounced in English Kddddse
or Kiidddse, as being exactly the form of the He-
brew name Kadesh; (2) the position, in the line of
the southern boundary of Judah; (3) the corre-
spondence with the order of the places mentioned,
especially the places Adar and Azmon, which these
travellers recognize in Adeirat and Aseimeh, other-
wise (as in Kiepert’s map) Kadeirat and Kasei-
meh; (4) its position with regard to Jebel el-Ha-
lal, or Jebel Helel; (5) its position with regard to
the mountain of the Amorites (which they seem to
identify with the western face of the plateau); (6)
KADESH
its situation with regard to the grand S. W.
to Palestine by Beer-lahai-roi from Egypt; |
distance from Sinai, and the goodness of th
thither; (8) the accessibility of Mount Hor
this region. Of these, 2, 4, 5, and 8, seem
weight; % 1 is a good deal weakened by t
that some such name seems to have a wider
in this region; 3 is of considerable force, but
overbalanced by the fact that the whole p
seems too far west; arguments 6 and 7 rathe
against than for the view in question, any y
route being unlikely (see text above), an
“goodness ’’ of the road not being discoy
but rather the reverse, from the Mosaic ;
But, above all, how would this accord with
way of Mount Seir’’ being that from §j
Kadesh Barnea? (Deut. i. 2).
In the map to Robinson’s last edition, a
el-Kudeis is given on the authority of A
But this spot would be too far to the west.
fixed point intended in Deut. i. 2 as Kadesl
nea. Still, taken in connection with the regi
deavored to be identified with the “ mount
the Amorites,” it may be a general testim
the prevalence of the name Kadesh within :
limits; which is further supported by the
given below.?
The indications of locality strongly poin:
site near where the mountain of the Amorit
scends to the low region of the Arabah an¢
Sea. Jel! Arad is perhaps as clear a local
ment of the event of Num. xxi. 1, as we ¢
pect to find. [Anap.] The Canaanitisl
of Arad ”’ found that Israel was coming “
way of the spies,’ and “fought against’
‘“‘took some of them prisoners.’’ The subs
defeat of this king is clearly connected wi
pass es-Stifa, between which and the Tell A
line drawn ought to give us the direction of
intended by ‘ by the way of the spies; ”’ accor¢
within a day’s journey on either side of th
produced towards the Arabah, Kadesh-]
should be sought for. [Horman.] Nea
same ground appears to have been the scene
previous discomfiture of the Israelites rebel
attempting to force their way by this pass to «
the ‘mountain ’’ where the Amalekites an
orites’’ were ‘before them’’ (Num. xiv. 45;
i. 17); further, however, this defeat is said t
been “in Seir”? (Deut. i. 44). Now, whet
admit or not with Stanley (S. ¢ P. 94 not
Edom had at this period no territory west:
Arabah, which is perhaps doubtful, yet the
be no room for doubt that “ the mountain
Amorites ’’ must at any rate be taken as
western limit. Hence the overthrow in Sei
be east of that mountain, or, at furthest, —
eastern edge. The “ Seir’’ alluded to may
western edge of the Arabah below the es-Sti/
When thus driven back, they ‘abode in i
many days’ (Deut. i. 46). The city, whetl
prefer Kadesh simply, or Kadesh-Barnea,
designation, cannot have belonged to the Am
a What is more disputable than the S. boundary
line? Jebel Helal derives its sole significance from a
passage not specified in Jeremiah. The ‘mountain of
the Amorites,”’ as shown above, need not be that west-
ern face. Mt. Hor is as accessible from elsewhere.
b Seetzen’s last map shows a Wady Kidiese corre-
sponding im position nearly with Jebel el-Kudeise given
in Kiepert’s, on the authority of Abeken.
mann’s Atlas, sect. x., gives el-Cadessah as another
Zimmer- |
name for the well-known hill Madurah, or Mc
lying within view of the point described above
Williams's Holy City, i. 468, 494. This is towa
east, a good deal nearer the Dead Sea, and
more suitable. Further, Robertson’s map in Ste
The Tent and the Khan places an ’Ain Khade
the junction of the Wady Abyad with the W
Arish ; but in this map are tokens of some cor
in the drawing.
ae
KADESH
se after their victory would probably have
dd possession of it; nor could it, if plainly
‘ish, have been “in the uttermost. of the
” of Edom. It may be conjectured that it
the debatable ground between the Amorites
Jom, which the Israelites in a message of
y to Edom might naturally assign to the
and that it was possibly then occupied in fact
her, but by a remnant of those Horites
Edom (Deut. ii. 12) dislodged from the
it” Seir, but who remained as refugees in
id and unenviable region, which perhaps was
sremnant of their previous possessions, and
hey still called by the name of “ Seir,”’ their
th. This would not be inconsistent with “the
the land of Edom”? still being at Mount
jum. xxxiii. 37), nor with the Israelites re-
‘this debatable ground, after dispossessing
orites from “their mountain,’ as pertain-
heir own ‘south quarter.’’ If this view be
ble, we might regard “ Barnea’’ as a He-
remnant of the Horite language, or of :
orite name.
nearest approximation, then, which can be
)a site for the city of Kadesh, may be prob-
ained by drawing a circle, from the pass es-
t the radius of about a day's journey; its
stern quadrant will intersect the ‘ wilder-
Paran,” or et-Tth, which is there overhung
uperimposed plateau of the mountain of the
8; while its southeastern one will cross
s been designated as the “ wilderness of
‘his seems to satisfy all the conditions of the
; of Genesis, Numbers, and Deuteronomy,
efer to it. The nearest site in harmony
8 view, which has yet been suggested (Rob-
- 175), is undoubtedly the ’ Ain el- Weibeh.
however, is opposed the remark of a trav-
anley, S. f P. p.96) who went probably with
rate intention of testing the local features
nee to this suggestion, that it does not
nong its “stony shelves of three or four
h” any proper “cliff” (95d), such as
ord specially describing that ‘rock’ (A.
n which the water gushed. It is however
pposite the Wady Ghuweir, the great
into the steep eastern wall of the Arabah,
refore the most probable « highway ”’ by
9 “pass through the border” of Edom.
1 further examination of local features has
de, which owing to the frightfully desolate
‘ of the region seems very difficult, it
‘unwise to push identification further.
is due to the attempt to discover Kadesh
a
t has suggested YANN, son of wander-
:
douin; but “YQ does not occur as‘t son”
itings of Moses. The reading of the LXX.
-XXxiy. 4, Kaéyns tod Bapvy, seems to favor
ft that it was regarded by them as a man’s
‘he name ‘ Meribah” is accounted for in
+ 13. [Mermau.] [Simonis as cited by
Tegards YIMND as from VD, open country,
| Wandering, yr. Y3,—H.]
Sy
ay be perhaps a Iorite word, corrupted so as
signification in the Hebrew and Arabic ; but,
it to be from the root meaning ‘ holiness,”
sts in various forms in the Heb. and Arab.,
7 be some connection between that name,
:
]
KADESH 1523
in Petra, the metropolis of the Nabatheans (Stan-
ley, S. g P. p. 94), embedded in the mountains te
which the name of Mount Seir is admitted by all
authorities to apply, and almost overhung by Mouat
Hor. No doubt the word Sela, « cliff,” is used as
@ proper name occasionally, and may probably in 2
K. xiv. 7; Is. xvi. 1, be identified with a city or
spot of territory belonging to Edom. But the two
sites of Petra and Mount Hor are surely far too
close for each to be a distinct camping station, as
in Num. xxxiii. 36, 37. The camp of Israel would
have probably covered the site of the city, the
mountain, and several adjacent valleys. But, further,
the site of Petra must have been as thoroughly
Edomitish territory as was that of Bozran, the
then capital, and could not be described as being
‘in the uttermost ’’ of their border. Mount Seir”
was “given to Esau for a possession,” in which he
was to be unmolested, and not a “ foot’s breadth ”
of his land was to be taken. This seems irrecon-
cilable with the quiet encampment of the whole of
Israel and permanency there for “many days,” as
also with their subsequent territorial possession of
it, for Kadesh is always reckoned as a town in the
southern border belonging to Israel. Neither does
a friendly request to be allowed to pass through the
land of Edom come suitably from an invader who
had seized, and was occupying one of its most dif-
ficult passes; nor, again, is the evident temper of
the Edomites and their precautions, if they con-
templated, as they certainly did, armed resistance
to the violation of their territory, consistent with
that invader being allowed to settle himself by
anticipation in such a position without a stand
being made against him. But, lastly, the conjune-
tion of the city Kadesh with “the mountain of the
Amorites,”’ and its connection with the assault
repulsed by the Amalekites and Canaanites (Deut.
i. 44; Num. xiv. 43), points to a site wholly away
from Mount Seir.
A paper in the Journal of Sacred Literature,
April, 1860, entitled A Critical Enquiry into the
Route of the Exodus, discards all the received sites
for Sinai, even that of Mount Hor, and fixes on
Elusa (el-Kalesah) as that of Kadesh. The argu-
ments of this writer will be considered, as a whole,
under. WILDERNESS OF WANDERING.
Kadesh appears to have maintained itself, at
least as a name, to the days of the prophet Ezekiel
(/. c.) and those of the writer of the apocryphal
book of Judith (i. 9 [A. V. Kades]). The « wilder-
ness of Kadesh’’ occurs only in Ps. xxix. 8, and is
probably undistinguishable from that of Zin. As
regards the name “ Kadesh,” there seems some
doubt whether it be originally Hebrew.>
supposed to indicate a shrine, and the En-Mishpat =
Fountain of Judgment. Tne connection of the priestly
and judicial function, having for its root the regarding
as sacred whatever is authoritative, or the deducing
all subordinate authority from the Highest, would sup-
port this view. Compare also the double functions
united in Sheikh and Cadi. Further, on this suppo-
sition, a more forcible sense accrues to the name Kadesh
Meribah =“ strife ” or ‘ contention,” being as it were
a perversion of Mishpat = judgment —a taking it in
partem deteriorem. For the Heb. and Arab. derivatives
from this same root see Ges. Lex. s. v. WT/), vary-
ing in senses of to be holy, or (piel) to sanctify, as a
priest, or to keep holy, as the Sabbath, and (pual) its
passive; also Golii Lex. Arab. Lat. Jagd. Bat. 1653,
$. U. Ur ors. The derived sense, wp, @ male
1524 KADMIEL KANAH
great waste tracts on the east and south
Palestine. .
* The Kadmonites even at Hermon mi
said to be on the east as compared eé. g. ¥
Zidonians on the west. ‘ This name,” says
son, ‘is still preserved among the Nusairiye
of Tripoli, and they have a tradition tha
ancestors were expelled from. Palestine by.
It is curious also that a fragment of this
people still cling to their original home a
it, Zaora, and Ghijar, near the foot of F
I have repeatedly travelled among them i
own mountains, and many things in their
ognomy and manners gave me the idea th
were a remnant of the most ancient inhabit
this country”? (Land g Book, i. 242). —
KAL/LAL [2 syl.] CER [perh. swift
God, his messenger, Ges.]: KaAAat; [Va
FA.1 omit; FA.8 Sadaai:] Celat), a pries
days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua. He
of the chiefs of the fathers, and represer
family of Sallai (Neh. xii. 20).
KA’NAH (727 [reed or place of
Kavédv; Alex. Kava: Cana), one of th
which formed the landmarks of the bour
Asher; apparently next to Zidon-rabbah, o1
Zidon”’ (Josh. xix. 28 only). If this inf
correct, then Kanah can hardly be identifie
modern village Kdna, six miles inland, 1
Zidon, but from Tyre, nearly 20 miles south
The identification, first proposed by Robins
Res. ii. 456), has been generally accepted b
lers (Wilson, Lands, ii. 230; Porter, H:
395; Schwarz, 192; Van de Velde, i. 180
de Velde (i. 209) also treats it as the nat
of the “ woman of Canaan” (-yuvh Kavay
cried after our Lord. But the former ident
not to speak of the latter — in which a ec
is assumed between two words radically di
seems untenable. An ?.4in-Kane is markt
map of Van de Velde, about 8 miles 5. E.
(Zidon), close to the conspicuous village J:
which latter place Zidon lies full in view
Velde, ii. 437). This at least answers mo
the requirements of the text. But it is pu
as a mere conjecture, and must abide fu
vestigation. 4
* That the village of Ll mentioned
inson (Bibl. Res. ii. 456) and generally acc
travellers, is the one referred to in Josh
seems probable for various reasons. f
BretreNn (which see) to have been, as
claims, eight miles east of Ptolemais, we !
our point of departure in giving the bour
Asher (Josh. xix. 25) a little south of A
Ecdippa, the situation of which may be |
with certainty. Passing by Helkath and
site of which is lost, we come to Beten oF
southward toward Carmel. That Beten
might be imagined, inasmuch as the Ash
not drive out the inhabitants of the sea-
Achzib to Accho (Akka). The border tl
eRe
Almost any probable situation for Kadesh on the
grounds of the Scriptural narrative is equally op-
posed to the impression derived from the aspect of
the region thereabouts. No spot perhaps, in the
locality above indicated, could now be an eligible
site for the host of the Israelites “ for many days.’’
Jerome speaks of it as a “desert” in his day, and
makes no allusion to any city there, although the
tomb of Miriam, of which no modern traveller has
found any vestige, had there its traditional site.
It is possible that the great volume of water which
in the rainy season sweeps by the great el-Jeib and
other wadies into the S. W. corner of the Ghor,
might, if duly husbanded, have once created an
artificial oasis, of which, with the neglect of such
industry, every trace has since been lost. But, as
no attempt is made here to fix on a definite site
for Kadesh as a city, it is enough to observe that
the objection applies in nearly equal force to nearly
all solutions of the question of which the Scriptural
narrative admits. He.
KAD/MIEL (OST [who stands before
God, i. e. his servant]: Kadpihas [in Neh. vii. 48,
Vat. KaBdina:] Cedmihel), one of the Levites who
with his family returned from Babylon with Zerub-
babel, and apparently a representative of the de-
scendants of Hodaviah, or, as he is elsewhere called,
Hodevah or Judah (Ezr. ii. 40; Neh. vii. 43). In
the first attempt which was made to rebuild the
Temple, Kadmiel and Jeshua, probably an elder
member of the same house, were, together with
their families, appointed by Zerubbabel to superin-
tend the workmen, and officiated in the thanks-
giving-service by which the laying of the foundation
was solemnized (Ezr. iii. 9). His house took a
prominent part in the confession of the people on
the day of humiliation (Neh. ix. 4, 5), and with
the other Levites joined the princes and priests in
a solemn compact to separate themselves to walk
in God’s law (Neh. x. 9). In the parallel lists of
1 Esdr. he is called CADMIEL.
KAD’MONITES, THE (QI 7j27, 7. ¢
“the Kadmonite” [dweller in the east] > Tovs
Keduwvatovs} Alex. omits: Cedmonwos), a people
named in Gen. xv. 19 only; one of the nations who
at that time occupied the land promised to the
descendants of Abram. The name is from a root
Kedem, signifying “eastern,” and also “ ancient ”’
(Ges. Thes. p. 1199).
Bochart (Chan. i. 19; Phal. iv. 36) derives the
Kadmonites from Cadmus, and further identifies
them with the Hivites (whose place they fill in the
above list of nations), on the ground that the
_Hlivites occupied Mount Hermon, “ the most east-
erly part of Canaan.”” But Hermon cannot be said
to be on the east of Canaan, nor, if it were, did the
Hivites live there so exclusively as to entitle them
to an appellation derived from that circumstance
(see vol. ii. p. 1082). It is more probable that the
name Kadmonite in its one occurrence is a synonym
for the BeNE-KEDEM— the “ children [sons] of
the East,’ the general name which in the Bible
appears to be given to the tribes which roved in the
oy i
seems more suited to those populous and
regions than to the hard, bare life of the des
example of eastern nomenclature travellin
at an early period, Cadiz may perhaps be sl
based upon Kadesh, and carried to Spa
Phoenicians. |
prostitute, fem. TTT, a harlot, does not appear
to occur in the Arab. : it is to be referred to the notion
of prostitution in honor of an idol, as the Syrians in
that of Astarte, the Babylonians in that of Mylitta
(Herod. i. 199), and is conveyed in the Greek tepddovAos.
({potatRy, vol. ii. p. 1128 a.] This repulsive custom
\
KANAH, THE RIVER
vard to Achshaph, which is probably Hhaifi,
>, of the present day (see ACHSHAPH). Pass-
y Alammalek (cf. Wady el-Melik north of
1) and Amad and Misheal, two unknown
we come to Carmel. ‘This fixes the direction
route by which the border is designated.
this point the border turns eastward, and at
nction with the lot of Zebulun its direction
turns northward, and passing places identi-
ith a degree of probability, it reaches Kana,
he border of the great Zidon. Now it is
ed that Tyre is much nearer this Kana than
. But it must be remembered that at this
period Zidon was probably greater than Tyre,
hat the inhabitants of Tyre are themselves
Zidonians. It may have been, that at that
| the territory of Zidon extended nearer to
h than it did in later times when ‘Tyrian
-had interposed between it and Zidon. In
ase, the eastern border is simply said to have
ded from Kanah even unto great Zidon.
is does not make it necessary that the city
should be understood, which supposition
| be forbidden by the historical fact that the
ory of Zidon remained unconquered ; and
ner we suppose that the territory of Asher
hed to the northward of the parallel of Tyre,
d Zidon, or not, in either case it is inadmis-
to extend it to the city gates, just as it is
nissible to extend it (ver. 29) to the gates of
itself. ‘The existence of the name Kanah,
anged by centuries, in a spot having so many
s for recognition as the one intended (Josh.
28), must fix the identification with a reason-
degree of certainty, and forestall the attempt
tablish the site at the obscure ’Ain Kana near
id, S. E. of Saida.
an de Velde’s attempt (i. 209) to establish this
s the place of birth of the “ woman of Canaan ”’
be rejected on philological grounds. Xavavaia
rivable from Xavadv, not from Kava. Further-
, for Xavavaia (Matt. xv. 22), Mark (vii. 26)
Zvpopoivicca, designating race and nation-
, not place of birth or residence. It would
been possible for a Jewess to have resided in
1 or be born there, but the Evangelist wishes
asignate this woman as not a Jewess, but a
yner, a Canacnitess. G.- Ex P.
A/NAH, THE RIVER (713) 9772=the
nt or wady K.: Xeakavd, pdpayt Kapava;
» Xeluappos Kava and dapat Kavar: Vallis
dineti), a stream falling into the Mediterranean,
h formed the division between the territories
hraim and Manasseh, the former on the south,
atter on the north (Josh. xvi. 8, xvii. 9). No
appears to be thrown on its situation by the
ent Versions or the Onomasticon. Dr. Robin-
‘iii. 135) identifies it “‘ without doubt’ with a
', which taking its rise in the central moun-
of Ephraim, near Akrabeh, some 7 miles S. E.
Tablus, crosses the country and enters the sea
above Jaffa as Nahr el-Aujeh ; bearing during
of its course the name of Wady Kanah. But
though perhaps sufficiently important to serve
boundary between two tribes, and though the
ition of the name is in its favor, is surely too
Sin to have been the boundary between
saimand Manasseh. The conjecture of Schwarz
18 more plausible —that it is a wady which
‘nences west of and close to Nablus, at ’ Ain el-
Pr
a
KARKOR bd pa)
Khassab, and falls into the sea as Nahr Falaik,
and which bears also the name of Wady al-Khassab
— the reedy stream.
position in its favor, and also the agreement in
signification of the names (Kanah meaning also
reedy).
name Khassab is borne by a large tract of the
maritime plain at this part (Stanley, S. ¢ P. 260)
Porter pronounces for N. Akhdar, close below
Ceesares.
This has its more northerly
But it should not be forgotten that the
G.
* KAPER OR CAPER (from Kamrapis and
in Lat. capparis). Many suppose this fruit or plant
to be meant in Eccles. xii. 5 by 11] FANT, “ the
caper,’’ instead of “ desire’? (A. V.).
occurs only in that passage.
that, as one of the signs and effects of old age, the
caper (accustomed to be eaten for its stimulating
properties) shall at length lose its power to excite
the appetite of the aged or restore to them their
lost vigor.
The word
The meaning then is
The article in the Hebrew (as above)
and the verb’s semi-figurative sense 5h, “¢ shall
break ’’ sc. its compact or promise) favor this ex-
planation.
some of the authorities in support of this view.
Prof. Stuart adopts it (Commentary on Ecclesiastes,
p. 327 f.); also Hitzig, Handb. zum A. T. vii. p.
213.
Celsius (Hierod. i. 209 ff.) mentions
It is the translation of the Sept., Syr., and
Vulg. See Winer, Realw. i. 650. The caper
(written also kapper) is very abundant in Palestine.
It “is always pendant or trailing on the ground.
The stems have short recurved spines below the
junction of each leaf. The leaves are oval, of a
glossy green, and in the warmer situations are ever-
green. The blossom is very open, loose, and white,
with many long lilac anthers. The fruit is a large
pod, about the size and shape of a walnut. It is
the bud of the flower that is pickled and exported
as a sauce.” (Tristram, Nat. Hist. of the Bible,
p- 458.) H.
KARE’AH (TI [6ald-head]: Kapne:
Caree), the father of Johanan and Jonathan, who
supported Gedaliah’s authority and avenged his
murder (Jer. xl. 8, 13, 15, 16, xli. 11, 13, 14, 16,
xlii. 1, 8, xliii. 2, 4, 5). He is elsewhere called
CAREAH.
KARKA/A (with the def. article, YP
[bottom, foundation]: Kddns, in both MSS. ;
Symm. translating, Zapos: Carcaa), one of the
landmarks on the south boundary of the tribe of
Judah (Josh. xv. 3), and therefore of the Holy
Land itself. It lay between Addar and Azmon,
Azmon being the next point to the Mediterranean
(Wady el-Arish). Karkaa, however, is not found
in the specification of the boundary in Num. xxxiv.,
and it is worth notice that while in Joshua the line
is said to make a detour (230) to Karkaa, in
Numbers it runs to Azmon. Nor does the name
occur in the subsequent lists of the southern cities
in Josh. xv. 21-32, or xix. 2-8, or in Neh. xi. 25,
&e. Eusebius (Onomasticon, ’Akapka) perhaps
speaks of it as then existing (Kdun éoriv), but at
any rate no subsequent traveller or geographer ap-
pears to have mentioned it. G.
KAR’KOR (with the def. article, T?2I
[ foundation, Ges.; or perh. flat and soft ground,
| Dietr.]: Kapxap; Alex. Kapra: Vulg. translating,
requiescebant), the place in which the remnant of
the host of Zebah and Zalmunna which had escaped
9)
od
1526 KARTAH
the rout of the Jordan Valley were encamped, when
Gideon burst upon and again dispersed them (Judg.
viii. 10). It must have been on the east of the
Jordan, beyond the district of the towns, in the
epen wastes inhabited by the nomad _ tribes —
“them that dwelt in tents on the east of Nobah
and Jogbebah”’ (ver. 11). But it is difficult to
believe that it can have been so far to the south as
it is placed by Eusebius and Jerome (Onomast.
Kapka and “ Carcar’’), namely one day’s journey
(about 15 miles) north of Petra, where in their
time stood the fortress of Carcaria, as in ours the
castle of Kerek el-Shvbuk (Burckhardt, 19 Aug.
1812). The name is somewhat similar to that of
CHARACA, or Charax, a place on the east of the
Jordan, mentioned once in the Maccabean history ;
but there is nothing to be said either for or against
the identification of the two.
If Kunawat be KENATH, on which Nobah be-
stowed his own name (with the usual fate of such
innovations in Palestine), then we should look for
Karkor in the desert to the east of that place;
which is quite far enough from the Jordan Valley,
the scene of the first encounter, to justify both
-losephus’s expression, mwoppw moAv (Ant. vii. 6,
§ 5), and the careless +“ security ’’ of the Midianites.
But no traces of such a name have yet been dis-
covered in that direction, or any other than that
above mentioned. G.
KAR/TAH (AAP [city]: 4 Kddns; Alex.
Kap@a: Cartha), a town of Zebulun, which with
its “suburbs ”’ was allotted to the Merarite Levites
(Josh. xxi. 34). It is not mentioned either in the
general list of the towns of this tribe (xix. 10-16),
or in the parallel catalogue of Levitical cities in
1 Chr. vi., nor does it appear to have been recog-
nized since. G.
* Van de Velde inserts a Tell Kirdény on his
Map of Palestine, in the plain a little inland from
Khaifa. He speaks of this as probably the Kartah
of Josh. xxi. 84. An ancient mill and numerous
old building stones” mark the site. (Syr. § Pal.
i. 289.) H.
KAR’TAN GAM [double city]: Ocuuéy;
Alex. Noexupwr; [Comp. Ald. Kapéav:] Carthan),
a city of Naphtali, allotted with its « suburbs” to
the Gershonite Levites (Josh. xxi. 32). In the
parallel list of 1 Chr. vi. the name appears in the
more expanded form of KirJATHAIM (ver. 76), of
which Kartan may be either a provincialism or a
contraction. A similar change iy observable in
Dothan and Dothaim. The LXX. evidently had a
different Hebrew text from the present. G.
KAT’TATH ( ms [small or young]: Ka-
tava; Alex. Karra6: Catheth), one of the cities
of the tribe of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 15). Itis not
mentioned in the Onomasticon. Schwarz (172)
reports that in the Jerusalem Megillah, Kattath
“is said to be the modern Katunith,”’ which he
seeks to identify with Kana el-Jelil, — most probably
the CANA OF GALILEE of the N. T., — 5 miles
north of Seffurieh, partly on the ground that Cana
is given in the Syriac as Katna, and partly for
other but not very palpable reasons.
KE’DAR Sane black skin, black. skinned
man, Ges.: Knddp: Cedar), the second in order
.
a agp ag Comp. usage of Arabic,
Karyeh.
on al
KEDAR
of the sons of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 13; 1 Ch
29), and the name of a great tribe of the A
settled on the northwest of the peninsula and
confines of Palestine. This tribe seems to )
been, with Tema, the chief representative of
mael’s sons in the western portion of the land;
originally peopled. The “glory of Kedar” {
corded by the prophet Isaiah (xxi. 18-17) in
burden upon Arabia; and its importance may
be inferred from the “ princes of Kedar,” mentic
by Ez. (xxvii. 21), as well as the pastoral chara
of the tribe: “ Arabia, and all the princes of Ke
they occupied with thee in lambs, and rams,
goats; in these [were they] thy merchants.”
this characteristic is maintained in several o
remarkable passages. In Cant. i. 5, the black t
of Kedar, black like the goat’s or camel’s-hair t¢
of the modern Bedawee, are forcibly mentio
“TI [am] black, but comely, O ye daughters of Je
salem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of §
mon.” In Is. Ix. 7, we find the “ flocks of Keds
together with the rams of Nebaioth; and in Jer.)
28, “concerning Kedar, and concerning the ki
doms of HAzor,”’ it is written, «“ Arise ye, go uy
Kedar, and spoil the men of the Fast [the Benr-I
DEM]. Their tents and their flocks shall they t
away; they shall take to themselves their tent-t
tains, and all their vessels, and their camels” (28, ¢
They appear also to have been, like the wander
tribes of the present day, ‘ archers” and “mig!
men’ (Is. xxi. 17; comp. Ps. exx. 5). That tl
also settled in villages or towns, we find from t
magnificent passage of Isaiah (xlii: 11), “Let
wilderness and the cities thereof lift up [their voic
the villages [that] Kedar doth inhabit; let :
inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout fr
the top of the mountains; ’’—unless encampme
are here intended.¢ But dwelling in more pern
nent habitations than tents is just what we shoi
expect from a far-stretching tribe such as Kei
certainly was, covering in their pasture-lands a
watering places the western desert, settling on |
borders of Palestine, and penetrating into {
Arabian peninsula, where they were to be the fai
ers of a great nation. The archers and warti
of this tribe were probably engaged in many of t
wars which the “men of the East” (of wht
Kedar most likely formed a part) waged, in ai
ance with Midianites and others of the Bene-k
dem, with Israel (see M. Caussin de Perceva
Essai, i. 180, 181, on the war of Gideon, ete.). T
tribe seems to have been one of the most consp
uous of all the Ishmaelite tribes, and hence t
Rabbins call the Arabians universally by this name
In Is. xxi. 17, the descendants of Kedar 3
called the Bene-Kedar.
As a link between Bible history and Mohai
madan traditions, the tribe of Kedar is probal:
found in the people called the Cedrei by Pliny, ‘
the confines of Arabia Petrsea to the south (N. J
v.11); but they have, since classical times, becot
merged into the Arab nation, of which so great
part must have sprung from them. In the M
hammadan traditions, Kedar ¢. is the ancestor q
Mohammad; and through him, although the ge
ealogy is broken for many generations, the ane
—————
b Hence 77) 71), Rabbin, use of the os
language (Ges. Lex. ed. Tregelles). |
|
)!
o-
ee
¢ Keydar,
|
|
KEDEMAH
the latter from Ishmael is carried.
n, Hssat, i. 175 ff.)
to rest on indisputable grounds. [Isu-
] E. 8. P.
D'EMAH (137), i.e. eastward: Ked-
lex. in 1 Chr. Kedau]: Cedma), the youngest
sons of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 15; 1 Chr. i. 31).
D’EMOTH (in Deut. and Chron. May ;
ne 7) [beyinnings, origin]: Kedaudd,
uwd, 7 Aexudy, 7 Kudud0; [Vat. in Josh.
acedvwe, in 1 Chr. Kadauws;] Alex. Ked-
Cademoth,
oth [Jethson]), one of the towns in the dis-
Kednuw0, Tedowv, Kaundwé:
ist of the Dead Sea allotted to the tribe of
1 (Josh. xiii. 18); given with its “suburbs ”’
Merarite Levites (Josh. xxi. 37; 1 Chr. vi.
the former of these passages the name, with
t of the verses 86 and 37, is omitted from
It
yconferred its name on the « wilderness,
ultivated pasture land (Midbar), of Kede-
in which Israel was encamped when Moses
permission of Sihon to pass through the
. Hebrew Text, and from the Vulg.).
ry of the Amorites; although, if Kedemoth
ted as a Hebrew word, and translated “ East-
he same circumstance may have given its
oth to the city and the district. And this
e probably the case, since “ Aroer on the
f the torrent Arnon’’ is mentioned as the
> (south) limit of Sihon’s kingdom and of
ritory of Reuben, and the north limit of
Kedemoth, Jahazah, Heshbon, and other
being apparently north of it (Josh. xiii. 16,
hile the wilderness of Kedemoth was cer-
utside the territory of Sihon (Deut. ii. 26,
), and therefore south of the Arnon. This
orted by the terms of Num. xxi. 23, from
‘ would appear as if Sihon had come out of
itory into the wilderness; although on the
and, from the fact of Jahez (or Jahazah)
aid to be “in the wilderness”? (Num. xxi.
eems doubtful whether the towns named in
ji. 16-21 were all north of Arnon. As in
‘ses we must await further investigation on
,of the Dead Sea. The place is but cas-
rentioned in the Onomasticon ( Cade-
, but yet so as to imply a distinction be-
he town and the wilderness. No other
| appears to have noticed it. (See Ewald,
1.271.) [Janaz.]
DESH (W799): the name borne by three
Palestine. =
iddys; Alex. Kedes: Cades) in the ex-
\
se of the variations in the LXX. are remark-
1 Judg. iv. 9, 10, Vat. has Kadys, and Alex.
|but in ver. 11, [and 1 Chr. vi. 76,] they both
Ses. In 2 K. xv. 29 both have Kevé¢. In
and elsewhere, the Peshito Version has Recem-
for Kedesh, Recem being the name which in
!
1
uns is commonly used for the Southern Ka-
Barnea, (See Stanley, S. § P. 94 note.)
+ BypwOy morer ris TadtAaias tis dvw, Kede=
ppw. J.D. Michaelis (Orient. und Execet.
*, 1778, No. 84) argues strenuously for the
of Beroth and Kedes in this passage with
Beirtit) and Kedesh, near Emessa (see above) :
sting and ingenious as js the attempt, the
}
|
(See
The descent of the
f the Arabs from Ishmael we have elsewhere
KEDESH Toe
treme south of Judah (Josh. xy. 23). Whether
this is identical with MKadesh-Barnea, which was
actually one of the points on the south boundary of
the tribe (xv. 3; Num. xxxiy. 4), it is impossible to
say. Against the identification is the difference of
the name, — hardly likely to be altered if the
famous Kadesh was intended, and the occurrence
of the name elsewhere showing that it was of com-
mon use.
2. (Kédes; Alex. Kedee: Cedes), a city of Issa-
char, which according to the catalogue of 1 Chr.
vi. was allotted to the Gershonite Levites (ver. 72).
In the parallel list (Josh. xxi. 28) the name is
KIsHON, one of the variations met with in these
lists, for which it is impossible satisfactorily to ac-
count. The Kedesh mentioned among the cities
whose kings were slain by Joshua (Josh. xii. 22),
in company with Megiddo and Jokneam of Carmel,
would seem to have been this city of ,Issachar, and
not, as is commonly accepted, the northern place
of the same name in Naphtali, the position of
which in the catalogue would naturally have been
with Hazor and Shimron-Meron. But this, though
probable, is not conclusive.
3. KEDESH (Kddes, Kddns, Kédes,4 Kevé(;
Alex. also Keides: Cedes): also KEDESH IN GALI-
Lee (2°32), i. e.«K. in theGalil:” 9 Kddns,
[ete.] ev rH TadsAala [Vat. -Aer-]: Cedes in Gal-
idea): and once, Judg. iv. 6, KEDESH-NAPHTALI
(OADI?: Kddns Nepdadl [Vat. -Acu, Alex
-Aet]: Cedes Nephthali). One of the fortified
cities of the tribe of Naphtali, named between Ha-
zar and Kdrei (Josh. xix. 37); appointed as a city
of refuge, and allotted with its “suburbs ’’ to the
Gershonite Levites (xx. 7, xxi. 832; 1 Chr. vi. 76).
In Josephus’s account of the northern wars of
Joshua (Ant. v. 1, § 18), he apparently refers to it
as marking the site of the battle of Merom, if
Merom be intended under the form Beroth.? It
was the residence of Barak (Judg. iv. 6), and there
he and Deborah assembled the tribes of Zebulun
and Naphtali before the conflict (9,10). Near it
was the tree of Zaanannim, where was pitched the
tent of the Kenites Heber and Jael, in which Sis-
era met his death (ver. 11). It was probably, as
its name implies, a “holy¢ place’’ of great an-
tiquity, which would explain its selection as one of
the cities of refuge, and its being chosen by the
prophetess as the spot at which to meet the war-
riors of the tribes before the commencement of the
struggle “for Jehovah against the mighty.” It
was one of the places taken by Tiglath-Pileser in
the reign of Pekah (Jos. Ant. ix. 11, § 1, Kédica;
2 K. xv. 29); and here again it is mentioned in
immediate connection with Hazor. Its next and
conclusion cannot be tenable.
paper in 1774, No. 116.)
¢ From the root W']j), common to the Semitic
languages (Gesenius, Thes. 1195, 8). Whether there
was any difference of signification between Kadesh
and Kedesh, does not seem at all clear. Gesenius
places the former in connection with a similar word
which would seem to mean a person or thing devoted
to the infamous rites of ancient heathen worship —
** Scortum sacrum, idque masculum;” ‘ but he does
not absolutely say that the bad force resided in the
name of the place Kadesh.’? ‘Tio Kedesh he gives a
favorable interpretation —‘Sacrarium.”? The older
interpreters, as Hiller and Simonis, do not recognizs
the distinction,
(See also a subsequent
1528 KEDESH
KEILAH
last appearance in the Bible is as the scene of a|the authorities quoted by Robinson, Abulfed:
battle between Jonathan Maccabzeus and the forces
of Demetrius:(1 Macc. xi. 63, 738, A. V. CADES;
Jos. Ant. xiii. 5, § 6,7). After this time it is
spoken of by Josephus (B. J. ii. 18, § 1; iv. 2,
§ 3, mpds Kvduvocois) as in the possession of the
Tyrians — “a strong ialand @ village,’ well forti-
fied, and with a great number of inhabitants: and
he mentions that, during the siege of Giscala,
Titus removed his camp thither —a distance of
about 7 miles, if the two places are correctly iden-
tified — a movement which allowed John to make
his escape.
By Eusebius and Jerome (Onomast. “ Cedes ’’)
it is described as lying near Paneas, and 20 miles
(Eusebius says 8 — 4— but this must be wrong)
from Tyre, and as called Kudossos or Cidissus.
Brocardus (Descr. ch. iv.) describes it, evidently
fron’ personal knowledge, as 4 leagues north of
Safet, and as abounding in ruins. It was visited by
the Jewish travellers, Benjamin of Tudela (A. D.
1170) and ha-Parchi (A. p. 1315). The former
places it one day’s, and the latter half-a-day’s,
journey from Banias (Benj. of Tudela by Asher, i.
82, ii. 109, 420). Making allowances for imper-
fect. knowledge and errors in transcription, there is
a tolerable agreement between the above accounts,
recognizable now that Dr. Robinson has with
great, probability identified the spot. This he has
done at Kades, a village situated on the western
edge of the basin of the Ard el-Huleh, the great
depressed basin or tract through which the Jordan
makes its way into the Sea of Merom. Kades
lies 10 English miles N. of Safed, 4 to the N. W.
of the upper part of the Sea of Merom, and 12 or 13
S. of Banias. The village itself “is situated on
a rather high ridge, jutting out from the western
hills, and overlooking a small green vale or basin.
Its site is a splendid one, well watered
and surrounded by fertile plains.” There are
numerous sarcophagi, and other ancient remains
(Rob. iii. 366-68; see also Van de Velde, ii. 417;
Stanley, 865, 390).?
In the Greek (Kuvdfws) and Syriac (Kedesh de
Naphtali) texts of Tob. i. 2,— though not in the
Vulgate or A. V., — Kedesh is introduced as the
birthplace of Tobias. The text is exceedingly cor-
rupt, but some little support is Jent to this reading
by the Vulgate, which, although omitting Kedesh,
mentions Safed — “post viam que ducit ad Occi-
dentem, in sinistro habens civitatem Saphet.”
The name Kedesh exists much farther north than
the possessions of Naphtali would appear to have
extended, attached to a lake of considerable size on
the Orontes, a few miles south of //ums, the ancient
Emessa (Rob. iii. 549; Thomson, in Ritter, Damas-
cus, 1002, 1004). The lake was well known under
that name to the Arabic geographers (see, besides
a Thomson (Land and Book, ch. xix.) has some
strange comments on this passage. He has taken
Whiston’s translation of peodyeros — “ Mediterran-
ean ”? — as referring to the Mediterranean Sea! and has
drawn his inferences accordingly.
b * We have an interesting description of the site
and ruins of this Kadesh in Porter’s Giant Oittes, etc.
p. 270 ff. He regards the sculptures on the sarcophagi
as Grecian or Roman; whereas Tristram (Land of Is-
rael, 2d ed., p. 582) thinks they were probably J ewish.
They “were covered with wreaths,” says the latter,
“but we could not make out any figures.” H.
e The name may possibly be derived from mem,
Schultens’ /ndex Geogr., ‘* Fluvius Orontes”
“‘Kudsum”’), and they connect it in part }
Alexander the Great. But this and the origir
the name are alike uncertain. At the lower
of the lake is an island which, as already remar|
is possibly the site of Ketesh, the capture of y]
by Sethee I. is preserved in the records of |
Egyptian king. [JERUSALEM, vol. ii. p. Ii
note ¢.] Hae
KEHE/LATHAH (MUTT) [assembly
congregation] : Maredadd ; [ Alex. Maxed
Ceelatha), a desert encampment of the Israe
(Num. xxxiii. 22, 23), of which nothing is knoy
KEVLAH [3 syl.] ('D°YP, but ins
xxiii. 5, Moyp [citadel, fortress, Sim. Ge
Keiadu, 7 Keiad; [Vat.] Alex. KeesAa [Vat..
KeeiAuu]; Joseph. KiAdAa, and the people of 1
Aavol and of KiAAtra: Ceila: Luth. Kegila
city of the Shefelah or lowland distriet of Ju
named, in company with NEziB and MARgsn
in the next group to the Philistine cities (Josh.
44). Its main interest consists in its connec
with David. He rescued it from an attack of.
Philistines, who had fallen upon the town at
beginning of the harvest (Josh. Ant. vi. 13, §
plundered the corn from its threshing-floor,
driven off the cattle (1 Sam. xxiii. 1). The
was recovered by David (2-5), who then remaine
the city till the completion of the in-gathering.
was then a fortified place,? with walls, gates,
bars (1 Sam. xxiii. 7, and Joseph.). During’
time the massacre of Nob was perpetrated,
Keilah became the repository of the sacred Ep
which Abiathar the priest, the sole survivor,
carried off with him (ver. 6). But it was.
destined long to enjoy the presence of these b
and hallowed inmates, nor indeed was it worth
such good fortune, for the inhabitants soon pl
David’s betrayal to Saul, then on his road to bei
the place. Of this intention David was warne
Divine intimation. He therefore left (1 Sam. 1
7-13). sgl
It will be observed that the word Baali is
by David to denote the inhabitants of Keila
this passage (vv. 11, 12; A. V. “men”’); pos
pointing to the existence of Canaanites in the
[BAAL, vol. i. p. 207 6]. em
We catch only one more glimpse of the tow
the times after the Captivity, when Hashabiah
ruler of one half the district of Keilah (or wha
the word Pelec, A. V., “ part,’’ may mean),
Bavai ben-Henadad, ruler of the other half, ass
Nehemiah in the repair of the wall of Jerus
(Neh. iii. 17,18). Keilah appears to have
1
a congregation, with the local suffix 1, which !
of these names carry. Compare the name of an
place of encampment, nnn, which appe!
be from the same root. :
d This is said by Gesenius and others to be th:
nification of the name “ Keilah.” If this be 8%)
would almost appear to be a reference to this al
contemporary circumstances of David's life,
xxxi.} not only in the expression (ver. 21), * mo,
‘ \
ous kindness in a strong city” (ME ™))
also in ver. 8, and in the general tenor of the Ps
ri
KELAIAH
n to Eusebius and Jerome. They describe it
1e Onomasticon as existing under the name
{, or Ceila, on the road from Eleutl:cropolis to
on, at 84 miles distance from the former. In
nap of Lieut. Van de Velde (1858), the name
occurs attached to a site with ruins, on the
‘road from Beit Jibrin to Hebron, at very
the right distance from B. Jibrin (almost
inly Eleutheropolis). and in the neighborhood
eit Nisib (Nezib) and Maresa (Mareshah).
name was only reported to Lieut. V. (see his
oir, p. 328), but it has been since visited by
indefatigable Tobler, who completely confirms
dentification, merely remarking that Kilwa is
d a little too far south on the map. Thus
er is added to the list of places which, though
fied as in the “ lowland,”’ are yet actually found
e mountains: a puzzling fact in our present
ance of the principles of the ancient boundaries.
ITAH; JUDAH, p. 1490 6.]
the 4th century a tradition existed that the
1et Habbakuk was buried at Keilah ( Onomas-
_“Ceila;” Nicephorus, H. /. xii. 48; Cas-
rus, in Sozomen, H. /. vii. 29); but another
tion gives that honor to HUKKOK.
1 Chr. iv. 19, “ KeErLAH THE GARMITE”’ is
ioned, apparently — though it is impossible to
rith certainty — as a descendant of the great
» (ver. 15). But the passage is extremely
re, and there is no apparent connection with
own Keilah. G.
BLATAH [3 syl.J (N22 [doar] :
a; Alex. KwAaa; [Vat.] FA. ca siecet Celaia)
euiva (Ezr. x. 23). In the parallel list of 1
his name appears as COLIUS.
BLYTA (SONY) [dwarf]: Kwalras,
PAS KoaArev, FA.2 KwdAita;] Kadcirady in
x. 10 [Vat. FA.! omit]: Celita ; Calita in
x. 23), one of the Levites who returned from
aptivity with Ezra, and had intermarried with
eople of the land (Ezr. x. 23). In company
the other Levites he assisted Ezra in expound-
1e law (Neh. viii. 7), and entered into a solemn
2and covenant to follow the law of God, and
te from admixture with foreign nations (Neh.
). He is also called KELAIAH, and in the
el list of 1 Esdr. his name appears as
TAS,
IMU’EL Gasp [assembly of God]:
vA: Camuel). 1. “The son of Nahor by
‘hy and father of Aram, whom Ewald (Gesch.
i ‘ndte) identifies with Rat of Job xxxii. 2, to
yf family Elihu belonged (Gen. xxii. 21).
: The son of Shiphtan, and prince of the tribe
“oa one of the twelve men appointed by
to divide the land of Canaan among the
Num. xxxiy. 24).
«[Vat. Sauouna.] A Levite, father of Hash-
| prince of the tribe in the reign of David
r. xxvii. 17).
YNAN (722 [ possession]: Kaivay:
aie the son of Enos (1 Chr. i. 2),
name is also correctly given in this form in
argin of Gen. v. 9.
his is Jerome’s correction of Eusebius, who gives
ianifestly wrong, as the whole distance between
i and Beit-Jibrin is not more than 15 Roman
» nis passage is erroneously translated in the A. V.
ia
1529
KE/NATH (737 [ possession]: Kadé, Alex.
n Kaavaé; in Chron. both MSS. [rather, Rom
ood Kavdé, [Vat. Kavaaé:|} Chanath, Canath),
one of the cities on the east of Jordan, with itr
‘‘ daughter-towns ”’ (A. V. “villages ”’) taken pos-
session of by a certain NOBAH, who then called it
by his own name (Num. xxxii. 42). At a later
period these towns, with those of Jair, were recap-
tured by Geshur and Aram (1 Chr. ii. 23°). In
the days of Eusebius (Onom. “ Canath’’) it was
still called Kanatha, and he speaks of it as “4
village of Arabia . . . . near Bozra.’’ Its site has
been recovered with tolerable certainty in our own
times at Kenawdt, a ruined town at the southern
extremity of the Leah, about 20 miles N. of
Bisrah, which was first visited by Burckhardt in
1810 (Syria, 83-86), and more recently by Porter
(Damascus, ii. 87-115; Handbk. 512-14), the latter
of whom gives a lengthened description and identi-
fication of the place. The suggestion that AKenawat
was Kenath seems, however, to have been first made
by Gesenius in his notes to Burckhardt (A. D. 1823,
p- 505). Another Kenawat is marked on Van de
Velde’s map, about 10 miles farther to the west.
The name furnishes an interesting example of
the permanence of an original appellation. NoBan,
though conferred by the conqueror, and apparently
at one time the received name of the spot (Judg.
viii. 11), has long since given way to the older
title. Compare AccHOo, KIRJATH-ARBA, ete.
G.
KE/NAZ (33)? [chase, hunting]: Kevé¢; [Alex.
in Judg. i. 13, Kevex; in 1 Chr. i. 36, KeCe¢:]
Cenez). 1. Son of Eliphaz, the son of Esau. He
was one of the dukes of Edom, according to both
lists, that in Gen. xxxvi. 15, 42, and that in 1 Chr,
i. 53, and the founder of a tribe or family, who
KENEZITE
were called from him Kenezites (Josh. xiv. 14, &c.).
Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, and Othniel, were
the two most remarkable of his descendants.
[CALEB. ]
2. [Keve (i (Vat. Xeve(er), Kevé¢.] One of the
same family, a grandson of Caleb, according to 1
Chr. iv. [13,] 15, where, however, the Hebrew text
is corrupt. ‘Another name has possibly fallen out
before Kenaz. Aw Us He
KEN’EZITE (written KEN’IZZITH, A. V.
Gen. xv. 19: “F3)2: Keve(atos; [Alex. in Josh.
xiv. 14, KeveCeos:] Cenezeus), an Edomitish tribe
(Num. xxxii. 12; Josh. xiv. 6, 14). [KENAz.]
It is difficult to account for the Kenezites existing
as a tribe so early as before the birth of Isaac, as
they appear to have done from Gen. xy. 19. If
this tribe really existed then, and the enumeration
of tribes in ver. 19-21 formed a part of what the
Lord said to Abram, it can only be said, with
Bochart (Phaleg, iv. 36), that these Kenezites are
mentioned here only, that they had ceased to
exist in the time of Moses and Joshua, and that
nothing whatever is known of their origin or place
of abode. But it is worth consideration whether
the enumeration may not be a later explanatory
addition by Moses or some later editor, and so these
Kenezites be descendants of Kenaz, whose adoption
It should be, * And Geshur and Aram took the Huv-
voth-Jair, with Kenath and her daughters, sixty cities.”
See Bertheau, Chronik; Zunz’s version; Targum of
Joseph, etc., etc.
1530 KENITE, THE
into Israel took place in the time of Caleb, which
was the reason of their insertion in this place.
ASe@oeH:
KE/NITE, THE, and KE’NITES, THE
Q2°P7 and DPT, ze. “ the Kenite;’’ in Chron.
CX; but in Num. xxiv. 22, and in Judg. iv.
11 4, he Kain: of Kevatot, [6 Kevatos,] 6
Kivatos, of Kivator [Vat. Ke:-, and so commonly
Alex.]; [1 Sam. xxvii. 10, xxx. 29, 6 Keve(i, Vat.
-€eL} Alex. oO Kyvet, o Ketvatos: Ceni, elsewhere |
Cinceus),* a tribe or nation whose history is
strangely interwoven with that of the chosen people.
In the genealogical table of Gen. x. they do not
appear. ‘The first mention of them is in company
with the Kenizzites and Kadmonites, in the list of
the nations who then occupied the Promised Land
(Gen. xv. 19). . Their origin, therefore, like that
of the two tribes just named, and of the Avvim
(AvIrTEs),is hidden from us. But we may fairly
infer that they were a branch of the larger nation
of Mip1An — from the fact that Jethro, the father
of Moses’s wife, who in the records of Exodus (see
ii. 15, 16, iv. 19, &c.) is represented as dwelling in
the land of Midian, and as priest or prince of that
nation, is in the narrative of Judges (i. 16, iv. 11°)
as distinctly said to have been a Kenite. As
Midianites they were therefore descended imme-
diately from Abraham by his wife Keturah, and in
this relationship and their connection with Moses
we find the key to their continued alliance with
Israel. The important services rendered by the
sheikh of the Kenites to Moses during a time of
great pressure and difficulty were rewarded by the
latter with a promise of firm friendship between the
two peoples —‘ what goodness Jehovah shall do
unto us, the same will we do to thee.”’ And this
promise was gratefully remembered long after to
the advantage of the Kenites (1 Sam. xv. 6). The
connection then commenced lasted as firmly as a
connection could last between a settled people like
Israel and one whose tendencies were so ineradicably
nomadic as the Kenites. They seem to have ac-
companied the Hebrews during their wanderings.
At any rate they were with them at the time of
their entrance on the Promised Land. Their en-
campment — separate and distinct from the rest
of the people — was within Balaam’s view when he
delivered his prophecy ¢ (Num. xxiv. 21, 22), and
we may infer that they assisted in the capture of
Jericho,2 the “city of palm-trees’’ (Judg. i. 16;
comp. 2 Chr. xxviii. 15). But the wanderings of
Israel over, they forsook the neighborhood of the
a Josephus gives the name Keverides (Ant. v. 5, §
4); but in his notice of Saul’s expedition (vi. 7, § 3)
he has 7rd tov Sukiuct@v é€Ovos—the form in which
he elsewhere gives that of the Shechemites. No ex-
planation of this presents itself to the writer. The
Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, and Pseudojon. uni-
formly render the Kenite by TINTS Dw = salmaite,
possibly because in the genealogy of Judah (1 Chr. ii.
55) a branch of the Kenites come under Salma, son
of Caleb. The same name is introduced in the Samarit.
Vers. before * the Kenite” in Gen. xv. 19 only.
b This passage is incorrectly rendered in the A. V.
It should be, “ And Heber the Kenite had severed
himself from Kain of the children of Hobab, the father-
in-law of Moses, and pitched,” etc.
ce If it be necessary to look for a literal ‘* fulfill-
nent” of this sentence of Balaam’s, we shall best find
it i the accounts of the latter days of Jerusalem under
-
os id
KERCHIEFS
towns, and betook themselves to freer air — to +
wilderness of Judah, which is to the south of Ar
(Judg. i. 16), where “(they dwelt among the peoy
of the district¢— the Amalekites who wand
in that dry region, and among whom they:
living centuries later when Saul made his e
dition there (1 Sam. xy. 6). heir alliance:
Israel at this later date is shown no less by §;
friendly warning than by David's feigned at
(xxvii. 10, and see xxx. 29).
But one of the sheikhs of the tribe, Hebe
name, had wandered north instead of south, an
the time of the great struggle between the*nc
ern tribes and Jabin king of Hazor, his tents:
pitched under the tree of Zaanaim, near’ Ke
(Judg. iv. 11). Heber was in alliance with |
the contending parties, but in the hour of ext
ity the ties of blood-relationship and an
companionship proved strongest, and Sisera f
victim to the hammer and the nail of Jael.
The most remarkable development of this
ple, exemplifying most completely their chara
istics —their Bedouin hatred of the restraint
civilization, their fierce determination, their att
ment to Israel, together with a peculiar semi
nastic austerity not observable in their earlier
ceedings — is to be found in the sect or family of
2RECHABITES, founded by Rechab, or Jonadal
son, who come prominently forward on more’
one occasion in the later history. [JEHONAL
RECHABITES. |
The founder of the family appears to have
a certain Hammath (A. V. HEMATH), and a
gular testimony is furnished to the conne
which existed between this tribe of Midianite ’
derers and the nation of Israel, by the fact
their name and descent are actually included i
genealogies of the great house of Judah (1
ii. 55).
No further notices would seem to be exta
this interesting people. The name of Ba-.
(abbreviated from Bene el-Kain), is mentione
Ewald (Gesch. i. 337, note), as borne in com
tively modern days by one of the tribes of the
ert; but little or no inference can be drawn
such similarity in names. ~ ;
KEN/IZZITE [Keve(aios: Cenezmus],
av. 19. [KENEZITE.]
* KERCHIEFS, Ezek. xiii. 18,21 (110)
epiBéAca: cervicalia) = coverings for the |
from the French couvrechef. The word ap
in Chaucer as keverchef (Eastwood and Wri
Bible Word-Book, p. 281). [Heav-Dress.]
ha
Jehoiakim, when the Kenite Rechabites were
© wasted ”? by-the invading army of Assyria a3
driven to take refuge within the walls of the ¢
step to which we may be sure nothing short of a
extremity could have forced these Children 0
Desert. Whether “ Asshur carried them away cap
with the other inhabitants we are not told, but
at least probable. |
d It has been pointed out under HoBaB that 0
the wadies opposite Jericho, the same by whicl
cording to the local tradition, the Bene-Israel qe
to the Jordan, retains the name of Sho’eib, the M
man version of Hobab. |
e A place named Krnau, possibly derived frol
same root as the Kenites, is mentioned in the lit
the cities of ‘the south” of Judah, But thi
nothing to imply any connection between the
[Kuvag.]
7
KEREN-HAPPUCH
REN-HAP’PUCH (ABI? [ the
orn]: ’AuadOalas [Vat. -Ae.-, Sin. C -6-,
fladdeas| Képas: Cornustibii), the young-
the daughters of Job, born to him during
riod of his reviving prosperity (Job xiii.
d so called probably from her great beauty.
wate has correctly rendered her name “ horn
nony,” the pigment used by eastern ladies
r their eyelashes; but the LXX., unless
a different reading, adopted a current ex-
1 of their own age, without regard to strict
y, in representing Keren-happuch by ‘“ the
Amalthzea,” or * horn of pleuty.’’
RIOTH (17), ¢. ¢. Keriyoth [cities]).
rédeis; Alex. modus: Curioth.) A name
occurs among the lists of the towns in the
n district of Judah (Josh. xv. 25). Ac-
‘to the A. V. (“ Kerioth,¢ and Hezron *’),
tes a distinct place from the name which
it; but this separation is not in accordance
eaccentuation of the Rec. Hebrew text, and
generally abandoned (see Keil, Josua, ad
d Reland, Palestina, pp. 700, 708, the ver-
Zunz, Cahen, etc.), and the name taken as
oth-Hezron, which is Hazor,”’ 7. e. its name
he conquest was Hazor, for which was after-
substituted Keriyoth-Hezron — the ‘ cities
Robinson (Bibl. Res. ii. 101), and Lieut. Van
le (ii. 82) propose to identify it with Kuu-
(“the two cities’’), a ruined site which
bout 10 miles S. from Hebron, and 3 from
(Maon ).°
oth furnishes, one, and that perhaps the
and most usual, of the explanations pro-
for the title ‘Iscariot,’ and which are
ated under JuDAs IscARIoT, vol. ii. p.
But if Kerioth is to be read in conjunc-
h Hezron, as stated above, another difficulty
m in the way of this explanation.
Kapimd: Curioth.) A city of Moab, named
lenunciations of Jeremiah — and there only
mipany with Dibon, Beth-diblathaim, Beth-
Bozrah, and other places ‘far and near”
viii. 24). None of the ancient interpreters
to give any clew to the position of this
By Mr. Porter, however, it is unhesi-
; identified with Kwreiyeh, a ruined town
: extent lying between Busrah and Sulkhad,
southern part of the Hauran (Five Years
91-98; Hundbvok, pp. 523, 524). The chief
nt in favor of this is the proximity of
th to Busrah, which Mr. Porter accepts as
with the Bozrau of the same passage
‘niah. But there are some considerations
tand very much in the way of these identi-
3 Jeremiah is speaking (xlviii. 21) ex-
of the cities of the “Mishor’? (A. V.
country”’), that is, the district of level
ast of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, which
y answered in whole or in part to the Belka
aodern Arabs. In this region were situated
the A. V. of 1611 the punctuation was still
wked —* and Kerioth: and Hezron, which is
This agrees with the version of Junius and
us—"“et Kerijothe (Chetzron ea est Chat-
ond With that of Luther. Castellio, on the
nd, has * Cariothesron, que alias Hasor.”
"his is a different place from the ruins and cave
tim, near Tekoa (which see), about 2 hours
tof Bethlehem. The names are somewhat
KETURAH 1531
Heshbon, Dibon, Elealeh, Beth-meon, Kir-heres —
the only places named in the passage in question, the
positions of which are known with certainty. ‘Ihe
most northern of these (Heshbon) is not further
north than the upper end of the Dead Sea; the
most southern (Kir) lay near its lower extremity
Nor is there anything in the parallel denunciation
of Moab by Isaiah (ch. xvi.) to indicate that the
limits of Moab extended further to the north. But
Busrah and Kureiyeh are no less than 60 miles to
the N. N. E. of Heshbon itself, beyond the limits
even of the modern Belka (see Kiepert’s map to
Wetzstein’s Hawran und die Trachonen, 1860),
and in a country of an entirely opposite character
from the “ flat downs, of smooth and even turf”
which characterize that district — “a savage and
forbidding aspect . .. nothing but stones and
jagged black rocks . . . the whole country around
Kureiyeh covered with heaps of loose stones,” ete.
(Porter, ii. 189, 193). A more plausible identifi-
cation would be Kurezyat, at the western foot of
Jebel Altarus, and but a short distance from either
Dibon, Beth-meon, or Heshbon.
But on the other hand it should not be over-
looked that Jeremiah uses the expression “ far and
near’’ (ver: 24), and also that if Busrah and
Kureiyeh are not Bozrah and Kerioth, those im-
portant places have apparently, flourished without
any notice from the sacred writers. This is one
of the points which further investigation by com-
petent persons, east of the Jordan, may probably
set at rest.
Kerioth occurs in the A. V., also in ver. 41.
Here however it bears the definite article
(PIT > Alex. Axxapiw0; [Vat. FA. Axka-
pwyv:| Curioth), and would appear to signify not
any one definite place, but “the cities° of Moab”
—as may also be the case with the same word in
Amos ii. 2. [Kiriorn.] G.
KE’ROS (D772 [weaver’s comb]: Kdadys 3
Alex. Kypaos in Ezr. ii. 44; Cyr Kipds; [Vat.
Keipa, FA.] Alex. Ke:pas in Neh. vii. 47: Ceros),
one of the Nethinim, whose@descendants returned
with Zerubbabel.
KET’TLE (17: A€Bns: caldaria), a ves-
sel for culinary or sacrificial purposes (1 Sam. ii.
14). The Hebrew word is also rendered * basket ”’
in Jer. xxiv. 2, “caldron’’ in 2 Chr. xxxv. 13, and
“pot” in Job xli. 20. [CALDRON.] H. W. P.
KETU’RAH (TP, incense, Ges.: Xert-
tovpa: Cetura), the “ wife’? whom Abraham ‘ add-
ed and took” (A. V. “again took’’) besides, or
after the death of, Sarah (Gen. xxv. 1; 1 Chr. i.
32). Gesenius and others adopt the theory that
Abraham took Keturah after Sarah’s death; but
probability seems against it (compare Gen. xvii.
17, xviii. 11; Rom. iv. 19; and Heb. xi. 12), and
we incline to the belief that the passage commen-
cing with xxv. 1, and comprising perhaps the whole
chapter, or at least as far as ver. 10, is placed out
alike, but that is accidental Khiireittin is so called
from a celebrated monk Chariton, who a. D. 340-350
occupied the cave as a laura or monastery, which it
continued to be for ages. ‘The name is given also to
the adjacent Wady, and to a fountain and a little vil-
lage. See Tobler’s Denkblatter aus Jerusalem, p. 681,
and Sepp’s Jerusalem und das heil. Land, i. 529, IL.
e¢ So Ewald, Propheten, “ Die Stidte Moabs.”
1532 KETURAH KEZIZ, THE VALLEY OF
of its chronological sequence in order not to break KEY (MADD, from TUB, “to |
the main narrative; and that Abraham took Ketu- |, whic a: Mele oe
rah during Sarah’s lifetime. That she was, strictly Ges. p. 1138: KAels: clavis). The key of
speaking, his wife, is also very uncertain. The He- tive oriental lock is a piece of wood, from 7
brew word so translated in this place in the A. V., its ON en wee i mee vile ‘ate a 7
and by many scholars, is /shdh,2 of which the ae ane eee meta 5 0 ag oll
first meaning given by Gesenius is “a woman, of which serves as a lock, raises other pins wit
every age and condition, whether married or not; ”’ staple ae? allow the bolt to be drawn
and although it is commonly used with the signifi- But it is not difficult to open a lock of thi
cation of “wife,” as opposed to handmaid, in Gen. |°V°" Meaeeaen Key. (perce with the finger
xxx. 4, it occurs with the signification of concu- in, paste Ot substance. The p
bine, “and she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to Cant. v. 4, 5, is thus probably explained (H
wife.’ Inthe record in 1 Chr. i. 32, Keturah is Obs. iii. 31; yol. 1. 304, ed. Clarke; Rauwo
called a “concubine,” and it is also said, in the Ray, Trav. ii. 17). [Lock. ] The key,
two verses immediately following the genealogy of |V°VS ® symbol of authority, both in aneie
Keturah, that “Abraham gave all that he had modern, times, 48 named more than once
unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines, Bible, especially Is. xxil. 22, a passage to
which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent a 2 probably made in Rey. iil. 7. 7
them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, pression “ bearing the key on the shoul
eastward, unto the east country ”” (Gen. xxv. 5, 6). thes a pave Pies sometimes perhaps in 1
Except Hagar, Keturah is the only person men- eral sense, to denote possession of office; bu
tioned to whom this passage can relate; and in ne a. oe to suppose, with Grotit
confirmation of this supposition we find strong a ofa Key embrerd rey, on the garment
evidence of a wide spread of the tribes sprung from office-bearer (see Is. ix. 6). In Talmudic.
Keturah, bearing the names of her sons, as we have | logy the Almighty the BS epresented as
mentioned in other articles. These sons were the keys” of various operations of natu
“ Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, |7@™ death, etl, be ee dominic
and Ishbak, and Shuah ” (ver. 2); besides the sons them. The delivery of the key is therefore
and grandsons of Jokshan, and the sons of Midian. | CXPFessive of authority conferred, and the
They evidently crossed the desert to the Persian sion of it implies authority of some :
Gulf and occupied the whole intermediate country, He ren : jhe erm. a
where traces of their names are frequent, while hee lai
Midian extended south into the peninsula of Ara- a actual key, is explained under Evunven (
Calmet, Knobel, on Is. xxii. 22; Han
bia Proper. The elder branch of the “sons of the | -.
eiabinedt? however, was that of Ishmael. He Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr.; _De Wette on Ma
has ever stood as the representative of the bond- 19; Carpzey on Goodwin, Moses ond Aw
woman’s sons; and as such his name has become 141, 632; Dict. of Antiq. art. “ Matrimo
generaily applied by the Arabs to all the Abra- oid tt iG 09, S18, 128, 139; Holey
hamic settlers north of the Peninsula — besides **Camerarius ; Chambers, Dict, “« Chambe
the great Ishmaelite element of the nation. Reland, Ant. Hebr. ii. 8, 5). H. \
In searching the works of Arab writers for any
information respecting these tribes, we must be
contented to find them ‘named as Abrahamic, or
even Ishmaelite, for under the latter appellation
almost all the former‘are confounded by their de-
scendants. Keturah > herself is by them men-
tioned very rarely and vaguely, and evidently only
in quoting from a rabbinical writer. (In the
Kédmoos the name is said to be that of the Turks,
and that of a young girl (or slave) of Abraham ;
and, it is added, her descendants are the Turks!)
M. Caussin de Perceval (Essai, i. 179) has en-
deavored to identify her with the name of a tribe
of the Amalekites (the 1st Amalek) called K atoora,¢
but his arguments are not of any weight. They
rest on a weak etymology, and are contradicted by
the statements. of Arab authors as well as by the
fact that the early tribes of Arabia (of which is
Katoora) have not, with the single exception of
Amalek, been identified with any historical names;
while the exception of Amalek is that of an ap-
parently aboriginal people whose name is recorded
in the Bible; and there are reasons for supposing
that these early tribes were aboriginal.
Iron Key. (From Thebes.)
KEZVA (MDS) [cassia]: Kaota
Kaco.a: Cassia), the second of the daug
Job, born to him after his recovery (Job xi
KE’/ZIZ, THE VALLEY OF
VSP : Apexaats [Vat. —ceis]; Alex. Ape
Vallis Casis), one of the “cities” of I
(Josh. xviii. 21). That it was the easter!
of the tribe is evident from its mention
pany with BerH-HoGLAH and Beru-HA-A
The name does not reappear in the O. 1
is possibly intended under the corrupt
BETH-BASI, in 1 Mace. ix. 62, 64. The
Hebrew, is derivable from a root meaning
(Ges. Thes. 1229; Simonis, Onom. 70).
E, 8. P. _ |sible that it can have any connection with
among the modern Syrians (Land and Book,
The key is often “ large enough for @ stout ¢
the lock and key together are “ almosta load
Mint Many of the locks are on the inside of the 4
unlock them, the owner thrusts his arm |
~ = +
b { Bes c | mf:
& bis. £ yas.
hole for that purpose, and thus inserts the k
d * Dr. Thomson describes the lock and key in use ' allusion in Cant. iv. 4, 5, may be to sueh a |
a TDS,
T e
KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH
sumeision which took place at Gilgal, cer-
1 the same neighborhood, after the Jordan
sed (Josh. vy. 2-9)? G.
ROTH -HATTA’AVAH (7711937
Ti pvquara tis émibupias: sepulchra
scentie), Num. xi. 34; marg. “the graves
* (comp. xxxiii. 17). From there being no
of spot mentioned between it and Taberah
it is probably, like the latter, about three
urney from Sinai (x. 33); and from the sea
vice mentioned in the course of the narra-
22, 31), a maritime proximity may perhaps
ed. Here it seems they abode a whole month,
which they went on eating quails, and per-
fering from the plague which followed. If
jecture of Hidherd (Burckhardt, p. 495;
m, i. 151) as asite for Hazeroth [see Haz-
| be adopted, then ‘the graves of lust”
perhaps within a day's journey thence in
ection of Sinai, and would lie within 15
of the Gulf of Akabah; but no traces of
wes have ever been detected in the region.¢
chubert, between Sinai and the Wady Mur-
eisen, 360), and Stanley (S. f P. 82), just
reaching Miidherd, encountered flights of
-the latter says of ‘red-legged cranes.”
) speaks of such flights as a constant phe-
mn, both in this peninsula and in the Eu-
, région. Burckhardt, Travels in Syria,
Aug., quotes Russell's Aleppo, ii. 194, and
e bird Kattvis found in great numbers in
ighborhood of Tiifileh. [Toruet.] He calls
ecies of partridge, or “not improbably the
or quail." Boys not uncommonly kill three
of them at one throw with a stick.”
ye Ee
BZA’IM (O°E2) [see below]: Vat. omits ;
n KaBoaetu: Cibsuim), a city of Mount
m, not named in the meagre, and probably
ect, lists of the towns of that great tribe
ish. xvi.), but mentioned elsewhere as having
iven up with its ‘suburbs’? to the Kohath-
wites (xxi. 22). In the parallel list of 1
i, JOKMEAM is substituted for Kibzaim (ver.
n exchange which, as already pointed out
the former name, may have arisen from the
ity between the two in the original. Jok-
would appear to have been situated at the
1 quarter of Ephraim. But this is merely
lee, no trace having been hitherto discovered
ter name.
rpreted as a Hebrew word, Kibzaim signi-
iwo heaps.” G.
‘ID. For some of the facts pertinent here,
AT. It may be added that the wild goat is
i
ve one of a Mohammedan saint (Stanley, S. § P.
lich does not assist the question.
remarks on the continuance of the law of na-
M animal habits through a course of thousands
ts (xiv. 251).
‘iny (Nat. Hist. x. 33) says quails settle on the
3 Ships by night, so as to sink sometimes the
in the neighboring sea. So Diod. Sic. i. p. 33:
Pas THY OpTiywy éroLodYTO, epépovTd Te OTOL
tines bmeiCous é« TOU meAdyous (Lepsius, Thebes to
23). Comp. Joseph. Ant. iii. 1, § 5; and Frey-
&
heat Arab. 8. v. at ; also Kalisch on Ex. xvi.
ere an incidental mention of the bird occurs.
~hnean name appears to be Tetrao Alchata.
|
]
,
KIDRON, THE BROOK 1583
by no means extinct in Palestine at the present day.
‘In the neighborhood of En-gedi,’’ says Tristram,
(Nat. Hist. of the Bible, p. 96), “while encamped
by the Dead Sea shore, we obtained several fine
specimens, and very interesting it was to find this
graceful creature by the very fountain to which it
gave name, and in the spot where it roamed of old
while David wandered to escape the persecutions of
Saul (1 Sam. xxiv. 2)” [EN-GEp1.]
also speaks of them as found in the ravines near
this fountain (Land and Book, ii. 420).
Thomson
Among the pastoral inhabitants of Palestine a
kid forms the ordinary dish at a feast or entertain-
ment.
generally kept till they reach maturity, for the sake
of their wool, and a calf is too large and too valua-
ble to be slain except on some very special occasions.
Whenever in the wilder parts of Palestine the trav-
eller halts at an Arab camp, or pays his visit to a
village sheikh, he is pressed to stay until the kid
can be killed and made ready, and he has an
opportunity of seeing in front of the tent the kid
caught and prepared for the cooking”? (Nat. Hist.
of the Bible, p. 90 f.). This usage explains the terms
of the elder brother’s complaint in the parable of
the prodigal: ‘Thou never gavest me a kid that
I might make merry with my friends, but as soon
as 4
killed for him the fatted calf*’ (Luke xv. 29, 30).
Comp. also Gen. xxvii. 9; and Judg. vi. 19 and
xiii. 15.
«The lambs,’’ says Tristram, “are more
this thy son was come . . thou hast
The custom of “seething a kid in its mother’s
milk ’’ (which was forbidden to the Hebrews, see
Ex. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26, and Deut. xiv. 21) is
common among the Arabs of the present day.
“They select,’ says Thomson, ‘a young kid,
fat and tender, dress it carefully, and then stew it
in milk, generally sour, mixed with onions and hot
spices such as they relish. They call it Lebn
imma —kid, ‘in its mother’s milk.’ ’? The Jews
however, refuse such food with abhorrence, not only
as being interdicted by the Mosaic law, but unnat-
ural and barbarous (Land and Bovk, i. 135).
KID’RON, THE BROOK (747777) OT3%:
6 xeluassos Kédpwy and ray Kedpov; in Jer. only
Ndyad Kédpwy, and Alex. xeruappos Naxar K.:
torrens Cedron, [convallis Cedion]), a torrent or
valley — not a‘ brook,’’ as in the A. V. — in imme-
diate proximity to Jerusalem. It is not named in
the earlier records of the country, or in the speci-
fication of the boundaries of Benjamin or Judah,
but comes forward in connection with some remark-
able events of the history. It lay between the
city and the Mount of Olives, and was crossed by
David in his flight (2 Sam. xv. 23, comp. 30), and
d The name is derived by Gesenius and others from
VI}2, “to be black ;” either, according to Robinson,
seh; J
from the turbidness of its stream (comp. Job vi. 16 ;
though the words of Job imply that this was a condition
of all brooks when frozen) ; or more appropriately, with
Stanley, from the depth and obscurity of the ravine
(S. § P.172); possibly also — though this is proposed
with hesitation — from the impurity which seems to
haye attached to it from a very early date.
We cannot, however, too often insist on the great
uncertainty which attends the derivations of these
ancient names ; and in treating Kidron as a Hebrew
word, we may be making a mistake almost as absurd
as that of the copyist who altered it into TOV KEdpwV,
believing that it arose from the fresence of cedars.
1534 KIDRON, THE BROOK
by our Lord on his way to Gethsemane (John xviii.
1;¢ comp. Mark xiv. 26; Luke xxii. 39). Its con-
nection with these two occurrences is alone sufficient
to leave no doubt that the Nachal-Kidron is the
deep ravine on the east of Jerusalem, now com-
monly known as the “ Valley of Jehoshaphat.”
But it would seem as if the name were formerly
applied also to the ravines surrounding other por-
tions of Jerusalem —the south or the west; since
Solomon’s prohibition to Shimei to “ pass over the
torrent Kidron’’ (1 K. ii. 87; Jos. Ant. viii. 1,
§ 5) is said to have been broken by the latter when
he went in the direction of Gath to seek his fugi-
tive slaves (41, 42). Now a person going to Gath
would certainly not go by the way of the Mount
of Olives, or approach the eastern side of the city
at all. The route — whether Gath were at Beit-
Jibrin or at Tell es-Safieh — would be by the
Bethlehem-gate, and then nearly due west. Per-
haps the prohibition may have been a more general
one than is implied in ver. 87 (comp. the king’s
reiteration of it in ver. 42), the Kidron being in
that case specially mentioned because it was on the
road to Bahurim, Shimei’s home, and the scene of
his crime. At any rate, beyond the passage in
question, there is no evidence of the name Kidron
having been applied to the southern or western ra-
vines of the city.
The distinguishing peculiarity of the Kidron
Valley —that in respect to which it is most fre-
quently mentioned in the O. T. —is the impurity
which appears to have been ascribed to it. x-
cepting the two casual notices already quoted, we
first meet with it as the place in which King Asa
demolished and burnt the obscene phallic idol (vol.
ii. p. 1118) of his mother (1 K. xv.13; 2 Chr. xv. 16).
Next we find the wicked Athaliah hurried thither
to execution (Jos. Ant. ix. 7, § 3; 2 K. xi. 16).
It then becomes the regular receptacle for the im-
purities and abominations of the idol-worship, when
removed from the Temple and destroyed by the ad-
herents of Jehovah ® (2 Chr. xxix. 16, xxx. 14; 2
K. xxiii. 4, 6, 12). In the course of these narra-
tives, the statement of Josephus just quoted as to
the death of Athaliah is supported by the fact that
in the time of Josiah it was the common cemetery
of the city (2 K. xxiii. 6; comp. Jer. xxvi. 23,
‘‘oraves of the common people’’), perhaps the
‘¢ valley of dead bodies’’ mentioned by Jeremiah
(xxxi. 40) in close connection with the * fields ’’ of
Kidron; and the restoration of which to sanctity
was to be one of the miracles of future times
(ibid.).
How long the valley continued to be used for a
burying-place it is very hard to ascertain. After
the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, the bodies of the
slain were buried outside the Golden Gateway
(Mislin, ii. 487; Tobler, Umgebunyen, p. 218); but
what had been the practice in the interval the
writer has not succeeded in tracing. ‘To the date
of the monuments at the foot of Olivet we have at
present no clew; but even if they are of pre-Chris-
tian times there is no proof that they are tombs.
@ Here, and here only, the form used in the A. V.
is Cepron. ‘he variations in the Greek text are
very curious. Codex A has rot kéSpwv; B, rev xédpwr;
D (and Sin.], rod «éSpov, and in some cursive MSS. [one
MS.| quoted by Tischendorf we even find ray d5évdpwr.
+ The Targum appears to understand the obscure
passage Zeph. i. 11, as referring to the destruction of
the idolatrous worship in Kidron, for it renders it,
“ Howl all ye that dwell in the Nachal Kidron, for all
fee
|
KIDRON, THE BROOK
From the date just mentioned, however, the bu
appear to have been constant, and at oa
is the favorite resting-place of Moslems and J!
the former on the west, the latter on the east |
valley. The Moslems are mostly confined tc
narrow level spot between the foot of the wall
the commencenient of the precipitous slope; y
the Jews have possession of the lower part of
slopes of Olivet, where their scanty tombstones
crowded so thick together as literally to cover
surface like a paveiment.
The term Nachal¢ isin the O. T., with:
single exception (2 K. xxiii. 4), attached to
name of Kidron, and apparently to that alor
the valleys or ravines of Jerusalem. Hinnoy
always the Ge. ‘This enables us to infer with ¢
probability that the Kidron is intended in 2
xxxii. 4, by the “+ brook (Nachal) which ran thr.
the midst of the land’; and that Hezek
preparations for the siege consisted in sealing
source of the Kidron — ‘the upper spring
(not ‘watercourse,’ as A. V.) of Gihon,” whe
burst out in the wady some distance north of
city, and leading it by a subterranean chann
the interior of the city. If this is so, there |
difficulty in accounting for the fact of the si:
quent want of water in the ancient bed of the
ron. In,accordance with this also is the spec’
tion of Gihon as “ Gihon-in-the-Nachal ”’ — th
in the Kidron Valley — though this was probabl)
lower of two outlets of the same name. [Gin
By Jerome, in the Onomasticon, it is mentione
“close to Jerusalem on the eastern side, and sj:
of by John the Evangelist.’’ But the fay
name of this valley at the time of Jerome, an
several centuries after, was ‘the Valley of Jeh’
phat,’? and the name Kidron, or, in accor(
with the orthography of the Vulgate, Cedre
not invariably found in the travellers (see A’
Earl. Trav. 1; Sewulf, 41; Benjamin of Tu
Maundeville, Earl. Trav. 176; Thietmar, 27 |
not the Bordeaux Pilgrim, the Citez de Jhe;
lem, Willibald, etc.).
The following description of the Valley of K’
in its modern state — at once the earliest anc
most accurate which we possess — is taken
Dr. Robinson (Bivl. Res. i. 269): —
“In approaching Jerusalem from the high '
of Neby Samwil in the N. W., the i
descends and crosses the bed of the great |)
Beit Hanini already described. He then as)
again towards the S. E. by a small side wad:
along a rocky slope for twenty-five minutes, '
he reaches the Tombs of the Judges, lying)
small gap or depression of the ridge, still hi
hour distant from the northern gate of the}
A few steps further he reaches the water-she
tween the great wady behind him and the’
before him; and here is the head of the Vall
Jehoshaphat. From this point the dome “i
Holy Sepulchre bears S. by E. The tract a
this spot is very rocky; and the rocks have’
much cut away, partly in quarrying building-)
Oe
the people are broken whose works were like the }
of the people of the land of Canaan.” [MAKTE)
¢ Nachal is untranslatable in English unl
* Wady,’? to which it answers exactly, and whic?
fair to become shortly an English word. It dor
signify the stream, or the valley which contain
bed of the stream, and was its receptacle when 6
by winter-rains —but both. [River]
™
wa
KIDRON, THE BROOK
1 partly in the formation of sepulchres. The
ion is full of excavated tombs; and these con-
ue with more or less frequency on both sides of
yalley, all the way down to Jerusalem. The
ley runs for 15 minutes directly towards the
7; @ it is here shallow and broad, and in some
ts tilled, though very stony. The road follows
ng its bottom to the same point. The valley
y turns nearly east, almost at a right angle, and
ges to the northward of the Tombs of the Kings
| the Muslim Wely before mentioned. Here it
ibout 200 rods distant from the city; and the
“4 between is tolerably level ground, planted
h olive-trees. ‘he Na/ulus road crosses it in
3 part, and ascends the hill on the north. The
ey is here still shallow, and runs in the same direc-
1 for about 10 minutes. It then bends again to
south, and, following this general course, passes
ween the city and the Mount of Olives.
‘Before reaching the city, and also opposite its
thern part, the valley spreads out into a basin
some. breadth, which is tilled, and contains
atations of olive and other fruit-trees. In this
t it is crossed obliquely by a road leading from
N. E. corner of Jerusalem across the northern
t of the Mount of Olives to ’Andta. Its sides
still full of excavated tombs. As the valley
sends, the steep side upon the right becomes
re and more elevated above it; until, at the gate
St. Stephen, the height of this brow is about
‘feet. Here a path winds down from the gate
acourse 8S. E. by E., and crosses the valley by
ridge; beyond which are the church with the
nb of the Virgin, Gethsemane, and other plan-
ons of olive-trees, already described. The path
. bridge are on a causeway, or rather terrace,
lt up across the valley, perpendicular on the
th side; the earth being filled in on the northern
+ up to the level of the bridge. The bridge
‘If consists of an arch, open on the south side,
/ 17 feet high from the bed of the channel be-
3 but the north side is built up, with two sub-
vanean drains entering it from above; one
vhich comes from the sunken court of the Vir-
i's Tomb, and the other from the fields farther
ithe northwest. The breadth of the valley at
'' point will appear from the measurements which
look from St. Stephen’s Gate to Gethsemane,
‘ig the path, namely —
Eng. feet.
». From St. Stephen’s Gate to the brow of
_ the descent, level. : ; - 185
.. Bottom of the slope, the angle of the
descent being 164° . . 415
'. Bridge, level . : : - 140
» N. W. corner of Gethsemane, slight rise 145
' N. E. corner of do. do. 150
"» last three numbers give the breadth of the
Loer bottom of the valley at this spot, namely,
* feet, or 145 yards. Further north it is some-
ie broader.
' Below the bridge the valley contracts gradually,
«| sinks more rapidly. The first continuous traces
€\ water-course or torrent-bed commence at the
Ige, though they occur likewise at intervals
aerup. The western hill becomes steeper and
‘hs elevated ; while on the east the Mount of
ves rises much higher, but is not so steep. At
i distance of 1000 feet from the bridge on a
| al i a
| Bee a slight correction of this by Tobler, Umge-
yen, p. 22.
|
i
KIDRON, THE BROOK 1535
course S. 10° W. the bottom of the valley has bes
come merely a deep gully, the narrow bed of a
torrent, from which the hills rise directly on each
side. Here another bridge? is thrown across it on
an arch; and just by on the left are the alleged
tombs of Jehoshaphat, Absalom, and others; as
also the Jewish cemetery. The valley now con-
tinues of the same character, and follows the same
course (S. 10° W.) for 550 feet further; where it
makes a sharp turn for a moment towards the right.
This portion is the narrowest of all; it is here a
mere ravine between high mountains. The S. E.
corner of the area of the mosque overhangs this part,
the corner of the wall standing upon the very brink
of the declivity. From it to the bottom, on a course
S. E. the angle of depression is 27°, and the dis-
tance 450 feet, giving an elevation of 128 feet at
that point; to which may be added 20 feet or more
for the rise of ground just north along the wall;
making in all an elevation of about 150 feet. This,
however, is the highest point above the valley; for
further south the narrow ridge of Ophel slopes
down as rapidly as the valley itself. In this part
of the valley one would expect to find, if anywhere,
traces of ruins thrown down from above, and the
ground raised by the rubbish thus accumulated.
Occasional blocks of stone are indeed seen; but
neither the surface of the ground, nor the bed of
the torrent, exhibits any special appearance of having
been raised or interrupted by masses of ruins.
“‘ Below the short turn above mentioned, a line
of 1025 feet on a course 8. W. brings us to the
Fountain of the Virgin, lying deep under the
western hill. The valley has now opened a little;
but its bottom is still occupied only by the bed of
the torrent. From here a course 8. 20° W. carried
us along the village of Siloam (Kefr Selwdn) on
the eastern side, and ut 1170 feet we were opposite
the mouth of the Tyropeeon and the Pool of Siloam,
which lies 255 feet within it. The mouth of this
valley is still 40 or 50 feet higher than the bed of
the Kidron. The steep descent between the two
has been already described as built up in terraces,
which, as well as the strip of level ground below,
are occupied with gardens belonging to the village
of Siloam. These are irrigated by the waters of
the Pool of Siloam, which at this time were lost in
them. In these gardens the stones have been re-
moved, and the svil is a fine mould. They are
planted with fig and other fruit-trees, and furnish
also vegetables for the city. Elsewhere the bottom
of the valley is thickly strewed with small stones.
“ Further down, the valley opens more and is
tilled. A line of 685 feet on the same course (S.
20° W.) brought us to a rocky point of the eastern
hill, here called the Mount of Offense, over against
the entrance of the Valley of Hinnom. Thence to
the well of Job or Nehemiah is 275 feet due south.
At the junction of the two valleys the bottom forms
an oblong plat, extending from the gardens, above
mentioned nearly to the well of Job, and being 150
yards or more in breadth. The western and north-
western parts of this plat are in like manner oc-
cupied by gardens; many of which are also on
terraces, and receive a portion of the waters of
Siloam.
* Below the well of Nehemiah the Valley of
Jehoshaphat continues to run S. 8. W. between
the Mount of Offense and the Hill of Evil Counsel,
b For a minute account of the two bridges, see
Tobler, Umgebungen, pp. 35-89.
15386 KIDRON, THE BROOK
so called.
by which the water of the well sometimes runs off.
At about 1200 feet, or 400 yards, from the well is
a place under the western hill, where in the rainy
season water flows out as from a fountain. At
about 1500 feet or 500 yards below the well the
valley bends off S. 75° E. for half a mile or more,
and then turns again more to the south, and pur-
sues its way to the Dead Sea. At the angle where
it thus bends eastward a small wady comes in from
the west, from behind the Hill of Evil Counsel.
The width of the main valley below the well, as far
as to the turn, varies from 50 to 100 yards; it is
full of olive and fig-trees, and is in most parts
ploughed and sown with grain. Further down it
takes the name among the Arabs of Wady er-Rahib,
‘Monks’ Valley,’ from the convent of St. Saba
situated on it; and still nearer to the Dead Sea it
is also called Wady en-Nar, ‘ Fire Valley.’ 4
“The channel of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, the
Brook Kidron of the Scriptures, is nothing more
than the dry bed of a wintry torrent, bearing marks
of being occasionally swept over by a large volume
of water. No stream flows here now except during
the heavy rains of winter, when the waters descend
into it from the neighboring hills. Yet even in
winter there is no constant flow; and our friends,
who had resided several years in the city, had never
seen a stream running through the valley. Nor
is there any evidence that there was anciently more
water in it than at present. Like the wadies of
the desert, the valley probably served of old, as
now, only to drain off the waters of the rainy
season.”’
One point is unnoticed in Dr. Robinson’s de-
scription, sufficiently curious and well-attested to
merit further careful investigation — the possibility
that the Kidron flows below the present surface of
the ground. Dr. Barclay (City, etc. 302) mentions
‘a fountain that bursts forth during the winter in
a valley entering the Kidron from the north, and
flows several hundred yards before it sinks; ’’ and
again he testifies that at a point in the valley about
two miles below the city the murmurings of a
stream deep below the ground may be distinctly
heard, which stream, on excavation, he actually dis-
covered (ibid.). His inference is that between the
two points the brook is flowing in a subterraneous
channel, as is “ not at all unfrequent in Palestine ”’
(p. 303). Nor is this a modern discovery, for it is
spoken of by William of Tyre; by Brocardus (Descr.
cap. viii.), as audible near the “Tomb of the
Virgin;”’ and also by Fabri (i. 3870), Marinus
Sanutus (3, 14, 9), and others.
That which Dr. Robinson complains that neither
he nor his friends were fortunate enough to witness
has since taken place. In the winter of 1853-54 so
heavy were the rains, that not only did-the lower
part of the Kidron, below the so-called well of
Nehemiah or Joab, run with a considerable stream
for the whole of the month of March (Barclay, 515),
but also the upper part, ‘‘in the middle section of
the Valley of Jehoshaphat, flowed for a day or two”
(Stewart, Tent g Khan, 316). The Well of Joab
is probably one of the outlets of the mysterious
@ A list of some of the plants found in this valley |
is given by Mislin (iii. 209); and some scraps of in-
formation about the valley itself at p. 199.
b * During the latter rains of February and March
the well ’Ain Ayub is a subject of much speculation
and interest to all dwellers in the city. If it over-
KIDRON, THE BROOK
At 130 feet ig a small cavity or outlet | spring which flows below the city of “-rnsalem,
its overflow is comparatively com’ D8 ~ but
flowing of a stream in the upper pat of the va
would seem not to have taken place for many y
before the occasion in question, although it ocem
also in the following winter (Jewish J/ntelligen
May 1856, p. 137 note), and, as the writer is
formed, has since become almost periodical.
* The language of Dr. Barclay (see above) ha:
implies so much as the actual discovery of the s
terranean stream spoken of. His words are '
‘about two miles southeast of the city”? whe
noise as of running water beneath the ground
said to have been heard, on removing the r
to the depth of about ten or twelve feet, water
found, though in small quantity, in midsumm
(City of the Great King, pp. 302, 303).
Lieut. Warren avows his belief in the exist
of this subterranean current. At the latest de
he was directing his attention to this point,
had not solved the question. About 500 y:
below the Bir Hyub [EN-RoGEL] he discover
flight of steps leading down to an ancient aqued
now choked with silt, which he cleared about
feet northward, and believes to have been conne
with that well and the ancient system of w
supply. Whatever may be the truth howeye
this instance, it appears that some of the rur
of this nature are traceable to a very diffe
origin. Capt. Wilson, of the Royal Engin
relates an example of this which is worthy
notice. “A few words” (Ordnance Survey
Jerusalem, p. 87, Lond. 1865) ‘may be
here on the sound of running water which
been heard by travellers near the Damascus (
and at the head of the Kidron Valley. On
occasion, when returning to the city after ah
storm of rain, the same sound was noticed, and
some little trouble found to arise from the run
of water into a cistern near the north road.
surface drainage passing through small earthen
pipes, and falling some distance onto the ¥
below, made a splashing sound, which, softene
the vaulted roof, might easily be mistaken for
ning water. ‘The same thing was nuvticed a
wards on several occasions, especially at the
cisterns near the Damascus Gate.”
It is undoubtedly a correct opinion that
Kidron was never more than a winter tot
formed by the water which flowed into the y:
from the hills north and east of Jerusalem,
not however a just inference from this characte
the stream that the amount of water there 1
always have been the same, nor is this consis
with the testimony of competent observers.
Tristram (Land of /srael, p. 256, 2d ed.), spea
of a bluff about two miles south of Ain Feshh
on the west shore of the Dead Sea, says: “
beyond it, the Kedron in the days of its abund
has worked out a tremendous chasm, a few feet '
through which it winds to the sea.’’ ‘The pr
stream could not have done this. But the evi¢
is more positive, that formerly rain was |
abundant in Palestine than at present, and h
that the Kidron was a larger stream. Dr.
flows and discharges its waters down the Wad
Nar, the lower part of the Kidron, then they are
tain that they will have abundance of water d
the summer; if there is no overflow, their mind
filled with forebodings.”” (Stewart, -316.)
ah ‘
KINAH
: “ The ertire destruction of the woods which
-cover/on ‘y: mountains, and the utter neglect
he terracey-vhich supported the soil on steep
yities, have given full range to the rains, which
left many traces of bare rock, where formerly
vineyards and cornfields.’’ With this agrees
Dean Stanley’s representation: ‘It is prob-
that, as in Europe generally, since the disap-
ance of the German forests, and in Greece, since
fall of the plane-trees, which once shaded the
landscape of Attica, the gradual cessation of
produced by this loss of vegetation has exposed
sountry in a greater degree than in early times
e evils of drought. ‘This at least is the effect
he testimony of residents at Jerusalem within
ge experience the Kidron has recently for the
time flowed with a copious torrent, evidently
msequence of the numerous enclosures of mul-
y and olive groves, made within the last few
3 by the Greek Convent, and in themselves a
le of the different aspect which such cultiva-
more widely extended would give to the whole
try.” (S. ¢ P. pp. 121 and 123.) H.
VYNAH (73? [lamentation, dirge]: "Indu;
«Kwa: Cina), a city of Judah, one of those
h lay on the extreme south boundary of the
, next to Edom (Josh. xv. 22). It is men-
ad in the UOnomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome,
not so as to imply that they had any actual
vledge of it. With the sole exception of
varz (99), it appears to be unmentioned by any
ler, and the “ town Cinah situated near the
erness of Zin” with which he would identify
}not to be found in his own or any other map.
ofessor Stanley (S. g P. p. 160) very ingeniously
ects Kinah with the Kenites (‘)°}?), who
ed in this district (Judg. i. 16). But it should
be overlooked that the list in Josh. xv. purports
cord the towns as they were at the conquest,
e the settlement of the Kenites probably
ugh not certainly) did not take place till after
G.
J
1. (a.) “ISW, “flesh; oixetos; caro. (b.)
- ;
NW, “ kinswoman,” also * kindred,” oixeia, caro,
% .
TSW, “to swell,” also “to remain,” 7. ¢. * be
7
rfluous.”” Whence comes TINW, remainder,”
1349-50. Hence, in Lev. xviii. 6, A. V. has in
in “ remeinder.”’
Wa, “flesh,” gdp&, caro, from Wa, be
1,” t. e. conveying the notion of beauty, Ges. p.
TID, * family,” gvd%, familia, applied
to races and single families of mankind, and also
imals.
(a, >, v7, and in Keri D‘JV3, from
, “see,” “know.” (b.) Also, from same root,
M9, “kindred ;* and hence “kinsman,” or
3woman,” used, like * acquaintance,” in both
3, Ges. p. 574. But Buxtorf limits*(b) to the
tet sense, (a) to the concrete, yrwpiyos, propin-
TINS, “brotherhood,” d.aOjxn, germanitas,
Ns 63. F '
ly allied with the foregoing in sense are the
‘ing general terms ; —
97
—
KINDRED 1537
KINDRED. I. Of the special names de-
noting relation by consanguinity, the principal will
be found explained under their proper heads,
ATHER, BROTHER, etc. It will be there seen
that the words which denote near relation in the
direct line are used also for the other superior or
inferior degrees in that line, as grandfather, grand-
son, etc.
On the meaning of the expression Sh’ér basar
(see below 1 and 2) much controversy has arisen.
Sh’ér, as shown below, is in Ley. xviii. 6, in marg.
of A. V., “remainder.” The rendering, however,
of Sh’ér basar in text of A. V., “ near of kin,” may
be taken as correct, but, as Michaelis shows, with-
out determining the precise extent to which the
expression itself is applicable (Mich. Laws of Moses,
ii. 48, ed. Smith; Knobel on Lewiticus; see also
Lev. xxv. 49; Num. xxvii. 11).
II. The words which express collateral consan-
guinity are—(1) uncle;> (2) aunt;¢ (3) nephew;4
(4) niece (not in A. V.); (5) cousin. ¢
III. The terms of affinity are — 1. (a) father-in-
law,’ (6) mother-in-law; 9 2. (a) son-in-law, (b)
daughter-in-law; ¢ 3. (a) brother-in-law,* (d) sister-
in-law.!
The relations of kindred, expressed by few words,
and imperfectly defined in the earliest ages, acquired
in course of time greater significance and wider
influence. The full list of relatives either by con-
sanguinity, 2. é. as arising from a common ancestor,
or by affinity, 2. e. as created by marriage, may be
seen, detailed in the Corpus Juris Civ. Digest. lib.
xxxvili. tit. 10, de Gradibus; see also Corp. Jur.
Canon. Deer. ii. c. xxxv. 9, 5.
The domestic and economical questions arising
out of kindred may be classed under the three heads
of MARRIAGE, INHERITANCE, and BLoop-RE-
VENGKE, and the reader is referred to the articles on
those subjects for information thereon. It is clear
that the tendency of the Mosaic Law was to in-
crease the restrictions on marriage, by defining
more precisely the relations created by it, as is shown
by the cases of Abraham and Moses. [ISCAH ;
6. AVI, “near,” hence “a relative,” 6 éyyus,
propinquus, Ges. p. 1234.
(f Oy), from O83, “redeem,” Ges. p. 253, 6
ayxtotevwy, “a kinsman,” i. e. the relative to whom
belonged the right of redemption or of vengeance.
b “TV, adeAhds tod matpéds, oiketos ; patruus.
c VV, or vy, H ovyyervns, ucor patrut.
d Las in connection with TD), “ offspring; ”
but see JocHEBED. It is rendered nephew” in A. Nig
but indicates a descendant in general, and is usually
so rendered by LXX. and Vulg. See Ges. p. 864.
€ Svyyevyjs, cognatus, Luke i. 36, 58.
ff om mevOepos, Socer.
g van, mevOepa, SOCTUS.
h WW, yauBpds, socer, from ta, sive in
marriage,” whence come part. in Kal. ] ratelk m., and
tcl saa f., father-in-law and mother-in-law, i. ¢,
parents who give a daughter in marriage.
i m9, viuon, nurus.
k DAY, adeApds rod avdpés, levir.
L SVAD, yor rod adeApod, uxor fratris.
1288 KINE
JocuEBED.] For information on the general sub-
ject of kindred and its obligations, see Selden, de
Jure Naturali, lib. v.; Michaelis, Laws of Moses,
ed. Smith, ii. 36; Knobel on Lev. xviii., Philo, de
Spec. Leg. iii. 3, 4, 5, vol. ii. pp. 301-304, ed. Man-
gey; Burckhardt, Arab Tribes, i. 150; Keil, Bibl.
Arch. ii. p. 50, §§ 106, 107. [KinrEp. ]
H. W. P.
KINE. [Cow.]
KING (72%, melek: Bactdeds: rex), the
name of the supreme ruler of the Hebrews during
a period of about 500¢ years previous to the
destruction of Jerusalem, B. c. 586. It was
borne first by the ruler of the 12 Tribes united,
and then by the rulers of Judah and Israel sepa-
rately.
‘The immediate occasion of the substitution of a
regal form of government for that of the judges
seems to have been the siege of Jabesh-Gilead by
Nahash, king of the Ammonites (1 Sam. xi. 1, xii.
12), and the refusal to allow the inhabitants of that
city to capitulate, except on humiliating and cruel
conditions (1 Sam. xi. 2, 4-6). The conviction
seems to have forced itself on the Israelites that
they could not resist their formidable neighbor
unless they placed themselves under the sway of a
king, like surrounding nations. Concurrently with
this conviction, disgust had been excited by the
corrupt administration of justice under the sons of
Samuel, and a radical change was desired by them
in this respect also (1 Sam. viii. 8-5). Accord-
ingly the original idea of a Hebrew king was two-
fold: first, that he should lead the people to battle
in time of war; and, secondly, that he should ex-
ecute judgment and justice to them in war and in
peace (1 Sam. viii. 20). In both respects the
desired end was attained. The righteous wrath
and military capacity of Saul were immediately
triumphant over the Ammonites; and though ulti-
mately he was defeated and slain in battle with the
Philistines, he put even them to flight on more
than one occasion (1 Sam. xiv. 23, xvii. 52), and
generally waged successful war against the sur-
rounding nations (1 Sam. xiv. 47). His successor,
David, entered on a series of brilliant conquests
over the Philistines, Moabites, Syrians, Edomites,
and Ammonites [see Davin, vol. i. p. 561]; and
the Israelites, no longer confined within the narrow
bounds of Palestine, had an empire extending from
the river Euphrates to Gaza, and from the entering
in of Hamath to the river of Egypt (1 K. iv. 21).
In the mean while complaints cease of the corrup-
tion of justice; and Solomon not only consolidated
and maintained in peace the empire of his father,
David, but left an enduring reputation for his wis-
dom as a judge. Under this expression, however,
we must regard him, not merely as pronouncing
decisions, primarily, or in the last resort, in civil
and criminal cases, but likewise as holding public
levees and transacting public business ‘at the
PF
‘a The precise period depends on the length of the
reign of Saul, for estimating which there are no cer-
tain data. In the O. T. the exact length is nowhere
mentioned. In Acts xiii. 21 forty years are specified ;
but this is in a speech, and statistical accuracy may
have been foreign to the speaker’s ideas on that occa-
gion. And there are difficulties in admitting that he
reigned so long as forty years. See Winer sub voc.,
and the article Saut in this Dictionary. It is only in
the reign of David that mention is first made of the
t recorder” or “chronicler ” of the king (2 Sam. viii.
KING
gate,’’ when he would receive petitions, hear’
plaints, and give summary decisions ‘on Ya
points, which in a modern European kingdom \
come under the cognizance of numerous di
public departments.
To form a correct idea of a Hebrew kin;
must abstract ourselves from the notions of mx
Europe, and realize the position of oriental
reigns. It would be a mistake to regar
Hebrew government as a limited monarchy, i
English sense of the expression. It is stat
1 Sam. x. 25, that Samuel “told the peopl
manner ? of the kingdom, and wrote it in the
and laid it before the Lord,’’ and it is barely
sible that this may refer to some statement Te:
ing the boundaries of the kingly power. Bi
such document has come down to us; and if i
existed, and contained restrictions of any mc
on the kingly power, it was probably disreg
in practice. The following passage of Sir
Malcolm respecting the Shahs of Persia may.
some slight modifications, be regarded as
applicable to the Hebrew monarchy under |
and Solomon: ‘The monarch of Persia has
pronounced to be one of the most absolute i
world. His word has ever been deemed a
and he has probably never had any further res
upon the free exercise of his vast authority
has arisen from his regard for religion, his r
for established usages, his desire of reputatio1
his fear of exciting an opposition that mig
dangerous to his power, or to his life’? (Mal
Persia, vol. ii. 303; compare Elphinstone’
or the Indian Mahometan Empire, book yiii.
It must not, however, be supposed to have
either the understanding, or the practice, th
‘sovereign might seize at his discretion the p
property of individuals. Ahab did not vent
seize the vineyard of Naboth till, through the
mony of false witnesses, Naboth had been con
of blasphemy; and possibly his vineyard maj
been seized as a confiscation, without flag
outraging public sentiment in those who di
know the truth (1 K. xxi. 6). But no mon
perhaps ever existed in which it would n
regarded as an outrage, that the monarch :
from covetousness seize the private property
innocent subject in no ways dangerous to the
And generally, when Sir John Malcolm proce
follows, in reference to one of the most absc
monarchs: in the world, it will be understoo
the Hebrew king, whose power might be des
in the same way, is not, on account of ¢
restraints which exist in the nature of things.
regarded as “a limited monarch” in the Eu
use of the words. “We may assume thi
power of the king of Persia is by usage al
over the property and lives of his conquere
mies, his rebellious subjects, his own Jams
ministers, over public officers cual and mi
and all the numerous train of domestics ; am
coe tae st oe a ae
16). Perhaps the contemporary notation of dat
have commenced in David's reign. |
b The word DEW, translated “ manuer ™
A. V., is translated in the LXX. dicatwpa, te
or ordinance (see Ecclus. iv. 17, Bar. ii. 12, |
But Josephus seems to have regarded the docul
a prophetical statement, read before the king,
calamities which were to arise from the kingly
as a kind of protest recorded for succeeding a
Ant. vi. 4, § 6). |
.
|
KING KING 15389
may punish any person of these classes, without
amination or formal procedure of any kind:
all other cases that are capital, the forms pre-
ibed by law and custom are observed; the mon-
sh only commands, when the evidence has been
unined and the law declared, that the sentence
ull be put in execution, or that the condemned
prit shall be pardoned ”’ (vol. ii. p. 306). In ac-
dance with such usages, David ordered Uriah to
treacherously exposed to death in the forefront
the hottest battle (2 Sam. xi. 15); he caused
chab and Baanah to be slain instantly, when
y brought him the head of IshLesheth (2 Sam.
12); and he is represented as having on his
ith-bed recommended Solomon to put Joab and
imei to death (1 K. ii. 5-9). In like manner,
of the intended canal.¢ This was 120,000 more
than the levy of Solomon.
In addition to these earthly powers, the King of
Israel had a more awful claim to respect and obe-
dience. He was the vicegerent of Jehovah (1 Sam.
x. 1, xvi. 13), and as it were His son, if just and
holy (2 Sam. vii. 14; Ps. Ixxxix. 26, 27, ii. 6, 7).
He had been set apart as a consecrated ruler. Upon
his head had been poured the holy anointing oil,
composed of olive-oil, myrrh, cinnamon, sweet cal-
anus, and cassia, which had hitherto been reserved
exclusively for the priests of Jehovah, especially
the high-priest, or had been solely used to anoint
the ‘Tabernacle of the Congregation, the Ark of the
Testimony, and the vessels of the Tabernacle (Ex.
xxx. 23-33, xl. 9; Lev. xxi. 10; 1 K.i. 39). He
lomon caused to be killed, without trial, not only | had become, in fact, emphatically “the Lord’s
elder brother Adonijah, and Joab, whose execu-| Anointed.” At the coronation of sovereigns in
n might he regarded as the exceptional acts of a| modern Europe, holy oil has been frequently used,
mal state policy in the beginning of his reign,|as a symbol of divine right; but this has been
i likewise Shimei, after having been seated on | mainly regarded as a mere form; and the use of it
‘throne three years. And King Saul, in resent-| was undoubtedly introduced in imitation of the
nt at their connivance with David's escape, put | Hebrew custom. But, from the beginning to the
death 85 priests, and caused a massacre of the|end of the Hebrew monarchy, a living real signifi-
abitants of Nob, including women, children, and | cance was attached to consecration by this holy
klings (1 Sam. xxii. 18, 19). anointing oil. From well-known anecdotes related
Besides being commander-in-chief of the army, | of David,— and perhaps, from words in his lamen-
reme judge, and absolute master, as it were, of | tation over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 21) — it
lives of his subjects, the king exercised the | results that a certain sacredness invested the person
er of imposing taxes on them, and of exacting | of Saul, the Jirst king, as the Lord’s anointed; and
m them personal service and labor. Both these that, on this account, it was deemed sacrilegious to
nts seem clear from the account given (1 Sam. |kill him, even at his own request (1 Sam. xxiv. 6,
- 11-17) of the evils which would arise from the 10, xxvi. 9, 16; 2 Sam. i. 14). And, after the
gly power; and are confirmed in various ways. | destruction of the first Temple, in the Book of La-
latever mention may be made of consulting | mentations over the calamities of the Hebrew peo-
d men,” or “elders of Israel,’ we never read ple, it is by the name of “the Lord’s Anointed”
their deciding such points as these. When | that Zedekiah, the dust king of Judah, is bewailed
, the king of Assyria, imposed a tribute on the | (Lan. iy. 20). Again, more than 600 years after
gdom of Israel, «« Menahem, the king,”’ exacted | the capture of Zedekiah, the name of the Anointed,
Money of all the mighty men of wealth, of each | though never so used in the Old Testament — yet
1 00 shekels of silver (2 K. xv. 19). And when suggested probably by Ps. ii. 2, Dan. ix. 26 —had
oiakim, king of Judah, gave his tribute of silver | become appropriated to the expected king, who wag
gold to Pharaoh, he taxed the land to give the | to restore the kingdom of David, and inaugurate a
ley; he exacted the silver and gold of the people period when Edom, Moab, the Ammonites, and the
ery one according to his taxation (2 K. xxiii. | Philistines, would again be incorporated with the
And the degree to which the exaction of per-| Hebrew monarchy, which would extend from the
Ul labor might be carried on a special occasion | Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea and to the ends
lustrated by King Solomon's requirements for | of the earth (Acts i. 6; John i. 41, iv. 25; Is. xi.
ding the Temple. He raised a levy of 30,000 | 12-14; Ps. Ixxii. 8). And thus the identical He-
» and sent them to Lebanon by courses of ten | brew word which signifies anointed,® through its
‘sand a month; aud he had 70,000 that bare| Aramaic form adopted into Greek and Latin, is still
lens, and 80,000 hewers in the mountains (1 K.| preserved to us in the English word Messiah. (See
3-15). Judged by the oriental standard, there | Gesenius’s Thesaurus, p. 825.)
thing improbable in these numbers. In our] A ruler in whom so much authority, human and
‘days, for the purpose of constructing the Mah- divine, was embodied, was naturally distinguished
deyeh Canal in Egypt, Mehemet Ali, by orders | by outward honors and luxuries. He had a court
n to the various sheikhs of the provinces of | of oriental magnificence. When the power of the
wah, Ghizeh, Mensourah, Sharkieh, Menouf,| kingdom was at its height, he sat on a throne of
yreh, and some others, caused 300,000 men, | ivory, covered with pure gold, at the feet of which
en,and children, to be assembled along the site| were two figures of lions. The throne was ap-
kT SLE ne
See The Englishwoman in Egypt, by Mrs. Poole,
‘li, p. 219. Owing to insufficient provisions, bad
ment, and neglect of proper arrangements, 30,000
is number perished in seven months (p. 220). In
vulsory levies of labor, it is probably difficult to
vat gross instances of oppression. At the rebel-
of the ten tribes, Adoniram, called also Adoram,
Was over the levy of 30,000 men for Lebanon,
Nica to death (1 K. xii, 18; 1 K. v. 14; 2 Sam.
was only anointed when a new family came to the
throne, or when the right to the crown was disputed.
It is usually on such occasions only that the anointing
is specified ; as in 1 Sam. x. 1, 2 Sam. ii. 4, 1 K. i. 89,
2 K. ix. 3, 2 K. xi. 12: but this is not invariably the
case (see 2 K. xxiii. 30), and there does not seem suffi-
cient reason to doubt that each individual king was
anointed. There can be little doubt, likewise, that
the kings of Israel were anointed, though this is not
specified by the writers of Kings and Chronicles, whe
would deem such anointing invalid.
is is Supposed both by Jahn (Archeol. Bib. § 222)
Pauer (in his Heb. Alte thitmer, § 20), that a king
1540 KING * KING
proached by 6 steps, guarded by 12 figures of lions, | certainly the case with David, who passed over
two on each step. ‘The king was dressed in royal |elder son Adonijah, the son of Haggith, in f
robes (1 K. xxii. 10; 2 Chr. xviii. 9); his insignia | of Solomon, the son of Bath-sheba (1 K. i. 3(
were, a crown or diadem of pure gold, or perhaps | 22); and with Rehoboam, of whom it is said-
radiant with precious gems (2 Sam. i. 10, xii. 30; he loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom al
2 K. xi. 12; Ps. xxi. 3), and a royal sceptre (Ez. all his wives and concubines, and that he n
xix. 11; Is. xiv. 5; Ps. xlv. 6; Am. i. 5, 8). Those | Abijah her son to be ruler among his brethrer
who approached him did him obeisance, bowing | make him king (2 Chr. xi. 21, 22). The sucees
down and touching the ground with their foreheads of the first-born has been inferred from a passag
(1 Sam. xxiv. 8; 2 Sam. xix. 18); and this was |2 Chr. xxi. 8, 4, in which Jehoshaphat is sai
done even by a king's wife, the mother of Solomon | have given the kingdom to Jehoram “ becaus
(1 K. i. 16). Their officers and subjects called | was the first-born.”” But this very passage t
themselves his servants or slaves, though they do | to show that Jehoshaphat had the power of nar
not seem habitually to have given way to such ex- his successor; and it is worthy of note that
travagant salutations as in the Chaldean and Per-|horam, on his coming to the throne, put tod
sian courts (1 Sam. xvii. 32, 34, 36, xx. 8; 2 Sam. | all his brothers, which he would scarcely, perl
vi. 20; Dan. ii. 4). As in the East at present, a have done if the succession of the first-born
kiss was a sign of respect and homage (1 Sam. x. been the law of the land. From the coneiss
1, perhaps Ps. ii. 12). He lived in a splendid | of the narratives in the books of Kings no infer
palace, with porches and columns (1 K. vii. 2-7). | either way can be drawn from the ordinary fori
All his drinking-vessels were of gold (1 K. x. 21). in which the death of the father and successic
He had a large harem, which in the time of Solomon | his son is recorded (1 K. xv. 8). At the |
must have been the source of enormous expense, if | time, if no partiality for a favorite wife or son i
we accept as statistically accurate the round num- | vened, there would always be a natural bia
ber of 700 wives and 300 concubines, in all 1000, affection in favor of the eldest son. There ap’
attributed to him in the Book of Kings (1 K. xi. 8). | to have been some prominence given to the m
As is invariably the case in the great eastern mon- of the king (2 K. xxiv. 12, 15; 1 K. ii. 19)
archies at present, his harem was guarded by | it is possible that the mother may have been ri
eunuchs; translated “officers” in the A. V. for during the minority of a son. Indeed some
the most part (1 Sam. viii. 15; 2 K. xxiv. 12, 15; | custom best explains the possibility of the auda
1 K. xxii. 9; 2 K. viii. 6, ix. 82, 33, xx. 18, xxiii. usurpation of Athaliah on the death of he
11; Jer. xxxviii. 7). Ahaziah: an usurpation which lasted six years
‘The main practical restraints on the kings seem the destruction of all the seed-royal excep!
to have arisen from the prophets and the propketical | young Jehoash (2 K. xi. 1, 3). |
order, though in this respect, as in many others, a| The following is a list of some of the office
distinction must be made between different periods | the king: — |
and different reigns. Indeed, under all circum- 1. The Recorder or Chronicler, who was pe
stances, much would depend on the individual | analogous to the Historiographer whom Sir )
character of the king or the prophet. No transac- Malcolm mentions as an officer of the Persian
tion of importance, however, was entered on with-| whose duty it is to write the annals of the]
out consulting the will of Jehovah, either by Urim reign (History of Persia, c. 23). Certain it is
and Thummim or by the prophets; and it was the there is no regular series of minute dates in H
general persuasion that the prophet was in an | history until we read of this recorder, or ré
especial sense the servant and messenger of Jehovah, | brancer, as the word mazkir is translated
to whom Jehovah had declared his will (Is. xliv. 26 ; marginal note of the English version. He sis
Am. iii. 7; 1 Sam. xxviii. 6, ix. 6; see PROPHETS). | one who keeps the memory of events alive, i
The prophets not only rebuked the king with bold- | cordance with a motive assigned by Herodot
ness for individual acts of wickedness, as after the | writing his history, namely, that the acts of
murders of Uriah and of Naboth; but also, by in- | might not become extinct by time (Herod.
terposing their denunciations or exhortations at|2 Sam. viii. 16; 1 K. iv. 3; 2K xviii. 1)
critical periods of history, they swayed permanently | xxxvi. 3, 22).
the destinies of the state. When, after the revolt} 2. The Scribe or Secretary, whose duty
of the ten tribes, Rehoboam had under him at be to answer letters or petitions in the name
Jerusalem an army stated to consist of 180,000 king, to write despatches, and to draw up
men, Shemaiah, as interpreter of the divine will, | (2 Sam. viii. 17, xx. 25; 2 K. xii.) Ta x
caused the army to separate without attempting to xxii. 8).
put down the rebellion (1 K. xii. 21-24). When| 3. The officer who was over the house (Is
Judah and Jerusalem were in imminent peril from | 15, xxxvi. 3). His duties would be those o!
the invasion of Sennacherib, the prophetical utter- | steward of the household, and would embr:
anee of Isaiah encouraged Hezekiah to a successful | the internal economical arrangements of the |
resistance (Is. xxxvii. 22-36). On the other hand, | the superintendence of the king's servants, @
at the invasion of Judea by the Chaldees, Jeremiah | custody of his costly vessels of gold and silve
prophetically announced impending woe and calam-| seems to have worn a distinetive robe of off
ities in a strain which tended to paralyze patriotic | girdle. It was against Shebna, who held this
resistance to the power of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. | that Isaiah uttered his personal prophecy (xx
xxxvili. 4,2). And Jeremiah evidently produced | 25), the only instance of the kind in his w
an impression on the king’s mind contrary to the | (see Ges. Com. on Isaiah, p. 694).
counsels of the princes, or what might be called the} 4. The king’s friend (1 K. iv. 5), called I’
war-party in Jerusalem (Jer. xxxvili. 14-27). the king’s companion. It is evident from thi
The law of succession to the throne is somewhat | that this officer must have stood in confi
obscure, but it seems most probable that the king | relation to the king, but his duties are 0
during his lifetime named his successor. This was | specified.
KING
5. The keeper of the vestry or wardrobe (2 K.
22).
6. The captain of the body-guard (2 Sam. xx.
). The importance of this officer requires no
mment. It was he who obeyed Solomon in putting
death Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei (1 K. ii. 25,
, 46).
7. Distinct officers over the king's treasures —
; storehouses, laborers, vineyards, olive-trees, and
eamore-trees, herds, camels, and flocks (1 Chr.
vii. 25-31).
8, The officer over all the host or army of Israel,
e commander-in-chief of the army, who com-
anded it in person during the king’s absence
Sam. xx. 23; 1 Chr. xxvii. 34; 2 Sam. xi. 1).
; an instance of the formidable power which a
neral might acquire in this office, see the narra-
e in 2 Sam. iii. 30-37, when David deemed him-
f obliged to tolerate the murder of Abner by
ab and Abishai.
9. The royal counsellors (1 Chr. xxvii. 32; Is.
, 8, xix. 11, 13). Ahithophel is a specimen of
wimuch such an officer might effect for evil or
‘good; but whether there existed under Hebrew
ags any body corresponding, even distantly, to
e English Privy Council, in former times, does
t appear (2 Sam. xvi. 20-23, xvii. 1-14).
The following is a statement of the sources of
8 royal revenues : —
1. The royal demesnes, cornfields, vineyards,
d olive-gardens. Some at least of these seem
have been taken from private individuals, but
iether as the punishment of rebellion, or on any
aer plausible pretext, is not specified (1 Sam. viii.
; 1 Chr. xxvii. 26-28). 2. The produce of the
yal flocks (1 Sam. xxi. 7; 2 Sam. xiii. 23; 2 Chr.
vi. 10; 1 Chr. xxvii. 25). 3. A nominal tenth
the produce of corn-land and vineyards and of
sep (L Sam. viii. 15, 17). 4. A tribute from
‘rchants who passed through the Hebrew territory
Kx. 15). 5. Presents made by his subjects
(Sam. xvi. 20; 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 K. x. 25; Ps.
sii. 10). There is perhaps no greater distinction
‘the usages of eastern and western nations than
what relates to the giving and receiving of
esents. When made regularly they do in fact
tount to a regular tax. Thus, in the passage
jt referred to in the book of Kings, it is stated
at they brought to Solomon “every man his
esent, vessels of silver and vessels of gold, and
rments, and armor, and spices, horses and mules,
fate year by year.”’ 6. In the time of Solomon,
® king had trading-vessels of his own at sea,
lich, starting from Eziongeber, brought back once
three years gold and silver, ivory, apes, and
Acocks (1 K. x. 22). It is probable that Solomon
4d some other kings may have derived some
yenue from commercial ventures (1 K. ix. 28).
| The spoils of war taken from conquered nations
4d the tribute paid by them (2 Sam. viii. 2, 7, 8,
4, DK. iv. 21; 2 Chr. xxvii. 5). 8. Lastly, an
defined power of exacting compulsory labor, to
jich reference has been already made (1 Sam. viii.
), 18,16). As far as this power was exercised it
8 equivalent to so much income. There is nothing
i Sam. x. 25, or in 2 Sam. v. 3, to justify the
jtement that the Hebrews defined in express terms,
‘In any terms, by a particular agreement or cove-
nt for that purpose, what services should be ren-
ved to the king, or what he could legally require.
Jahn, Archeologia Biblica; Bauer, Lehrbuch
~ Mebraischen Alterthiimer ; Winer, s. v. Konig.)
a
ier, -
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 1541
It only remains to add, that in Deuteronomy
xvii. 14-20 there is a document containing some
directions as to what any king who might be ap-
pointed by the Hebrews was to do and not to do.
The proper appreciation of this document would
mainly depend on its date. It is the opinion of
many modern writers — Gesenius, De Wette, Winer,
Ewald, and others — that the book which contains
the document was composed long after the time
of Moses.. See, however, DEUTERONOMY in the 1st
vol. of this work; and compare Gesenius, Geschichte
der Heordischen Sprache und Schrift, p. 32; De
Wette, Linleitung in die Bibel, « Deuteronomium ”’ ;
Winer, s. v. Konig; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes
Israel, iii. 381. He ¢Ts
* KING’S GARDEN, 2 K. xxv. 4, ete.
[GARDEN, vol. i. p. 870 a.]
* KING’S MOWINGS, Am. vii. 1. [Mow-
ING. ]
* KING’S POOL, Neh. ii. 14. [SrLtoam.]
* KINGDOM OF HEAVEN —always with
the article, 7 BactAela Tay ovpayar-
1. This expression occurs thirty-three times in
the first Gospel, but nowhere else in the Scriptures.
In one passage (iii. 2) it is attributed by Matthew
to John the Baptist, in another (xviii. 1) to the
disciples of Christ, and in all the rest to Christ
himself. An abbreviated form of it is found in
such phrases as, “the gospel of the kingdom ”
(iv. 23), “the word of the kingdom”? (xiii. 19),
“the sons of the kingdom ”’ (viii. 12, xiii. 38), and
“the kingdom prepared for you”’ (xxv. 84). Ina
single instance (2 Tim. iv. 18) Paul speaks of the
Lord’s “heavenly kingdom,” — ryy BaoiAelay
aitod Thy émovpdyviwv, —an expression which is
equivalent to “the kingdom of heaven,” as this
phrase was sometimes used by Christ. (See Matt.
viii. 11, 12.) — It will be observed that the Apostle
not only describes the kingdom as ‘ heavenly,”
but also as the Lord’s, ‘his heavenly kingdom.”
In a few passages of the first Gospel (xiii. 41, xvi.
28, ef. xx. 21) it is likewise referred to as the
Messiah’s kingdom. With these may properly be
connected the language of Christ in the Gospel of
John (xviii. 36), the words of the Angel to Mary
as preserved by Luke (i. 33), those of Christ as
recorded by the same Evangelist (xix. 12, 15, xxii.
29, 30), and the teaching of the Apostles in their
letters (1 Cor. xv. 24, 25; Eph. v. 5; Col. i. 13;
2 Tim. iv. 1; Heb. i. 8; 2 Pet. i. 11). The king-
dom of heaven is therefore frequently represented
as the kingdom of Christ. But it is still more
frequently called the kingdom of God. Matthew
attributes this expression in several instances to
Christ (vi. 10, 83, xii. 28, xiii. 43, xxi. 31, 43,
xxvi. 29), and when, in reporting the Saviour’s
teaching, his Gospel gives the words “ kingdom of
heaven,’ the other synoptical Gospels have, as a
rule, the words “ kingdom of God” (e. g. cf. Matt.
y. 3, xi. 11, xiii. 31, 33, with Luke vi. 20, vii. 28,
xiii. 18, 20). In all the other books of the New
Testament the latter designation is regularly em-
ployed. While therefore the two expressions de-
note the same object, and may be regarded as
substantially equivalent, the latter appears for some
reason to have displaced the former in the language
of the Apostles. Reuss (Histoire de la Théologre
Chrétienne au Siecle Apostolique, i. 181) supposes
that it had the advantage of being more compre-
hensive, not “seeming to restrict the notion to 2
future epoch, a particular locality, or a state of
1542 KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
things different from that in which humanity now
exists,’’ and was therefore preferred to the other
by the Apostles.
2. But the idea of a divine or heavenly kingdom
was not proposed for the first time by John the
Baptist and then adopted by Christ. It may be
traced in many parts of the O. T., from the Pen-
tateuch to the prophets of the exile. The Israelites
as a people belonged especially to Jehovah, and
were already in the law described as a nation of
kings and priests unto Him (Ix. xix. 6, ef. 1 Pet.
ii. 9). Yet even in their best estate, under David
their greatest king, they were but a type of the
true people of God, and their sovereign hut a shadow
of his greater Son. And this they were clearly
taught; for a Messiah was foretold by the prophets,
who should spring from the family of David, should
subdue all his foes, and should reign forever in
righteousness and peace (Ps. ii., ex.; Is. xi.; ef. Ps.
Ixxii.¢: Jer, xxiii.’ ff.; Xxxi. ol ff.. xxxii.' 37 T.,
Xxxili. 7 ff.; Ez. xxxiv. 23 ff., xxxvii. 24 ff.; Mic.
iv. 1 ff.). At length in the prophecies cf Daniel it
was distinctly revealed that the “ God of heaven ”’
was to set up a kingdom (ii. 44), which was to be
composed of his saints (vii. 27), was to be admin-
istered by One like a son of man (vii. 13, 14), and
was to be universal and everlasting (vil. 14, 27).
The very expression, “‘ kingdom of Gcd,’’ occurs
in the Apocrypha ( Wisd. of Sol. x. 10). Aeccord-
ingly, when Christ appeared among the Jews, they
were expecting this kingdom of “the God of
heaven’? which was to be set up by the agency
of their long anticipated Messiah; and, however
erroneous their views of its nature had become, they
were prepared to understand in some measure the
language of Jesus and his disciples concerning it.
A few indeed of the more devout and spiritual, like
Simeon and Anna, appear to have had a tolerably
just conception of its nature.
8. This kingdom, in its ultimate and _ perfect
form, is said to have been prepared for the saints
from the foundation of the world. (Matt. xxv. 34.)
It was therefore included in the wise purpose of
God which antedates creation, and in this sense it
is eternal. But the various representations of the
N. T. have given rise to some differences of opinion
among Biblical scholars as to the terminus a quo
of its actual establishment on earth. The writers
of the O. T. speak of it distinctly as future and
not present; and many passages of the N. T. refer
to it in connection with the second coming of
Christ. It is therefore nraintained by some inier-
preters, that this kingdom has not yet been estab-
lished, and will not be until the Lord returns in
glory. Others have made the preaching of John
the Baptist the date of its commencement, appeal-
ing to the words of Christ (see Matt. xi. 12, xvii.
11; Luke xvi. 16) in support of their position.
But it has been objected to this, that one who was
spoken of, by way of contrast, as less than the
least of those in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xi.
11) could not have been an agent in setting up
that kingdom, by introducing men into it, and that
the kingdom itself must take its date from the
personal appearance and recognition of its king,
that is, from the time of Christ’s entrance on his
public ministry. Others still, identifying the king-
dom of God with the Christian church, have fixed
apon the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was
poured out marvelously, as the date of its estab-
lishment. Perhaps the view which connects it most
closely with the person of Christ, affirming that it
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
began, properly speaking, with his public minist;
is entitled to the preference. For in the course
his teaching he spoke of it clearly as already con
At one time he said to the Pharisees, “If Ie
out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kix
dom of God is come unto you — épdacev ep’ iu
(Matt. xii. 28); and at another time he said tot
same class of men, according to a natural interp:
tation of his words, “ Behold, the kingdom of G
is in the midst of you” (Luke xvii. 21). “T
kingdom of God ’’ (Reuss, Hist. de la Theol. C)
i. 190) “‘ which Jesus wished to realize began w}
his personal appearance on the world’s theatre; |
advent, and the advent of the kingdom, are o
and the same thing, for he is the source and eat
of it, and the cause may not exist without t
effect. . . . . He went so far even as to assign
exact date to the advent of the kingdom, and tl
date was no other than the moment when Jo
Baptist, the last and greatest of the prophets, open
the door, so to speak, by announcing to the wo!
Him who would realize its cherished hopes. |
that moment the movement towards the kingd
began, and men pressed on with ardor to en
into it.” |
4. But if the kingdom of heaven was establish
at the first coming of Christ, it is not to be ec
summated until his second appearing; and thi
at length, it will be transferred by the Son, as Me
ator, to the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24-28). In {
mean time its progress among men will be sile
and gradual, like the influence of leaven upon t
meal in which it is placed, or like the growth o'
mustard-plant from its diminutive seed (Matt. xi
31 ff., 33 ff). The petition, «« Thy kingdom come
introduced by Christ into the prayer which |
taught his disciples, may naturally be referred
this gradual extension of the divine authority 0)
the hearts of men, making them the true subjec
of God. To be a member of this kingdom in its pt
fect form is to be a possessor of eternal blessedn
(Matt. viii. 11, xxv. 34; Mark ix. 47; Luke xi
28, 29; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, xv. 50; Gal. v. 21; Ep
v. 5; 2 Thess. i. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 18); but connecti
with it in its present form gives only a foreta:
of celestial good.
5. The nature of this kingdom may be express
in a word by calling it spiritual. It embraces tho:
and only those, who are poor in spirit, who ha
been born of the Spirit, who have the Spirit |
Christ, and who worship God ‘in spirit and im tru
(Matt. v. 8; John iii. 3, 5, iv. 24; Rom. viii. !
«“ The kingdom of God is not eating and drinkir
but righteousness and peace and joy in the Hc
Ghost’ (Rom. xiv. 17). It is not of this woi
(John xviii. 86). It is related to heaven ratl
than to earth in its principles and spirit, and
consummation here would make the society of ea!
as loyal to God and as blessed in his service, |
that of heaven (Matt. vi. 10). Tholuck (Aapositi
of the Sermon on the Mount, i. 103, Eng. trans
remarks in his note on Matt. v. 3: “ We lay do’
as the fundamental notion of the kingdom of Gc
A community in which God reigns, and which,
the nature of a right government involves, ob
Him not by constraint, but from jiree will and aff
tion ; of which it follows as a necessary conseque)
that the parties are intimately bound to each ot
in the mutual interchange of offices of love.” 1
the spirituality of this kingdom inyolves its univ
sality. It is limited to no tribe or people, but
intended to comprise all in every nation who ol
KINGS, FIRST AND
the heart the will of God. Jew and Greek,
1 and free, are alike welcomed to the duties,
honors, and the eternal blessedness of the Mes-
'sreign. And there are a few passages of the
[. which seem to ascribe to holy angels a con-
ion with it both in service and glory. (Matt.
97, xiii. 41, xviii. 10; Luke xv. 10; Heb. i.
Eph. i. 10, 20, 22, iii. 15; 1 Pet. i. 12, iii.
Yet this kingdom, though in its nature
tual, was to have while on earth a visible form
hristian churches, and the simple rites belong-
to church life were to be observed by every
| subject (Matt. xxviii. 18 ff; John iii. 5; Acts
8; Luke xxii. 17 ff; 1 Cor. xi. 24 ff). It
ot however be said that the N. T. makes the
tual kingdom of Christ exactly coéxtensive with
visible church. There are many in the latter
do not belong to the former (1 John ii. 9), and
2 doubtless in the former who do not take their
e in the latter.
iterature. — E. Reuss, Histoire de la Thévlogie
élienne au Siecle Apostolique, i. 180 ff C. F.
nid, Biblische Theoloyie des N. T. p. 266 ff.
Tholuck, Laposition of the Sermon on the
int, at Matt. v. 3. Heemskerk, Notio rijs Bac-
as T@Y oUpayay ex mente Jesu Christi, Amst.
1, Bourguet, Recherches sur la signification
not: Royrume de Dieu, Mont. 1838. Sar-
is, Ueber den Zweck Jesu bei Stiftung eines
es-Reiches. Baumgarten-Crusius, Biblische
ologie, pp. 149-157. A. H.
KINGDOM OF ISRAEL. [Isratt,
GDOM OF. |
KINGDOM OF JUDAH.
GDOM OF.] :
INGS, FIRST anp SECOND BOOKS
originally only one book in the Hebrew Canon,
first edited in Hebrew as two by Bomberg,
‘the model of the LXX. and the Vulgate (De
te and 0. Thenius, Linleitung). They are
d by the LXX., Origen, etce., BaoiAciav rpirn
rerdprn, third and fourth of the Kingdoms
‘books of Samuel being the first and second),
by the Latins, with few exceptions, tertius et
tus Regum liber. Jerome, though in the head-
of his translation of the Scriptures he follows
ebrew name, and calls them Liber Malachim
sus and Secundus, yet elsewhere usually follows
Jommon usage of the church in his day. In
“rologus Galeatus he places them as the fourth
© second order of the sacred books, i. e. of the
hets: “ Quartus, Malachim, 7. e. Regum, qui
yet quarto Regum volumine continetur. Me-
ue multo est Malachim, 7. e. Regum, quam
‘elachoth, i. ¢. Regnorum, dicere. Non enim
Arum gentium describit regna; sed unius Is-
‘ici populi, qui tribubus duodecim continetur.”’
\is epistle to Paulinus he thus describes the
) nts of these two books: ‘+ Malachim, 7. e. ter-
st quartus Rerum liber, a Salomone usque ad
‘niam, et a Jeroboam filio Nabat usque ad
| qui ductus est in Assyrios, regnum Juda et
am describit Israel. Si historiam respicias,
oo
[ JUDAH,
De Wette’s reasons for reckoning Kings as a sep-
work Seem to the writer quite inconclusive. On
ther hand, the book of Joshua seems to be an
endent book. Ewald classes these books together
Ny a8 is done above ( Gesch. i. 175), and calls them
| steat Book of the Kings,” ;
as] , :
|
SECOND BOOKS OF 15438
verba simplicia sunt: si in literis sensum latentem
inspexeris, Ecclesize paucitas, et hereticorum contra
ecclesiam bella, narrantur.” ‘lhe division into two
books, being purely artificial and as it were me-
chanical, may be overlooked in speaking of them;
and it must also be remembered that the division
between the books of Kings and Samuel is equally
artificial, and that in point of fact the historical
books commencing with Judges and ending with
2 Kings present the appearance of one work,
giving a continuous history of Israel from the times
of Joshua to the death of Jehoiachin. It must
suffice here to mention, in support of this assertion,
the frequent allusion in the book of Judges to the
times of the kings of Israel (xvii. 6, xviii. 1, xix. 1,
xxi. 25); the concurrent evidence of ch. ii. that
the writer lived in an age when he could take a
retrospect of the whole time during which the
judges ruled (ver. 16-19), 7. e. that he lived after
the monarchy had been established ; the occurrence
in the book of Judges, for the first time, of the
phrase *‘ the Spirit of Jehovah”? (iii. 10), which is
repeated often in the book (vi. 34, xi. 29, xiii. 25,
xiv. 6, &.), and is of frequent use in Samuel and
Kings, (e. g. 1 Sam. x. 6, xvi. 13, 14, xix. 9; 2
Sam. xxiii. 2; 1 K. xxii, 24; 2 K. ii. 16, &.);
the allusion in i. 21 to the capture of Jebus, and
the continuance of a Jebusite population (see 2 Sam.
xxiv. 16); the reference in xx. 27 to the removal
of the ark of the covenant from Shiloh to Jerusalem,
and the expression “in those days,’’ pointing, ag..
in xvil. 6, &c., to remote times; the distinct refer-
ence in xviii. 30 to the Captivity of Israel by Shal-
maneser; with the fact that the books of Judges,
Ruth, Samuel, Kings, form one unbroken narrative,
similar in general character, which has no beginning
except at Judg. i., while, it may be added, the book
of Judges is not a continuation of Joshua, but
opens with a repetition of the same events with ,
which Joshua closes. In like manner the book of
Ruth clearly forms part of those of Samuel, sup-
plying as it does the essential point of David's
genealogy and early family history, and is no less
clearly connected with the book of Judges by its
opening verse, and the epoch to which the whole
book relates.® Other links connecting the books
of Kings with the preceding may be found in the
comparison, suggested by De Wette, of 1 K. ii. 26
with 1 Sam. ii. 35; ii. 11 with 2 Sam. v. 5; 1K.
li. 3, 4, v. 17, 18, viii. 18, 19, 25, with 2 Sam. vii.
12-16; and 1 K. iv. 1-6 with 2 Sam. viii. 15-18.
Also 2 K. xvii. 41 may be compared with Judg. ii.
19; 1 Sam. ii. 27 with Judg. xiii. 6; 2 Sam. xiv.
17, 20, xix. 27, with Judg. xiii. 6; 1 Sam, ix. 21
with Judg. vi. 15, and xx.; 1 K. viii. 1 with 2
Sam. vi. 17, and v. 7, 9; 1 Sam, xvii. 12 with
Ruth iv. 17; Ruth i, 1 with Judg. xvii. 7, 8, 9,
xix. 1, 2 (Bethlehem-Judah); the use in Judg. xiii.
6, 8, of the phrase “the man of God’’ (in the
earlier books applied to Moses only, and that only
in Deut. xxxiii. 1 and Josh. xiv. 6), may be com-
pared with the very frequent use of it in the books
of Samuel and Kings as the common designation
of a prophet, whereas only Jeremiah besides (xxxv. 4)
so uses it before the Captivity.© The phrase, ‘ God
6 Hichhorn attributes Ruth to the author of the
books of Samuel (Th. Parker’s De Wette, ii, 320),
¢ In Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, it repeatedly
occurs.
1544 KINGS, FIRST AND
do so to me, and more also,”’ is common to Ruth,
Samuel, and Kings, and ‘till they were ashamed,”
to Judges and Kings (Judg. iii. 25; 2 K. ii. 17,
vili. 11). And generally the style of the narrative,
ordinarily quiet and simple, but rising to great
vigor and spirit when stirring deeds are described
(as in Judg. iv., vii., xi. &c.; 1 Sam. iv., xvii.,
xxxi. &c.; 1K. viii., xviii, xix., &c.), and the in-
troduction of poetry or poetic style in the midst
of the narrative (as in Judg. v., 1 Sam. ii., 2 Sam.
i. 17, &., 1 K. xxii. 17, &e.), constitute such strong
features of resemblance as lead to the conclusion
that these several books form but one work. In-
deed the very names of the books sufficiently indi-
eate that they were all imposed by the same au-
thority for the convenience of division, and with
reference to the subject treated of in each division,
and not that they were original titles of independent
works.
But to confine ourselves to the books of Kings.
We shall consider —
I. Their historical and chronological range;
Il. Their peculiarities of diction, and other
features in their literary aspect; .
III. Their authorship, and the sources of the
author's information ;
IV. Their relation to the books of Chronicles ;
V. Their place in the canon, and the references
to them in the New Testament.
I. The books of Kings range from David's death
and Solomon's accession to the throne of Israel,
commonly reckoned as B. C. 1015, but according
to Lepsius B. c. 993 (Kénigysb. . A’ yypt. p. 102),
to the destruction of the kingdom of Judah’ and
the desolation of Jerusalem, and the burning of the
Temple, according to the same reckoning B. Cc.
588 (B. C. 586, Lepsius, p. 107), — a period of 427
(or 405) years: with a supplemental notice of an
event that occurred after an interval of 26 years,
namely, the liberation of Jehoiachin from his prison
at Babylon, and a still further extension to Jehbine
chin’s death, the time of which is not known, but
which was probably not long after his liberation.
The history therefore comprehends the whole time
of the Israelitish monarchy, exclusive of the reigns
of Saul and David, whether existing as one king-
dom as under Solomon and the eight last kings, or
divided into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
It exhibits the Israelites in the two extremes of
power and weakness; under Solomon extending
their dominion over tributary kingdoms from the
Euphrates to the Mediterranean and the border of
Egypt (1 K. iv. 21); under the last kings reduced
to a miserable remnant, subject alternately to
Egypt and Assyria, till at length they were rooted
up from their own land. As the cause of this
decadence it points out the division of Solomon’s
monarchy into two parts, followed by the religious
schism and idolatrous worship brought about from
political motives by Jeroboam. How the conse-
quent wars between the two kingdoms necessarily
weakened both; how they led to calling in the
stranger to their aid whenever their power was
equally balanced, of which the result was the de-
struction first of one kingdom and then of the other;
how a further evil of these foreign alliances was the
adoption of the idolatrous superstitions of the
heathen nations whose friendship and protection
they sought, by which they forfeited the Divine
protection —all this is with great clearness and
simplicity set forth in these books, which treat
equally of the two kingdams while they lasted.
SECOND BOOKS OF
The doctrine of the Theocracy is also cl
brought out (see e. g. 1 K. xiv. 7-11, xv. 29, 30,
1-7), and the temporal prosperity of ‘the pious k
as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, st
in contrast with the calamitous reigns of Rehob
Ahaziah, Ahaz, Manasseh, Jehoiachin, and 7
kiah. At the same time the continuance of
kingdom of Judah, and the permanence of
dynasty of David, are contrasted with the freq
changes of dynasty, and the far shorter duratio
the kingdom of Israel, though the latter was
more populous and powerful kingdom of the
(2 Sam. xxiv. 9). As regards the affairs of for
nations, and the relation of Israel to them, the
torical notices in these books, though in the ea
times scanty, are most valuable, and as has
lately fully shown (Rawlinson’s Bampton Lect
1859), in striking accordance with the latest
tions to our knowledge of contemporary prc
history. Thus the patronage extended to H
the Edomite by Psinaches king of Egypt (1 K
19, 20); the alliance of Solomon with his suee
Psusennes, who reigned 35 years; the accessio
Shishak, or Sesonchis I., towards the close of
omon’s reign (1 K. xi. 40), and his invasion
conquest of Judza in the reign of Rehoboan
which a monument still exists on the walls of -
nac (Kénigsb. p. 114); the time of the Aithic
kings So (Sabak) and Tirhakah, of the 28th
nasty; the rise and speedy fali of the powe
Syria; the rapid growth of the Assyrian mona
which overshadowed it; Assyria’s struggles
Egypt, and the sudden ascendency of the B
lonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar, to the
struction both of Assyria and Egypt, as we
these events in the books of Kings, fit in ex:
with what we now know of Egyptian, Sy
Assyrian, and Babylonian history. The nam
Omri, Jehu, Menahem, Hoshea, Hezekiah,
are believed to have been deciphered in the ec
form inscyiptions, which also contain pretty ful
counts of the campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser, Sar
Sennacherib, and LEsarhaddon: Shalmane
name has not yet been discovered, though tw«
scriptions in the British Museum are thougl
refer to his reign. These valuable additions to
knowledge of profane history, which we may
will shortly be increased both in number an
certainty, together with the fragments of an
historians, which are now becoming better ui
stood, are of great assistance in explaining the]
allusions in these books, while they afford an
fragable testimony to their historical truth.
Another most important aid to a right un
standing of the history in these books, and t
filling up of its outline, is to be found in
prophets, and especially in Isaiah and Jeren
In the former the reigns of Ahaz and Hezel
and of the contemporary Israelitish and foreigt
tentates, receive especial illustration; in the la
and to a still greater extent, the reigns of Jehoi:
and Zedekiah, and those of their heathen con
poraries. An intimate acquaintance with t
prophets is of the utmost moment for elucid:
the concise narrative of the books of Kings.
two together give us a really full view of the e1
of the times at home and abroad.
It must, however, be admitted that the chr
logical details expressly given in the books of K
form a remarkable contrast with their striking
torical accuracy. ‘These details are inexplic
and frequently entirely contradictory, The
—
KINGS, FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF 1545
date of a decidedly chronvlogical character | agreeing, there is an excess of 19 or 20 years in
sh is given, that of the foundation of Solomon’s | Judah — the reigns of the latter amounting to 261
ple (1 K. vi. 1), is. manifestly erroneous, as! years, while the former make up only 242. But
g irreconcilable with any view of the chronolo-| we are able to get somewhat nearer to the seat of
f the times of the judges, or with St. Paul’s | this disagreement, because it so happens that the
lation, Acts xiii. 20.4. It is in fact abandoned | parallel histories of Israel and Judah touch in four
Imost all chronologists, whatever school they | or five points where the synchronisms are precisely
ig to, whether ancient or modern, and is ut-| marked. These points are (1) at the simultaneous
‘ignored by Josephus. [CHRONOLOGY, vol. i. | accessions of Jeroboam and Rehoboam; (2) at the
L44-47.] Moreover, when the text is examined, | simultaneous deaths of Jehoram and Ahaziah, or,
mediately appears that this date of 480 years| which is the same thing, the simultaneous acces-
th unnecessary and quite out of place. The|sions of Jehu and Athaliah; (3) at the 15th year
ence to the Exodus is gratuitous, and alien to |of Amaziah, which was the Ist of Jeroboam II.
he other notes of time, which refer merely to | (2 K.xiy.17); (4) in the reign of Ahaz, which was
mion’s accession. If it is left out, the text will | contemporary with some part of Pekah’s, namely,
uite perfect without it,° and will agree exactly | according to the text of 2 K. xvi. 1, the three first
the resumé in vy. 37, 38, and also with the} years of Ahaz with the three last of Pekah; and
lel passage in 2 Chr. iii. 2. The evidence| (5) at the 6th of Hezekiah, which was the 9th of
fore of its being an interpolation is wonder-| Hoshea; the two last points, however, being less
strong. But if so, it must have been inserted | certain than the others, at least as to the precision
professed chronologist, whose object was to re- | of the synchronisms, depending as this does on the
the Scripture history to an exact system of | correctness of the numerals in the text.
nology. It is likely therefore that we shall find] Hence, instead of lumping the whole periods of
s of the same hand in other parts of the books. | 261 years and 242 years together, and comparing
De Wette (Hinleit. p. 235), among the evi- | their difference, it is clearly expedient to compare
es which he puts forward as marking the books | the different sub-periods, which are defined by com-
ings as in his opinion a separate work from] mon termini. Beginning, therefore, with the sub-
2 of Samuel, mentions, though erroneously, as | period which commences with the double accession
m. ¥. 4, 6 shows, the sudden introduction of | of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and closes with the
hronological system” (die genauere Zeitrech- | double death of Ahaziah and Jehoram, and summing
). When therefore we find that the very first | up the number of years assigned to the different
introduced is erroneous, and that numerous | reigns in each kingdom, we find that the six reigns
‘dates are also certainly wrong, because con-|in Judah make up 95 years, and the eight reigns in
ctory, it seems a not unfair conclusion that | Israel make up 98 years. Here there is an excess
dates ate the work of an interpolator, trying | of 3 years in the kingdom of Israel, which may,
ing the history within his own chronological | however, be readily accounted for by the frequent
m: a conclusion somewhat confirmed by the | changes of dynasty there, and the probability of
ations and omissions of these dates in the | fragments of years being reckoned as whole: years,
© As regards, however, these chronological | thus causing the same year to be reckoned twice
ulties, it must be observed they are of two es-| over. The 95 years of Judah, or even a less num-
illy different kinds. One kind is merely the| ber, will hence appear to be the true number of
of the data necessary for chronological exact- | whole years (see too Clinton, F’. 1. ii. 314, &e.).
Such is the absence, apparently, of any| Beginning, again, at the double accession of Atha-
tm rule for dealing with the fragments of |liah and Jehu, we have in Judah 7+40+14 first
at the beginning and end of the reigns. | years of Amaziah — 61, to correspond with 28+17
might also be a deficiency in the sum of the| +16 = 61, ending with the last year of Jehoash
l years of Israel as compared with the syn- | in Israel. Starting again with the 15th of Amaziah
istic years of Judah, caused by unnoticed in-|==1 Jeroboam II., we have 15+52+16+3=
ma, if any such really occurred. And this|86 (to the 3d year of Ahaz), to correspond with
of difficulties may probably have belonged to} 41+ 1+10+2-+ 20 —74 (to the close of Pekah’s
books in their original state, in which exact| reign), where we at once detect a deficiency on the
‘ifile chronology was not aimed at. But the part of Israel of (86-—-74 =) 12’ years, if at least the
kind of difficulty is of a totally different | 3d of Ahaz really corresponded with the 20th of
ster, and embraces dates which are very exact | Pekah. And lastly, starting with the year follow-
sir mode of expression, but are erroneous and | ing that last named, we have 13 last years of Ahaz
wdictory. Some of these are pointed out be-|+7 first of Hezekiah = 20, to correspond with the
and it is such which it seems reasonable to | 9 years of Hoshea, where we find another deficiency
€ to the interpolation of later professed chro-|in Israel of 11 years.
sts. But it is necessary to give specimens of The two first of the above periods may then be
f these kinds of difficulty, both with a view ta | said to agree together, and to give 95+ 61 = 156
mating to a true chronology, and also to show years from the accession of Rehoboam and Jeroboam
tual condition of the books under consideration. | to the 15th of Amaziah in Judah, and the death
) When we sum up the years of all the reigns | of Jehoash in Israel, and we observe that the dis-
kings of Israel as given in the books of Kings, | erepance of 12 years first occurs in the third period,
ten all the years of the reigns of the kings | in which the breaking up of the kingdom of Israel
Jah from the 1st of Rehoboam to the 6th cf began at the close of Jehu’s dynasty. Putting aside
jah, we find that, instead of the two sums| the synchronistic arrangement of the years as we
of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which
is the second month, that he began to build the house
of the Lord.”
¢ See 1 K. xvi. 8, 15, 29, vi.1.
fhe MSS. A B C have, however, a different read-
lich is adopted by Lachmann [Tregelles] and
worth,
be it came to pass. . . . in the fourth year
1546 KINGS, FIRST AND
now find them in 2 K. xv. ff., there would be no
difficulty whatever in supposing that the reigns of
the kings of Israel at this time were not continuous,
and that for.several years after the death of Zach-
ariah, or Shallum, or both, the government may
either have been in the hands of the king of Syria,
or broken up amongst contending parties, till at
length Menahem was able to establish himself on
the throne by the help of Pul, king of Assyria, and
transmit his tributary throne to his son Pekahiah.
But there is another mode of bringing this third
period into harmony, which violates no historical
probability, and is in fact strongly indicated by the
fluctuations of the text. We are told in 2K. xv. 8,
that Zachariah began to reign in the 38th of Uzziah,
and (xiv. 23) that his father Jeroboam began to
reign in the 15th of Amaziah. Jeroboam must
therefore have reigned 52 or 53 years, not 41: for
the idea of an interregnum of 11 or 12 years
between Jeroboam and his son Zachariah is absurd.
But the addition of these 12 years to Jeroboam’s
reign exactly equalizes the period in the two king-
doms, which would thus contain 86 years, and
makes up 242 years from the accession of Rehoboam
and Jeroboam to the 3d of Ahaz and 20th of Pekah,
supposing always that these last-named years really
synchronize.
As regards the discrepance of 11 years in the
last period, nothing can in itself be more probable
than that either during some part of Pekah’s life-
time, or after his death, a period, not included in
the regnal years of either Pekah or Hoshea, should
have elapsed, when there was either a state of
anarchy, or the government was administered by an
Assyrian officer. There are also several passages in
the contemporary prophets Isaiah and Hosea, which
would fall in with this view, as Hos. x. 3,7; Is. ix.
9-19. But it is impossible to assert peremptorily
that such was the case. The decision must await
some more accurate knowledge of the chronology
of the times from heathen sources. The addition
of these last 20 years makes up for the whole dura-
tion of the kingdom of Israel, 261 or 262 years,
more or less. Now the interval, according to Lep-
sius’s tables, from the accession of Sesonchis, or
Shishak, to that of Sabacon, or So (2 K. xvii. 4),
is 245 years. Allowing Sesonchis to have reigned
7 years contemporaneously with Solomon, and
Sabaco, who reigned 12 years,* to have reigned
9 before Shalmaneser came up the second time
against Samaria (245+ 7+ 9 = 261), the chro-
nology of Egypt would exactly tally with that here
given. It may, however, turn out that the time
thus allowed for the duration of the Israelitish
monarchy is somewhat too long, and that the time
indicated by the years of the Israelitish kings,
without any interregnum, is nearer the truth. If
so, a ready way of reducing the sum of the reigns
of the kings of Judah would be to assign 41 years
to that of Uzziah, instead of 52 (as if the numbers
of Uzziah and Jeroboam had been accidentally in-
terchanged): an arrangement which interferes with
no known historical truth, though it would disturb
the doubtful synchronism of the 3d of Ahaz with
the 20th of Pekah, and make the 3d of Ahaz cor-
respond with about the 9th or 10th of Pekah.
Indeed it is somewhat remarkable that if we neglect
this synchronism, and consider as one the period
@ Lepsius, Kiinigsb. p. 87.
5 Lepsius suggests that Azariah and Uzziah may
Possibly be different and successive kings, the former
SECOND BOOKS OF
from the accession of Athaliah and Jehu to th
of Hezekiah and 9th of Hoshea, the sums of
reigns in the two kingdoms agree exactly, whe
reckon 41 years for Uzziah, and 52 for Jerob
namely, 155 years, or 250 for the whole time ot
Israelitish monarchy. Another advantage of
arrangement would be to reduce the age of U;
at the birth of his son and heir Jotham from
improbable age of 42 or 43 to 31 or 32. It
be added that the date in 2 K. xv. 1, which as
the Ist of Uzziah to the 27th of Jeroboam, s
to indicate that the author of it only reckone
years for Uzziah’s reign, since from the 27t
Jeroboam to the 1st of Pekah is just 41 years
Lepsius’s table, Kénigsb. p. 103%). Also that
xvii. 1, which makes the 12th of Ahaz =1
Hoshea, implies that the Ist of Ahaz = 9t
Pekah.
(2.) Turning next to the other class of diffic
mentioned above, the following instances will
haps be thought to justify the opinion that
dates in these books which are intended to esta
a precise chronology are the work of a much
hand or hands than the books themselves.
The date in 1 K. vi. 1 is one which is obyi
intended for strictly chronological purposes.
correct, it would, taken in conjunction witl
subsequent notes of time in the books of K
supposing them to be correct also, give, toa
the length of the time from the Exodus to the ]
lonian Captivity, and establish a perfect conne
between sacred and profane history. But so
is this the case, that this date is quite irrecone
with Egyptian history, and is, as stated aboy
almost universal consent rejected by chronolo
even on purely Scriptural grounds. This d;
followed by precise synchronistic definitions ¢
parallel reigns of Israel and Judah, the effe
which would be, and must have been design
be, to supply the want of accuracy in statin;
length of the reigns without reference to th
months. But these synchronistic definitions :
continual discord with the statement of the |
of reigns. According to 1 K. xxii. 61 Ab
succeeded Ahab in the 17th year of Jehosha
But according to the statement of the leng
Ahab’s reign in xvi. 29, Ahab died in the 18
Jehoshaphat; while according to 2 K. i. 17,
ram, the son of Ahaziah, succeeded his bi
(after his 2 years’ reign) in the second ye:
Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, though, ac
ing to the length of the reigns, he must have
ceeded in the 18th or 19th of Jehoshaphat |
K. iii. 1), who reigned, in all, 25 years (1 K.
42). [JeHoORAM.] As regards Jehoram th
of Jehoshaphat, the statements are so contradi
that Archbishop Usher actually makes three di
beginnings to his regnal era; the first whe
was made prorex, to meet 2 K. i. 17; the s
when. he was associated with his father, 5
later, to meet 2 K. viii. 16; the third when hi
reign commenced, to meet 1 K. xxii. 50, com
with 42. But as the only purpose of these
chronisms is to give an accurate measure of
nothing can be more absurd than to suppose
variations in the time from which the comm
ment of the regnal year is dated. It may alst
be remarked that the whole notion of these
ee ee St
of whom reigned 11 years, and the latter 41.
beyond the confusion of the names there is nf
to support such a notion. |
7
KINGS, FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF
has not the smallest foundation in fact, and
ily does not come into play in the only cases
there might be any historical probability of
aving occurred, as in the case of Asa’s illness
jziah’s leprosy. . From the length of Ama-
reign, as given 2 K. xiv. 2, 17, 23, it is
st that Jeroboam II. began to reign in the
ear of Amaziah, and that Uzziah began to
in the 16th of Jeroboam. But 2 K. xv. 1
the commencement of Uzziah’s reign in the
f Jeroboam, and the accession of Zachariah
close of Jeroboam’s reign, in the 38th of
—statements utterly contradictory and
cilable.
er grave chronological difficulties seem to
weir source in the same erroneous calculations
part of the Jewish chronologist. or ex-
one of the cuneiform inscriptions tells us
[enahem paid tribute to Assyria in the 8th
f Tiglath-Pileser (Rawl. //erod. i. 469), and
ne inscription passes on directly to speak of
rthrow of Rezin, who we know was Pekah's
Now this is scarcely compatible with the
ition that the remainder of Menahem’s reign,
years of Pekahiah, and 18 or 19 years of
s reign intervened, as must have been the
scording to 2 K. xvi. 1, xv. 32. But if the
n of Juda was one of the early acts of
s reign, and the destruction of Rezin fol-
soon after, then we should have a very intel-
course of events as follows. Menahem paid
t tribute to Assyria in the 8th of Tiglath-
, his suzerain (2 K. xv. 19), which, as he
| for some time under Pul, and only reigned
rs in all, we may assume to have been his
st year. On the accession of his son Peka-
rekah, one of his captains, rebelled against
lade an alliance with Rezin king of Syria to
off the yoke of Assyria, in the course of a
mths dethroned and killed Pekahiah, and
| in his stead, and rapidly followed up his
by a joint expedition against Judah, the
of which was to set up a king who should
hen his hands in his rebellion against
. The king of Assyria, on learning this,
eiving Ahaz’s message for help, immediately
8 to Syria, takes Damascus, conquers and
~zin, invades Israel, and carries away a large
* eaptives (2 K. xv. 29), and leaves Pekah to
8 tributary king over the enfeebled remnant,
onspiracy deprived him of his life. Such a
of events would be consistent with the
tm inscription, and with everything in the
re narrative, except the synchronistic ar-
ent of the reigns. But of course it is
‘ble to affirm that the above was the true
f the case. Only at present the text and
teiform inscription do not agree, and few
will be satisfied with the explanation sug-
by Mr. Rawlinson, that “the official who
ed, or the workman who engraved, the
‘n document, made a mistake in the name,”’
i Menahem when he should have put Pekah
. Leet. pp. 136, 409; Herod. i: 468-471).
' “Seripture places only 8 years between
of Samaria and the first invasion of Judea
iacherib” (i. e. from the 6th to the 14th of
sius proposes reducing the reign of Manasseh
ears. He observes with truth the improba-
‘f Amon having been born in the 45th year
.
|
r
1547
Hezekiah). «The inscriptions (cuneiform) assign
ing the fall of Samaria to the first year of Sargon,
giving Sargon a reign of at least 15 years, and
assigning the first attack on Hezekiah to Sennach-
erib’s third year, put an interval of at least 18
years between the two events”? (Rawl. Herod. i.
479). This interval is further shown by reference
to the canon of Ptolemy to have amounted in fact
to 22 years. Again, Lepsius (Kénigsb. p. 95-97)
shows with remarkable force of argument that the
14th of Hezekiah could not by possibility fall
earlier than B. C. 692, with reference to ‘Tirhakah’s
accession; but that the additional date of the 3d
of Sennacherib furnished by the cuneiform inscrip-
tions, coupled with the fact given by Berosus, that
the year B. Cc. 693 was the year of Sennacherib’s
accession, fixes the year B. C. 691 as that of Sennach-
erib’s invasion, and consequently as the 14th of
Hezekiah. But from B. c. 691 to B. c. 586, when
Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, is an
interval of only 105 years; whereas the sum of the
regnal years of Judah for the same interval amounts
to 125 years.¢ From which calculations it neces-
sarily follows, both that there is ‘an error in those
figures in the book of Kings which assign the
relative positions of the destruction of Samaria and
Sennacherib’s invasion, and also in those which meas-
ure the distance between the invasion of Sennach-
erib and the destruction of Jerusalem. It should,
however, be noted that there is nothing to fix the
fall of Samaria to the reign of Hezekiah but the
statement of the synchronism; and 2 Chr. xxx. 6,
18, &e., seems rather to indicate that the kingdom
of Israel had quite ceased in the 1st of Hezekiah.
Many other numbers have the same stamp of incor-
rectness. Rehoboam’s age is given as 41 at his
accession, 1 K. xiv. 21, and yet we read at 2 Chr.
xiii. 7, that he was “ young and tender-hearted ”’
when he came to the throne. Moreover, if 41 when
he became king, he must have been born before
Solomon came to the throne, which seems improb-
able, especially in connection with his Ammonitish
mother. In the apocryphal passage moreover in
the Cod. Vat. of the LXX., which follows 1 K.
xii. 24, his age is said to have been 16 at his
accession, which is much more probable. Accord-
ing to the statement in 2 K. xv. 33, compared with
ver. 2, Uzziah’s son and heir Jotham was not born
till his father was 42 years old; and according to
2 K. xxi. 1, compared with ver. 19, Manasseh’s
son and heir Amon was not born till his father was
in his 45th year. Still more improbable is the
statement in 2 K. xviii. 2, compared with xvi. 2,
which makes Hezekiah to have been born when his
father was 11 years old: a statement which Bochart
has endeavored to defend with his usual vast erudi-
tion, but with little success (Opera, i. 921). But
not only does the incorrectness of the numbers
testify against their genuineness, but in some pas-
sages the structure of the sentence seems to betray
the fact of a later insertion of the chronological
element. We have seen one instance in 1 K. vi. 1.
In like manner at 1 K. xiv. 31, xv. 1, 2, we can
see that at some time or other xv. 1 has been
inserted between the two other verses. So again
ver. 9 has been inserted between 8 and 10; and xv.
24 must have once stood next to xxii. 42, as xxii.
of his father’s life. Mr. Bosanquet would lower the
date of the destruction of Jerusalem to the year B. G.
550.
1548 KINGS, FJRST AND
50 did to 2 K. viii. 17, at which time the corrupt
ver. 16 had no existence. Yet more manifestly
viii. 24, 26, were once consecutive verses, though
they are now parted by 25, which is repeated, with
a variation in the numeral, at ix. 29. So also xvi.
1 has been interposed between xv. 38 and xvi. 2.
xviii. 2 is consecutive with xvi. 20. But the plain-
est instance of all is 2 K. xi. 21, xii. 1 (xii. 1 ff,
Heb.), where the words “In the seventh year of
Jehu, Jehoash began to reign,’ could not possibly
have formed part of the original sentence, which
may be seen in its integrity 2 Chr. xxiv. 1. The
disturbance caused in 2 K. xii. by the intrusion of
this clause is somewhat disguised in the LXX. and
the A. V. by the division of Heb. xii. 1 into two
verses, and separate chapters, but is still palpable.
A similar instance is pointed out by Movers in 2
Sam. v., where ver. 3 and 6 are parted by the
jntroduction of ver. 4, 5 (p. 190). But the diffi-
culty remains of deciding in which of the above
cases the insertion was by the hand of the original
compiler, and in which by a later chronologist.
Now when to all this we add that the pages of
Josephus are full, in like manner, of a multitude
of inconsistent chronological schemes, which prevent
his being of any use, in spite of Hales’s praises, in
clearing up chronological difficulties, the proper in-
ference seems to be, that no authoritative, correct,
systematic chronology was originally contained in
the books of Kings, and that the attempt to supply
such afterwards led to the introduction of many
erroneous dates, and probably to the corruption of
some true ones which were originally there. Cer-
tainly the present text contains what are either
conflicting calculations of antagonistic chronologists,
or errors of careless copyists, which no learning or
ingenuity has ever been able to reduce to the con-
sistency of truth.
II. The peculiarities of diction in them, and other
features in their literary history, may be briefly dis-
posed of. The words noticed by De Wette, § 185,
as indicating their modern date, are the following:
STS for FUS, 1 K. xiv. 2. (But this form is also
found in Judg. xvii. 2, Jer. iv. 30, Ez. xxxvi. 13,
and not once in the later books.) “SVS for Wits,
2 K.i.15. (But this form of JS is found in Lev.
xv. 18, 24; Josh. xiv. 12; 2 Sam. xxiv. 24; Is. lix.
91; Jer. x. 5, xii. 1, xix. 10, xx. 11, xxxv. 2; Ez.
xiv. 4, xxvii. 26.) DW for DD, 1 K. ix. 8.
(But Jer. xix. 8, xlix. 17, are identical in phrase
and orthography.) ]°27 for EYP), 2 K. xi. 13.
(But everywhere else in Kings, ¢. g. 2 K. xi. 6, &e.,
E27, which is also universal in Chronicles, an
avowedly later book; and here, as in Pa TN
xi. 83, there is every appearance of the 1 being a
clerical error for the copulative 1; see Thenius, /. c.)
mo, 1 K. xx. 14. (But this word occurs
Lam. i. 1, and there is every appearance of its being
a technical word in 1 K. xx. 14, and therefore as
old as the reign of Ahab.) 7D for “9n, LK
iv. 22. (But 1D is used by Ez. xlv. 14, and homer
Keil, Chron. p. 40.
@ See Rédiger’s Gesen. Heb. Gramm. Eng. tr. p. 6;
SECOND BOOKS OF
seems to have been then already obsolete.)
1K. xxi.,.8,d..
2 K. xxv. 8.
with the Chaldees, as seen in Rab-shakeh, Ra
Rab-mag, its application to the Chaldee ge
no evidence of a time later than the person t
the title is given.) DOQW, 1 K. viii. 61, &
there is not a shadow of proof that this ex
belongs to late Hebr.
places, in Is. xxxviii. 8; a passage against
thenticity of which there is also not a. shi
proof, except upon the presumption that p
intimations and supernatural interventions
part of God are impossible.) Sypipn, 2]
7. (On what grounds this word is addue
impossible to guess, since it occurs in this ;
Josh., Is., Sam., and Jer.: vid. Gesen.) ;
2K. xviii. 19. (Is. xxxvi. 4, Eccl. ix. 4.) 4
2 K. xviii. 26.
Hezekiah’s reign, as well as in the time o
miah, have called his mother-tongue “th
language,”’ in opposition to the Aramean?
was nothing in the Babylonish Captivity t
the name, if it had it not before; nor is there
earlier instance —Is. xix. 18 might have fi
one —of anyname given to the language
by all the Israelites, and which in later ti
called Hebrew: ‘EBpaiort, Prolog. Ecclus
xxiii. 38; John v. 2, &e.)¢ ON DAW
(Occurs in Is. and Jer.)
(But as the term evidently
It is found, amor
(But why should not a.
2 K. xxv. 6. (Frequent in Jer. iv. 12, 3
&.) Theod. Parker adds M15 (see, too, ‘
Finl. § 6), 1 K. x. 15, xx. 24; 2 K. xviii
the presumption probably of its being of
derivation; but the etymology and origin
word are quite uncertain, and it is repeate:
in Jer. li., as well as Is. xxxvi. 9. Wit
reason might N72 have been adduced, 1
33. The expression 12/7 “AY, it
is also a difficult one to form an impartial
about. It is doubtful, as De Wette admits,
the phrase necessarily implies its being use,
to the east of the Euphrates, because the u
in Num. xxxii. 19, xxxv. 14; Josh. i. 14,
xii. 1, 7, xxii. 7; 1 Chr. xxvi. 30; Deut.
&c» It is also conceivable that the phrasi
be used as a mere geographical designation
who belonged to one of “ the provinces be}
river’? subject to Babylon: and at the tin
destruction of Jerusalem, Judea had bee!
province for at least 23 years, and probabl}
We may safely affirm therefore, that on tl
the peculiarities of diction in these books
indicate a time after the Captivity, or tow
close of it, but on the contrary point pr
tinctly to the age of Jeremiah. And it
added, that the marked and systematic di
between the language of Chronicles and
Kings, taken with the fact that all attempts
the Chronicles later than Ezra haye utter!
lead to the same conclusion. (See many |
in Movers, p. 200 ff.) Other peculiar or |
pressions in these books are the proverbi
ieee PAW, found only in them 4
Sam. xxv. 22, 34, “slept with his fathers,
that dieth in the city, the dogs shall e
Br
KINGS, FIRST AND
MWY? 1D, 1K. ii. 23, &e.; also TTP,
. 41, 45; elsewhere only in poetry, and in the
sition of proper names, except Deut. ii. 36.
fi. 9. ODD, “fowl,” iv. 23. MIDs,
sj? v. 6; 2 Chr. ix. 25. DMD MYT, v. 13,
, 21. YO, “a stone-quarry ’’ (Gesen.),
9957, vi. 17. YT, 19. DYYPD and
22, “ wild cucumbers,” vi. 18, vii. 24, 2 K.
Ti", x. 28; the names of the months
IS, viii. 2, 11, DAD, vi. 37, 38. NTB,
nvent,”’ xii. 33, Neh. vi. 8, in both cases
| with 2%. nebo, “an idol,” xv. 13.
and YY377, followed by SITS, « to de-
* xiy. 10, xvi. 3, xxi. 21: D2, “ joints
armor,”’ xxii. 34. QW, “a pursuit,”’ xviii.
Wa “to bend one’s self,”” xviii. 42, 2 K. iv.
. DaW, “to gird up,” xviii. 46. TDN,
ad-band,’’ xx. 38, 41. pDw, “ to suffice,”
. won, incert. signif. xx. 33. TIwy
2, “to reign,” xxi. 7. TY, «a dish,”
ii 20. D3, “to fold up,” i. 8. TH23,
rdsman,” iii, 4, Am. i. 1. PION, «an
aeiW., 2- Oe TIT, “to have a care for,”
mR, “ to sneeze,’ 35; ony, “a bag,” 42.
J, “a money-bag,”’ v. 93. mM, “an
ping” (?) vi. 8; TTD, “a feast,” 23;
, “descending,” 9; 2), “a cab," 25; IT
BD D'D, perhaps “a
|” vii. 15. 072 (in sense of “self,” as in
and Samar.), ix. 18. “DX, “a heap,”
iniafolplas “a vestry,” 22; TTSTTA, “a
ithouse," 27. YD, « Cherethites,” xi. 4,
12 Sam. xx. 23, Cethib. TTD%D, “a keeping
5 “dove’s dung,”’ 7d.
de 6. 27D, “an acquaintance,” xii. 6.
ora 1, from TTD%, “to shoot,” xiii. 17.
WAT ‘23, “ hostages,’ xiv. 14, 2 Chr.
Mh mwann FVD, “sick house,” xy.
Chr. xxvi. 21. Dan, *‘ before,’’ xv. 10.
My, “Damascus,” xvi. 10 (perhaps only a
ading). sT]END, «a pavement,” xvi. 17.
9, or 3JDA, “a covered way,” xvi. 18.
'\, 16, only besides Deut. vii. 5, Mic. v. 14.
18g. 1173, xvii. 21 (Cethib). BWA,
awitans,” 29, rahe) ~ 9, ‘¢ Nehushtan,”’ xviii.
in Pih. “ to do secretly,” xvii. 9. TIER,
SECOND BOOKS OF 1549
4. TIYON, “a pillar,” 16. M272 mMivy
“to make peace,’”? 31, Is. xxxvi. 16. wer
“that which grows up the third year,” xix. 29, Js
xxxvii. 30. fab») V2, “treasure-house,” xx.
13, Is. xxxix. 2. rawr, part of Jerusalem so
called, xxii. 14, Zeph. i. 10, Neh. xi. 9. no3,
“signs of the Zodiac,” xxiii. 5. “V3, “a sub-
urb,” xxiii. 11. ODA, « ploughmen,” xxv. 12
(Cethib). N2W, for TDW, « to change,” xxv. 29.
To which may be added the architectural terms in
1 K. vi., vii., and the names of foreign idols in 2
K. xvii. The general character of the language is,
most distinctly, that of the time before the Baby-
lonish Captivity. But it is worth consideration
whether some traces of dialectic varieties in Judah
and Israel, and of an earlier admixture of Syriasms
in the language of Israel, may not be discovered in
those portions of these books which refer to the
kingdom of Israel. As regards the text, it is far
from being perfect. Besides the errors in numerals,
some of which are probably to be traced to this
source, such passages as 1 K. xy. 6, v. 10, com-
pared with v. 2; 2 K. xy. 30, viii. 16, xvii. 34, are
manifest corruptions of transcribers. In some in-
i stances the parallel passage in Chronicles corrects
the error, as 1 K. iv. 26 is corrected by 2 Chr. ix.
25; 2 K. xiv. 21, &., by 2 Chr. xxvi. 1, &c. So
the probable misplacement of the section 2 K. xxiii.
4-20 is corrected by 2 Chr. xxxiv. 3-7. The sub-
stitution of Azariah for Uzziah in 2 K. xiv. 21,
and throughout 2 K. xy. 1-30, except ver. 13, fol-
lowed by the use of the right name, Uzziah, in vv.
30, 32, 34, is a very curious circumstance. In
Isaiah, in Zechariah (xiv. 5), and in the Chronicles
(except 1 Chr. iii. 12), it is uniformly Uzziah.
Perhaps no other cause is to be sought than the
close resemblance betweem PITY and MM 7TY,
and the fact that the latter name, Azariah, might
suggest itself more readily to a Levitical scribe.
There can be little doubt that Uzziah was the
king’s true name, Azariah that of the high-priest.
(But see Thenius on 1 K. xiv. 21.)
In connection with these literary peculiarities
may be mentioned also some remarkable variations
in the version of the LXX. These consist of trans-
positions, omissions, and some considerable addi-
tions, of all which Thenius gives some useful notices
in his Introduction to the books of Kings.
The most important transpositions are the his-
tory of Shimei’s death, 1 K. ii. 36-46, which in
the LXX. (Cod. Vat.) comes after iii. 1, and
divers scraps from chaps. iy., v., and ix., accompanied
by one or two remarks of the translators.
The sections 1 K. iv. 20-25, 2-6, 26, 21, 1, are
strung together and precede 1 K. iii. 2-28, but are
many of them repeated again in their proper
places.
The sections 1 K. iii. 1, ix. 16, 17, are strung
together, and placed between iv. 34 and v. 1.
The section 1 K. vii. 1-12 is placed after vii. 51.
Section viii. 12, 13, is placed after 53.
Section ix. 15-22 is placed after x. 22.
Section xi. 43, xii. 1, 2, 3, is much transposed
and confused in LX X, xi. 43, 44, xii. 1-3.
Section xiv. 1-21 is placed in the midst of the
long addition to Chr. xii. mentioned below.
1g) KINGS, FIRST AND
Section xxii. 42-50 is placed after xvi. 28. Chaps.
xx. and xxi. are transposed.
Section 2 K. iii. 1-3 is placed after 2 K. i. 18.
The omissions are few.
Section 1 K. vi. 11-14 is entirely omitted, and
37, 88, are only slightly alluded to at the opening
of ch. iii. The erroneous clause 1 K. xv. 6 is
omitted; and so are the dates of Asa’s reign in
xvi. 8 and 15; and there are a few verbal omissions
of no consequence.
The chief interest lies in the additions, of which
the principal are the following. The supposed
mention of a. fountain as among Solomon’s works
in the Temple in the passage after 1 K. ii. 385; of
a paved causeway on Lebanon, iii. 46; of Solomon
pointing to the sun at the dedication of the Temple,
before he uttered the prayer, “ The Lord said he
would dwell in the thick darkness,’’ etc., viii. 12,
18 (after 53 LXX.), with a reference to the
BiBAtov Tis wdhs, &® passage on which Thenius
relies as proving that the Alexandrian had access
to original documents now lost; the information
that “Joram his brother’? perished with Tibni,
xvi. 22; an additional date, “in the 24th year
of Jeroboam,’’ xv. 8; numerous verbal additions,
as xi. 29, xvii. 1, &c.; and lastly the long pas-
sage concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat, in-
serted between xii. 24 and'25. There are also
many glosses of the translator, explanatory, or
necessary in consequence of transpositions, as e. g.
A Ki ii. 85) viitl 1, xi.748, xvii.“ 20; xix."2; &c. OF
the above, from the recapitulatory character of the
passage after 1 K. ii. 35, containing in brief the
sum of the things detailed in ch. vii. 21-23, it seems
far more probable that KPHNHN TH=S AYTAHS is
only a corruption of KPINON TOY AIAAM, there
mentioned. The obscure passage about Lebanon
after ii. 46, seems no less certainly to represent
what in the Heb. is ix. 18, 19, as appears by the
triple concurrence of Tadmor, Lebanon, and duva-
orevpara, representing \nwn. The strange
mention of the sun seems to be introduced by the
translator to give significance to Solomon’s mention
of the House which he had built for God, who had
said He would dwell in the thick dar nies s not
therefore under the unveiled light of the sun; and
the reference to “ the book of song’’ can surely
mean nothing else than to point out that the pas-
sage to which Solomon referred was Ps. xevii. 2.
Of the other additions the mention of ‘Tibni’s
brother Joram is the one which has most the sem-
blance of an historical fact, or makes the existence
of any other source of history probable. ‘See too
1 K. xx. 19, 2 K. xv. 25. There remains only the
long passage about Jeroboam. That this account
is only an apocryphal version made up of the exist-
ing materials in the Hebrew Scriptures, after the
manner of 1 Esdras, Bel and the Dragon, the apocry-
phal Esther, the Targums, etc., may be inferred on
the following grounds. The framework of the story
is given in the very words of the Hebrew narrative,
and that very copiously, and the new matter is only
worked in here and there. Demonstrably therefore
the Hebrew account existed when the Greek one was
framed, and was the original one. The principal
new facts introduced, the marriage of Jeroboam to
the sister of Shishak’s wife, and his request to be
permitted to return, is a manifest imitation of the
a A later tale of Solomon’s wisdom, in imitation of
the judgment of the two women, told in the Talmud,
SECOND BOOKS OF
story of Hadad. The misplacement of ti
of Abijah’s sickness, and the visit of Jet
wife to Ahijah the Shilonite, makes tl
history out of keeping — the disguise of th
the rebuke of Jeroboam’s idolatry (whic
cordingly left out from Ahijah’s prophec
the mention at vy. 2 of his having told Jero
should be king), and the king’s anxiety at
recovery of his son and heir. The embelli
of the story, Jeroboam’s chariots, the a
tion of Ahijah’s address to Ano, the reque:
of Pharaoh, the new garment not washed 1
are precisely such as an embroiderer would
we may see by the apocryphal books abo
Then the fusing down the three Hebrey
MI, TVIIZ, and TPF), into one
thus giving the same name to the mother
boam, and to the city where she dwelt, sh
coniparateele modern the story is, and h
pletely of Greek growth. A yet plainer it
is the confounding Shemaisah of 1 K. xii.
Shemaiah the Nehelamite of Jer. xxix. 24,
putting Ahijah’s prophecy into his mout
beyond all question "EvAaui, 1 K. xii.
another form of AiAauitns (Jer. xxxvi. 24.
Then again the story is self-contradictory.
Jeroboam’s child Abijam was not born ti
or so after Solomon’s death, how could “¢
thing toward the Lord God of Israel” he
found in him before Jeroboam became king
one thing in the story that is more like tr
the Hebrew narrative is the age given to Re
16 years, which may have been preserve
MS. which the writer of this romance h:
him. The calling Jeroboam’s mother -yur
instead of yuvh xhpa, was probably accide
On the whole then it appears that the |
riations in the LXX. contribute little or n¢
the elucidation of the history contained
books, nor much even to the text. ‘The
text and arrangement is not in the least s
its main points, nor is there the slightest ¢
on the accuracy of the history, or the tru
of the prophecies contained in it. But th
tions illustrate a characteristic tendene:
Jewish mind to make interesting portion
Scriptures the groundwork of separate
tales, which they altered or added to acct
their fancy, without any regard to history
nology, and in which they exercised a pecu
of ingenuity in working up the Scripture 1
or in inventing circumstances calculated
thought to make the main history more
The story of Zerubbabel’s answer in 1 Es
truth, to prepare the way for his mission by
of the discovery of the imposture of Bel’
by Daniel, in Bel and the Dragon; of M
dream in the Apoer. Esther; and the pare
the Talmud inserted to connect 1 K. xvi.
xvii. 1 (Smith’s Sacr. Ann., vol. ii. p. 4
instances of this. And the reign of Sc
and the remarkable rise of Jeroboam wert
likely to exercise this propensity of the H
Jews. Itis to the existence of such we
the variations in the LXX. account of |
and Jeroboam may most probably be a
Another feature in the literary conditic
books must just be noticed, namely that the
may be seen in Curiosities of Literature, i.'
Talmud contains many more.
KINGS, FIRST AND
wranging his materials, and adopting the very
Js of the documents used by him, has not always
i careful to avoid the appearance of contradic-
. Thus the mention of the staves of the ark
aining in their place “unto this day,” 1 K.
8, does not accord with the account of the de-
ction of the Temple 2 K. xxv. 9. The mention
lijah as the only prophet of the Lord left, 1 K.
ij. 22, xix. 10, has an appearance of disagree-
+ with xx. 13, 28, 35, &., though xviii. 4,
18, supply, it is true, a ready answer. In
. xxi. 13, only Naboth is mentioned, while in
.. ix. 26, his sons are added. ‘The prediction
_K. xix. 15~17 has no perfect fulfilment in the
wing chapters. 1 K. xxii. 38 does not seem
ea fulfillment of xxi. 19.¢ The declaration in
.. ix. 22 does not seem in harmony with xi. 28.
re are also some singular repetitions, as 1 K.
21 compared with 81; 2 K. ix. 29 with viii.
xiv. 15,16 with xiii. 12,13. But it is enough
, to have pointed these out, as no real difficulty
be found in them.
IL As regards the authorship of these books,
litdle ditticulty presents itself. The Jewish
lition which ascribes them to Jeremiah, is borne
by the strongest internal evidence, in addition
that of the language. ‘The last chapter, espe-
ly as compared with the last chapter of the
onicles, bears distinct traces of having been
tten by one who did not go into captivity, but
ined in Juda, after the destruction of the
nple. This suits Jeremiah.o The events singled
for mention in the concise narrative, are pre-
ly those of which he had personal knowledge,
_in which he took special interest. The famine
) K. xxv. 3 was one which had nearly cost Jere-
h his life (Jer. xxxviii. 9). The capture of the
', the flight and capture of Zedekiah, the judg-
at and punishment of Zedekiah and his sons at
lah, are related in 2 K. xxv. 1-7, in almost the
atical words which we read in Jer. xxxix. 1-7.
are the breaking down and burning of the Tem-
ithe king’s palace, and the houses of the great
1, the deportation to Babylon of the fugitives
| the surviving inhabitants of Jerusalem and
xa. The intimate knowledge of what Nebuzar-
u did, both in respect to thuse selected for capi-
punishment, and those carried away captive, and
se poor whom he left in the land, displayed by
‘writer of 2 K. xxv. 11, 12, 18-21, is fully ex-
be by Jer. xxxix. 10-14, xl. 1-5, where we
’ For a discussion of this difficulty see NaBorH, JEZ-
t. The simplest explanation is that Naboth was
led at Samaria, since we find the elders of Jezreel at
maria, 2 K. x. 1. . Thus both the spot where
yoth’s blood flowed, and his vineyard at Jezreel,
'e the scene of righteous retribution. ;
,_ De Wette cites from Hiivernick and Movers, 1 K.
8,9, comp. with Jer. xxii. 8; 2K. xvii. 18, 14,
ip. With Jer. vii. 13, 24; 2 K. xxi. 12, comp. with
- xix. 8; and the identity of Jer. lii. with 2 K. xxiv.
f, xxv., as the strongest passages in favor of
emiah’s authorship, which, however, he repudiates,
the ground that 2 K. xxv. 27-30 could not have
A Written by him. A weaker ground can scarcely
‘imagined. Jer. xv. 1 may also be cited as con-
iting the compilation of the books of Samuel with
| i Compare further 1 K. viii. 51 with Jer.
|! The last four verses, relative to Jehoiachin, are
ally a supplement whether added by the author or
‘ome later hand. There is nothing impossible in
| supposition of Jeremiah having survived till the
|
| a
SECOND BOOKS OF 1551
read that Jeremiah was actually one of the captives
who followed Nebuzar-adan as far as Ramah, and °
was very kindly treated by him. The careful enu-
meration of the pillars and of the sacred vessels of
the Temple which were plundered by the Chal-
deeans, tallies exactly with the prediction of Jere-
miah concerning them, xxvii. 19-22. The paragraph
concerning the appointment of Gedaliah as governor
of the remnant, and his murder by Ishmael, and
the flight of the Jews into Egypt, is merely an
abridged account of what Jeremiah tells us more
fully, x1.—xliii. 7, and are events in which he was
personally deeply concerned. ‘The writer in Kings
has nothing more to tell us concerning the Jews or
Chaldees in the land of Judah, which exactly
agrees with the hypothesis that he is Jeremiah,
who we know was carried down to Egypt with the
fugitives. In fact, the date of the writing and the
position of the writer seem as clearly marked by
the termination of the narrative at vy. 26, as in the
case of the Acts of the Apostles.c It may be
added, though the argument is of less weight,
that the annexation of this chapter to the writings
of Jeremiah so as to form Jer. lii. (with the addi-
tional clause contained 28-30), is an evidence of a
very ancient, if not a contemporary belief, that
Jeremiah was the author of it. Again, the special
mention of Seraiah the high-priest, and Zephan-
iah, the second priest, as slain by Nebuzar-
adan (v. 18), together with three other priests,? is
very significant when taken in connection with Jer.
xxi. 1, xxix. 25-29, passages which show that Zeph-
aniah belonged to the faction which opposed the
prophet, a faction which was headed by priests and
false prophets (Jer. xxvi. 7, 8, 11, 16). Going
back to the xxivth chapter, we find in ver. 14 an
enumeration of the captives taken with Jehoiachin
identical with that in Jer. xxiv. 1; in ver. 13, a
reference to the vessels of the Temple precisely
similar to that in Jer. xxvii. 18-20, xxviii. 3, 6,
and in vv. 8, 4, a reference to the idolatries and
bloodshed of Manasseh very similar to those in Jer.
ii. 34, xix. 4-8, &c., a reference which also con-
nects ch. xxiv. with xxi. 6, 13-16. In ver. 2 the
enunieration of the hostile nations, and the refer-
ence to the prophets of God, point directly to
Jer. xxv. 9, 20, 21, and the reference to Pharaoh
Necho in ver. 7 points to ver. 19, and to xlvi.
1-12. Brief as the narrative is, it brings out
all the chief points in the political events of the
time which we know were much in Jeremiah’s
87th of Jehoiachin’s captivity, though he would have
been between 80 and 90. There is something touch-
ing in the idea of this gleam of joy having reached
the prophet in his old age, and of his having added
these few words to his long-finished history of his
nation.
d These priests, of very high rank, called ‘TOW
FO, keepers of the door,” i. e. of the three prin-
cipal entrances to the Temple, are not to be con-’
founded with the porters, who were Levites. We are
expressly told in 2 K. xii. 10 (9, A. V.) that these
keepers ” were priests, 2 K. xxii. 4, xxiii. 4, with
xii. 10 and xxv. 18, clearly point out the rank of
these officers as next in dignity to the second priest, or
sagan. ([HicH-Prisst, vol. ii. p. 1069.] Josephus calls
them rods pvAdaaovtas 7d iepov Hyepovas. The ex-
pression FIOM saw, is however also applied to
the Levites in 2 Chr. xxxiv. 9,1 Chr. ix. 19. [Kora-
HITE.)
1552 KINGS, FIRST AND
mind; and yet, which is exceedingly remarkable,
Jeremiah is never once named (as he is in 2 Chr.
xxxvi. 12, 21), although the manner of the writer
is frequently to connect the sufferings of Judah
with their sins and their neglect of the Word of
Ged, 2 K. xvii. 13 ff., xxiv. 2, 3, de. And this
leads to another striking coincidence between that
portion of the history which belongs to Jeremiah’s
times, and the writings of Jeremiah himself. De
Wette speaks of the superficial character of the
history of Jeremiah’s times as hostile to the theory
of Jeremiah’s authorship. Now, considering the
nature of these annals, and their conciseness, this
criticism seems very unfounded as regards the reigns
of Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. It
must, however, be acknowledged that as regards
Jehoiakim’s reign, and especially the latter part of
it, and the way in which he came by his death, the
narrative is much more meagre than one would
have expected from a contemporary writer, living
on the spot. But exactly the same paucity of infor-
mation is found in those otherwise copious notices of
contemporary events with which Jeremiah’s proph-
ecies are interspersed. Let any one open, @. g.
Townsend’s “ Arrangement,” or Geneste’s “ Par-
allel Histories,’ and he will see at a glance how
remarkably little light Jeremiah’s narrative or
prophecies throw upon the latter part of Jehoiakim’s
reign. ‘The cause of this silence may be difficult
to assign, but whatever it was, whether absence
from Jerusalem, possibly on the mission described,
Jer. xiii.,@ or imprisonment, or any other impedi-
ment, it operated equally on Jeremiah and on the
writer of 2 K. xxiv. When it is borne in mind
that the writer of 2 K. was a contemporary writer.
and, if not Jeremiah, must Lave had independent
means of information, this coincidence will have
great weight.
Going back to the reign of Josiah, in the xxiii.
and xxii. chapters, the connection of the destruction
of Jerusalem with Manasseh’s transgressions, and
the comparison of it to the destruction of Samaria,
vv. 26, 27, lead us back to xxi. 10-13, and that
passage leads us to Jer. vii. 15, xv. 4, xix. 3, 4, &e.
The particular account of Josiah’s passover, and
his other good works, the reference in vv. 24, 25
to the law of Moses, and the finding of the Book
by Hilkiah the priest, with the fuller account of
that discovery in ch. xxii., exactly suit Jeremiah,
who began his prophetic office in the 13th of
Josiah; whose xith chap. refers repeatedly to the
book thus found; and who showed his attachment
to Josiah by writing a lamentation on his death
(2 Chr. xxxv. 25), and whose writings show how
much he made use of the copy of Deuteronomy so
found. [JEREMIAH, HILKIAH.] With Josiah’s
reign (although we may even in earlier times hit
upon occasional resemblances, such for instance as
the silence concerning Manasseh’s repentance in
both), necessarily cease all strongly marked char-
acters of Jeremiah’s authorship. For though the
general unity and continuity of plan (which, as
already observed, pervades not only the books of
Kings, but those of Samuel, Ruth, and Judges
likewise,) lead us to assign the whole history in a
certain sense to one author, and enable us to carry
@ The prophet does not tell us that he returned to
Jerusalem after hiding his girdle in the Euphrates.
The ‘many days” spoken of in ver. 6 may have been
spent among the Captivity at Babylon. (JEREMIAH, p.
1257.] He may have returned jus‘ after Jehoiakim’s
SECOND BOOKS OF
to the account of the whole book the proofs de
from the closing chapters, yet it must be bor
mind that the authorship of those parts of thi
tory of which Jeremiah was not an eye-witness
is, of all before the reign of Josiah, would
consisted merely in selecting, arranging, inse
the connecting phrases, and, when necessary, sli
modernizing (see Thenius, Hinleit. § 2) the ok
tories which had been drawn up by contemp
prophets through the whole period of time.
e. g. 1 K. xiii. 82. For, as regards the soure
information, it may truly be said that we hay
narrative of contemporary writers throughout
has already been observed [CHRONICLES]
there was a regular series of state-annals bot
the kingdom of Judah and for that of Israel,
embraced the whole time comprehended in
books of Kings, or at least to the end of the
of Jehoiakim, 2 K. xxiv. 5. These annal
constantly cited by name as “ the Book of the
of Solomon,” 1 K. xi. 41; and, after Solo
“the Book of the Chronicles of the King
Judah, on Israel,” e. g. 1 K. xiv. 29, xv. 7, x
14, 20; 2 K. x. 34, xxiv. 5, &c., and it is ma
that the author of Kings had them both |
him, while he drew~up his history, in 4
the reigns of the two kingdoms are harmor
and these annals constantly appealed to. B
addition to these national annals, there were
extant, at the time that the books of Kings
compiled, separate works of the several pro
who had lived in Judah and Israel, and
probably bore the same relation to the ar
which the historical parts of Isaiah and Jere
bear to those portions of the annals preserved i
books of Kings, 7. e. were, in some instane
least, fuller and more copious accounts of the
rent events, by the same hands which drew u'
more concise narrative of the annals, thoug
others perhaps mere duplicates. Thus the ac
Uzziah, written by Isaiah, were very likely ide
with the history of his reign in the national ¢
icles; and part of the history of Hezekiah we |
was identical in the chronicles and in the pro
The chapter in Jeremiah relating to the destru
of the ‘Temple (lii.) is identical with that in
xxiv., xxv. In later times we have supposed
a chapter in the prophecies of Daniel was use
the national chronicles, and appears as Eazy. '
[EzrA, Book or.] Compare also 2 K. x
with Is. vii. 1; 2K. xviii. 8, with Is. xiv. 2¢
As an instance of verbal agreement, coupled
greater fullness in the prophetic account, see
xx. compared with Is. xxxviii., in which latter :
is Hezekiah’s writing given. :
These other works, then, as far as the memo:
them has been preserved to us, were as follows
Keil's Apolog. Vers.). For the time of David
book of Samuel the seer, the book of Nathar
prophet, and the book of Gad the seer (2)
xxi.-xxiy. with 1 K.1, being probably extr
from Nathan’s book), which seem to have
collected —at least that portion of them rel:
to David—into one work called “the Act
David the King,’ 1 Chr. xxix. 29. For the
of Solomon, “the Book of the Acts of Solon:
death ; and “the king and the queen,” in ver
may mean Jehoiachin and his mother. Comp.
xxiv. 12, 15, which would be the fulfillment of
xiii. 18, 19. :
j
x
o
KINGS, FIRST AND
. xi. 41, consisting probably of parts of the
ok of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of
ah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the
9 Chr. ix. 29. For the time of Rehoboam,
e words of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo
seer concerning genealogies,’’ 2 Chr. xii. 15.
the time of Abijah, ‘the story (WIT) a of
prophet Iddo,”’ 2 Chr. xiii. 22. For the time
ehoshaphat, “the words of Jehu the son of
ani,” 2 Chr. xx. 34. For the time of Uzziah,
e writings of Isaiah the prophet,’ 2 Chr. xxvi.
For the time of Hezekiah, “ the vision of
h the prophet, the son of Amoz,’’ 2 Chr. xxxii.
For the time of Manasseh, a book called “the
igs of the seers,’’ as the A. V., following the
.., Vulg., Kimehi, ete., rightly renders the
age, in accordance with ver. 18, 2 Chr. xxxiii.
though others, following the grammar too
lely, make Chozai a proper name, because of
absence of the article. [CHRONICLES, vol. i.
31.] For the time of Jeroboam IL., a prophecy
Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, of
-hepher,”’ is cited, 2 K. xiv. 25; and it seems
y that there were books containing special his-
sof the acts of Elijah and Elisha, seeing that
jimes of these prophets are described with such
misness. Of the latter Gehazi might well have
the author, to judge from 2 K. viii. 4, 5, as
1a himself might have been of the former.
ibly too the prophecies of Azariah the son of
l, in Asa’s reign, 2 Chr. xv. 1, and of Hanani
hr. xvi. 7) (unless this latter is the same as
.son of Hanani, as Oded is put for Azariah in
') and Micaiah the son of Imlah, in Ahab’s
i; and Eliezer the son of Dodavah, in Jehosha-
's; and Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, in
ash’s; and Oded, in Pekah’s; and Zeehariah,
Jaaiah’s reizn; of the prophetess Huldah, in
h’s,.and others, may have been preserved in
ng, some or all of them. These works, or at
‘Many of them, must have been extant at the
when the books of Kings were compiled, as
certainly were much later when the books of
nicles were put together by Ezra. But
her the author used them all, or only those
tate portions of them which were embodied
@ national chronicles, it is impossible to say,
3 he quotes none of them by name except the
‘of Solomon, and the prophecy of Jonah. On
ther hand, we cannot infer from his silence
these books were unused by him, seeing that
er does he quote by name the Vision of Isaiah
Chronicler does, though he must, from its
t date, have been familiar with it, and that so
| parts of his uarrative have every appearance
‘ng extracted from these books of the prophets,
ontain narratives which it is not likely would
found a place in the chronicles of the kings.
re xiv. -4, dc. xvi. 1, &e., xi; 2 K.
che
ith regard to the work so often cited in the
icles as “the Book of the Kings of Israel and
yen Chr. ix. 1; 2 Chr. xvi. 11, xxvii. 7,
; 26, xxii. 32, xxxv. 27, xxxvi. 8, it has been
“ht by some that it was a separate collection
hning the joint histories of the two kingdoms;
oe
overs thinks the term wom implies trans-
from older works. he
lenius comes to the same conclusion (Einleit.
98
|
r
SECOND BOOKS OF 1558
by others that it is our books of Kings which answer
to this description; but by Eichhorn, that it is the
same as the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah so
constantly cited in the books of Kings; and this
last opinion seems the best founded. For in 2 Chr.
xvi. 11, the same book is called “the Book of the
Kings of Judah and Israel,’ which in the parallel
passage, 1 K. xv. 23, is called “the Book of the
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.” So again, 2
Chr. xxvii. 7, comp. with 2 K. xv. 36; 2 Chr.
XXxviil. 26, comp. with 2 K. xvi. 19; 2 Chr. xxxii.
32, comp. with 2 K. xx. 20; 2 Chr. xxxy. 27. with
2 K. xxiii. 28; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 8, with 2 K. xxiv. 5.
Moreover the book so quoted refers exclusively to
the affairs of Judah; and even in the one passage
where reference is made to it as “the Book of the
Kings of Israel,” 2 Chr. xx. 34, it is for the reign
of Jehoshaphat that it is cited. Obviously, there-
fore, it is the same work which is elsewhere
described as the Chr. of Israel and Judah, and of
Judah and Israel.» Nor is this an unreasonable
title to give to these chronicles. Saul, David, Solo-
mon, and in some sense Hezekiah, 2 Chr. xxx. 1,
5, 6, and all his successors were kings of Israel as
well as of Judah, and therefore it is very con-
ceivable that in Ezra’s time the chronicles of Judah
should have acquired the name of the Book of the
Kings of Israel and Judah. Even with regard to
a portion of Israel in the days of Rehoboam, the
Chronicler remarks, apparently as a matter of
gratulation, that “ Rehoboam reigned over them,”
2 Chr. x. 17; he notices Abijah’s authority in
portions of the Israelitish territory, 2 Chr. xiii.
18, 19, xv. 8, 9; he not unfrequently speaks of
Israel, when the kingdom of Judah is the matter
in hand, as 2 Chr. xii. 1, xxi. 4, xxiii. 2, &c., and
even calls Jehoshaphat “ King of Israel,’? 2 Chr.
xxi. 2, and distinguishes “ Israel and Judah,’’ from
‘Ephraim and Manasseh,’’ xxx. 1; he notices
Hezekiah’s authority from Dan to Beer-sheba, 2
Chr. xxx. 5, and Josiah’s destruction of idols
throughout all the land of Israel, xxxiv. 6-9, and
his passover for all Israel, xxxv. 17, 18, and seems
to parade the title King of Jsrael”’ in connection
with David and Solomon, xxxv. 3, 4, and the
relation of the Levites to ‘all Israel,’ ver. 3;
and therefore it is only in accordance with the
feeling displayed in such passages that the name,
“the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah”
should be given to the chronicles of the Jewish
kingdom. The use of this term in speaking of the
‘* Kings of Israel and Judah who were carried
away to Babylon for their transgression,” 1 Chr.
ix. 1, would be conclusive, if the construction of
the sentence were certain. But though it is absurd
to separate the words “and Judah’’ from Israel,
as Bertheau does (Kurzgef. Exeg. Handb.), tollow-
ing the Masoretie punctuation, seeing that the
“ Book of the Kings of Israes and Judah” is
cited in at least six other places in Chr., still it is
possible that Israel and Judah might be the
antecedent to the pronoun understood before 937.
It seems, however, much more likely that the ante-
° ” Is
cedent to MWS is ST) "Ww D9. On the
whole, therefore, there is no evidence of the exist-
ence in the time of the Chronicler of a history,
§ 3). It is cited in 2 Chr. xxiv. 27 as “the story ”
—the Midrash — L177 of the book of the Kings.
Comp 2 K. xii. 19.
1554 KINGS, FIRST AND
since lost, of the two kingdoms, nor are the books
of Kings the work so quoted by the Chronicler,
seeing he often refers to it for “the rest of the acts”
of Kings, when he has already given all that is
contained in our books of Kings. He refers there-
fore to the chronicles of Judah. From the above
authentic sources then was compiled the history in
the books under consideration. Judging from the
facts that we have in 2 K. xviii., xix., xx., the his-
tory of Hezekiah in the very words of Isaiah,
xxxvi.-xxxix.; that, as stated above, we have
several passages from Jeremiah in duplicate in 2 K.,
and the whole of Jer. lii. in 2 K. xxiv. 18, &c.,
xxv.; that so large a portion of the books of Kings
is repeated in the books of Chronicles, though the
writer of Chronicles had the original chronicles
also before him, as well as from the whole internal
character of the narrative, and even some of the
blemishes referred to under the 2d head; we may
conclude with certainty that we have in the books
of Kings, not only in the main the history faith-
fully preserved to us from the ancient chronicles,
but most frequently whole passages transferred
verbatim into them. Occasionally, no doubt, we
have the compiler’s own comments or reflections
thrown in, as at 2 K. xxi. 10-16, xvii. 10-15, xiii.
23, xvii. 7-41 &c. We connect the insertion of
the prophecy in 1 K. xiii. with the fact that the
compiler himself was an eye-witness of the fulfill-
ment of it, and can even see how the words ascribed
to the old prophet are of the age of the compiler.¢
We can perhaps see his hand in the frequent
repetition on the review of each reign of the
remark, “the high places were not taken away,
the people still sacrificed and burnt incense on the
high places,” 1 K. xxii. 43; 2 K. xii. 3, xiv. 4, xv.
4, 35; cf. 1 K. iii. 3, and in the repeated observa-
tion that such and such things, as the staves by
which the ark was borne, the revolt of the 10
tribes, the rebellion of Edom, etc., continue ‘ unto
this day,” though it may be perhaps doubted in
some cases whether these words were not in the old
chronicle (2 Chr. v. 9). See 1 K. viii. 8, ix. 13,
91, x. 12, xii. 19; 2 K. ii. 22, viii. 22, x. 27, xiii.
98, xiv. 7, xvi. 6, xvii. 23, 34, 41, xxiii. 25. It is,
however, remarkable that in no instance does the
use of this phrase lead us to suppose that it was
penned after the destruction of the Temple: in
several of the above instances the phrase necessarily
supposes that the Temple and the kingdom of
Judah were still standing. If the phrase then is
the compiler’s, it proves him to have written before
the Babylonish Captivity; if it was a part of the
chronicle he was quoting, it shows how exactly he
transferred its contents to his own pages.
IV. As regards the relation of the books of
Kings to those of Chronicles, it is manifest, and is
universally admitted, that the former is by far
the older work. The language, which is quite free
from the Persicisms of the Chronicles and their
late orthography, and is not at all more Aramaic
than the language of Jeremiah, as has been shown
above (II.), clearly points out its relative superiority
in regard to age. Its subject also, embracing the
kingdom of Israel as well as Judah, is another
indication of its composition before the kingdom
of Israel was forgotten, and before the Jewish
enmity to Samaria, which is apparent in such
passages as 2 Chr. xx. 37, xxv., and in those
a VY. 82 The phrase “ the cities of Samaria ” of
course cannot belong tc the age of Jeroboam.
SECOND BOOKS OF
chapters of Ezra (i.-vi.) which belong to C
cles, was brought to maturity. While the
of Chronicles therefore were written especia
the Jews after their return from Babylon
book of Kings was written for the whole of
before their common national existence was
lessly quenched.
Another comparison of considerable intere
tween the two histories may be drawn in resj
the main design, that design having a n
relation both to the individual station of th
posed writers, and the peculiar circumstan
their country at the times of their writing.
Jeremiah was himself a prophet. He lived
the prophetic office was in full vigor, in hi
person, in Ezekiel, and Daniel, and many «
both true and false. In his eyes, as in trut
main cause of the fearful calamities of his co
men was their rejection and contempt of the
of God in his mouth and that of the other |
ets; and the one hope of deliverance lay in
hearkening to the prophets who still contin
speak to them in the name of the Lord. A
ingly, we find in the books of Kings great |
nence given to the prophetic office. Not o1
some fourteen chapters devoted more or less
history of Elijah and Elisha, the former of
is but once named, and the latter not once
Chronicles; but besides the many passages in
the names and sayings of prophets are re
alike in both histories, the following may b
as instances in which the compiler of Kin
notices of the prophets which are peculiar t
self. The history of the prophet who wen!
Judah to Bethel in the reign of Jeroboam, :
the old prophet and his sons who dwelt at ]
1 K. xiii; the story of Ahijah the proph
Jeroboam’s wife in 1 K. xiv.; the prophecy o
the son of Hanani concerning the house of I
1 K. xvi.; the reference to the fulfillment
Word of God in the termination of Jehu’s d}
in 2 K. xy. 12; the reflections in 2 K. xvi.
and above all, as relating entirely to Juda
narrative of Hezekiah’s sickness and recovel
K. xx. as contrasted with that in 2 Chr.
may be cited as instances of that prominence
to prophecy and prophets by the compiler
book of Kings, which is also especially noti
De Wette, § 183, and Parker, transl. p. 233
This view is further confirmed if we tal
account the lengthened history of Samu
prophet, in 1 Sam. (while he is but barely
two or three times in the Chronicles), a ¢
stance, by the way, strongly connecting the
of Saniuel with those of Kings. :
Ezra, on the contrary, was only a priest. —
days the prophetic office had wholly falle
abeyance. That evidence of the Jews beil
people of God, which consisted in the prese
prophets among them, was no more. But
men of his generation, the distinctive mark
continuance of God’s favor to their race W
rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem, thet
tion of the daily sacrifice and the Levitical w
and the wonderful and providential renewal.
Mosaic institutions. The chief instrument, |
preserving the Jewish remnant from absorpti
the mass of heathenism, and for maintainin;
national life till the coming of Messiah, W
maintenance of the Temple, its ministers, ‘
services. Hence we see at once that the chi
of a good and enlightened Jew of the age of
ae
ia
KINGS, FIRST AND
all the more if he were himself a priest, would) that he did,’
rally be to enhance the value of the Levitical
ul, and the dignity of the Levitical caste. And
ompiling a history of the past glories of his
he would as naturally select such passages
specially bore upon the sanctity of the priestly
, and showed the deep concern taken by their
stors in all that related to the honor of God's
se, and the support of his ministering servants.
cee the Levitical character .of the books of
icles, and the presence of several detailed
tives not found in the books of Kings, and
nore frequent reference to the Mosaic institu-
, may most naturally and simply be accounted
vithout resorting to the absurd hypothesis that
eremonial law was an invention subsequent to
Captivity. 2 Chr. xxix., xxx., xxxi. compared
2K. xviii. is perhaps as good a specimen as
be selected of the distinctive spirit of the
nicles. See also 2 Chr. xxvi. 16-21, comp.
2K. xv. 5; 2 Chr. xi. 13-17, xiii. 9-20, xv.
, xxiii. 2-8, comp. with 2 K. xi. 5-9, and wv.
9, comp. with ver. 18, and many other pas-
Moreover, upon the principle that the
d writers were influenced by natural feelings
eir selection of their materials, it seems most
priate that while the prophetical writer in
s deals very fully with the kingdom of Israel,
ich the prophets were much more illustrious
in Judah, the Levitical writer, on the contrary,
d concentrate all his thoughts round Jerusalem
» alone the Levitical caste had all its power
functions, and should dwell upon all the
ices preserved in existing muniments of the
and even the minutest ministrations of the
sand Levites, as well as of their faithfulness
sufferings in the cause of truth. This pro-
aal bias is so true to nature, that it is
sing that any one should be found to raise
jection from it. Its subserviency in this
ce to the Divine purposes and the instruction
*Chureh, is an interesting example of the
lential government of God. It may be
T mentioned as tending to account simply
aturally for the difference in some of the nar-
3 in the books of Kings and Chronicles
tively, that whereas the compiler of Kings
¥ quotes the Book of the Chronicles of the
of Judah, the writer of Chronicles very fre-
Y refers to those books of the contemporary
its which we presume to have contained more
$ accounts of the same reigns. This appears
stably in the parallel passages in 1 K. xi. 41;
Ix. 29, where the writer of Kings refers for
est of Solomon’s acts’? to the “book of the
Solomon,” while the writer of Chronicles
to “the book of Nathan the prophet ”’ and
wophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,” and “the
of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son
at; and in 1 K. xiv. 29, and 2 Chr. xii. 15,
the writer of Kings sums up his history of
am with the words, “Now the rest of the
t Rehoboam and all that he did, are they not
| In the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings
th?” whereas the chronicler substitutes « in
ok of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo|
" Concerning genealogies; and in 1 K.
"Where “the Book of the Chronicles of the
f Judah” stands instead of «the Book of
he Son of Hanani,” in 2 Chr. xx. 34.
Which, the very formula so frequently
‘the rest of the acts of so and so, and all
SECOND BOOKS OF 1555
" etc., necessarily supposes that there
were in the chronicles of each reign, and in the
other works cited, many things recorded which the
compiler did not transcribe, and which of course
it was open to any other compiler to insert in his
narrative if he pleased. If then the chronicler,
writing with a different
be expected, th
should insert, or
briefly. The following
writers : —
Full in Kings.
1 K.i., ii. give in detail
the circumstances of Solo-
mon’s accession, the con-
spiracy of Adonijah, Joab,
Abiathar, ete., and sub-
stitution of Zadok in the
priest’s office in room of
Abiathar, the submission
of Adonijah and all his
party, Joab’s death, ete.
1 K. iii. 5-14.
Ver. 6. And Solomon
said, Thou hast showed
unto thy servant David my
father great mercy, ac-
cording as he walked be-
fore Thee in truth, and in
righteousness, and in up-
rightness of heart with
Thee ; and Thou hast kept
for him this great kind-
ness, that Thou hast given
him a son to sit on his
throne, as it is this day.”
7, 8, 9, 10. “And the
speech pleased the Lord,
that Solomon had asked
this thing.”
11. “ And God said unto
him,” ete.
13. *. . . like unto thee
all thy days.”
14. “And if thou wilt
walk in my ways, and
keep my statutes and my
commandments as thy
father David did walk,
then I will lengthen thy
days.”’
15. “And Solomon a-
woke, and behold it was
adream. And he came
to Jerusalem, and stood
before the ark of, the cov-
enant of the Lord, and
offered up burnt-offer-
ings, and offered peace-
offerings, and made a feast
to all his servants.”?
dilections, and in a different age,
Same original documents from which the author of
Kings drew his materials, it is only what was to
at he should omit or abridge some
things given in detail in the books of Kings, and
give in detail, some things which
the author of Kings had omitted,
side by side are examples
of treating the same subj
motive and different pre-
had access to the
or given very
passages which are placed
of these opposite methods
ect on the part of the two
Short in Chronicles
1 Chr. xxix. 22-94,
* And they made Solo-
mon the son of David king
the second time, and
anointed him unto the
Lord to be the chief gov-
ernor, and Zadok to be
priest. Then Solomon sat
on the throne of the Lord
as king instead of David
his father, and prospered,
and all Israel obeyed him.
And all the princes and
the mighty men, and all
the sons likewise of king
David, submitted them-
selves unto Solomon the
king.”
4 Chr.’ i. 7-12:
Ver. 8. “And Solomon
said unto God, Thou hast
shewed great mercy unto
David my father,
and hast made me to
reign in his stead.”
ll. “ And God said to
Solomon,” etc.
12. “... any after thee
have the like.”
13. Then Solomon
came from his journey to
the high place that was at
Gibeon to Jerusalem, from
before the tabernacle of
the congregation,
1556
Fuil in Kings.
16-28. Solomon’s judg-
ment.
iv. 1. “So king Solo-
mon was. king over all
Israel.”
2-19. Containing a list
of Solomon’s officers.
xi. 1-40. Containing his-
tory of Solomon’s idolatry,
and the enmity of Hadad,
and Rezon, and Jeroboam
against him.
xii, 2. © Who was yet in
Egypt.” The omission of
the word “ yet”? in Chron.
is of course accounted for
by his flight to Egypt not
having been narrated by
the chronicler.
1 K. xiv. 22-24.
A detailed account of
the idolatries of Judah in
the reign of Rehoboam.
Ko eve 38.
«Then Asa took all the
silver and the gold that
were left in the treasures
of the house of the Lord,
and the treasures: of the
king’s house, and deliv-
ered them into the hand
of his servants ; and king
Asa sent them to Benha-
dad the son of Tabrimon,
the son of Hezion, king of
Syria, that dwelt at Da-
mascus, saying, There is
@ league,’’ etc.
2K. xvi. 10-16.
A detailed account of
Abaz’s visit to Damascus,
and setting up an altar in
the temple at Jerusalem
after the pattern of one at
Damascus. Urijah’s sub-
serviency, etc.
xx. 1-19.
Hezekiah’s sickness,
prayer, and recovery, with
}saiah’s prophecy, and the
sign (f the shadow on the
dial ; the visit of the Baby-
lonish ambassadors ; Heze-
kiah’s pride, Isaiah’s re-
buke, and Hezekiah’s sub-
KINGS, FIRST AND
Full in Kings.
mission. Throughout the
history of Hezekiah the
narrative in 2 K. and
Isaiah is much fuller than
in Chronicles.
Short in Chronicles.
and reigned over Israel.”
Omitted in Chronicles.
Wholly omitted in
Chronicles, except the al-
lusion in 2 Chr. x. 2, “It
came to pass, when Jero-
boam the son of Nebat,
who was in Egypt, whith-
er he had fled from the
presence of Solomon the
king,”’ ete.
2 Chr. xiii.
« And it came to pass
when Rehoboam had es-
tablished the kingdom,
and had _ strengthened
himself, he forsook the
law of the Lord, and all
Israel with him.”
2 Chr. xvi. 2.
Then Asa brought
out silver and gold out of
the treasures of the house
of the Lord, and of the
king’s house, and
xxi. 10-16.
Message from God to
Manasseh by His prophets.
Manasseh’s sin.
2K. xxiii. 4-25.
Detailed account of the
destruction of Baal-wor-
ship and other idolatrous
rites and places in Judah
and Israel, by Josiah,
“that he might perform
the words of the law
which were written in the
book that Hilkiah the
priest found in the house
of the Lord.”
sent to Benhadad
SECOND BOOKS OF
Short in Chronic
for his heart was lifte
therefore there was
upon him, and upo
dah and Jerusalem.
withstanding, He
humbled himself fc
pride of his heart, bi
and the inhabitants
rusalem, so that the
of the Lord came not
them in the days of
kiah.”” Ver. 81. “Hi
in the business of tl
bassadors of the pris
Babylon, who sent
him to enquire o
wonder done in the
God left him to tr
that he might kn
that was in his hea
2 Chr. xxxiii. 1
‘And the Lord
to Manasseh and h
ple: but they wou
hearken.”’
2 Chr. xxxiv. 82.
« And the inhal
of Jerusalem did ¢
ing to the covena
God, the God of thei
ers. And Josiah
away all the abomit
out of all the co
that pertained |
children of Israe
made all that were
in Israel to serve, ‘
serve the Lord thei:
In like manner a comparison of the histor)
reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachit
Zedekiah, will show, that, except in the ma
Jehoiakim’s capture in the 4th year of his
and deportation to (or towards) Babylon, in
the author of Chronicles follows Daniel and
(Dai. 2,725 Fz. xix. 9), the narrative in
icles is chiefly an abridgment of that in
Compare 2 K. xxiii. 30-37, with 2 Chr. xxx\
9 K. xxiv. 1-7, with 2 Chr. xxxvi. 6-8; 2k
10-17, with 2 Chr. xxxvi. 10. From 2 Chr
13, however, to the end of the chapter, is
comment upon the history in 2 K. xxv. 1-2
an abridgment of it.
Under this head should be noticed also wh
be called systematic abridgments ; as when th
ments in Kings concerning high-place worshi
several reigns (2 K. xii. 2, 3, xiv. 3, 4, xV-¢
are either wholly omitted, or more cursorily
at, as at 2 Chr. xxv. 2, xxvii. 2; or when the}
the queen-mother is omitted, as in the cas
seven last kings from Manasseh downwards
mothers are given by the author of Kings, bu
out by the author of Chronicles. 4 There :
king of Syria, that dwelt
at Damascus, saying,
There is a league,”’ ete.
2 Chr. xxviii. 22, 28.
« And in the time of his
distress did he trespass
yet more against the Lord:
this is that king Ahaz.
For he sacrificed unto the
gods of Damascus which
smote him. And he said,
Because the gods of Syria
help them, therefore will
I sacrifice to them, that
they may help me.?’
xxxii. 24-26.
‘In those days Heze-
kiah was sick to the death,
and prayed unto the Lord,
and He spake unto him
and gave hima sign. But
Hezekiah rendered not
again according to the
benefit done unto him ;
a The annexed list of kings’ mothers shows which
Amaziah son of Jehoaddan, K. and Chr.
are named in Kings and Chronicles, which in Kings} Uzziah « Jecoliah, K. and Chr. |
alone : — Jotham « Jerusha, K/ and Chr |
Ahaz is |
Solomon son of Bathsheba, K. and Chr. (i. jii. 5). Hezekiah ee Abi, K. and Chr.
Rehoboam ‘ Naamah, K. and Chr. Manasseh ‘ Hephzi-bah, K.
Abijah « Maachahb or Michaiah, K. and Chr. Amon ee Meshullemeth, K.
Asa As Maachah, da. of Absalom, K. and Chr. Josiah ee Jedidah, K.
Jehoshaphat** Azubahb, K. and Chr. Jehoahaz « Hamutal, K.
Jehoram Jehoiakim “ Zebudah, K.
Ahaziab e Athaliah, K. and Chr. Jehoiachin ee Nehushta, K.
Joash « Zibiah, K. and Chr. Jedekiah «* Hamutal. K.
4
KINGS, FIRST AND
systematic also in the omitted or abbreviated
unts of the idolatries in the reigns of Solomon,
oboam, and Ahaz. It may not always be easy
assign the exact motives which influence a
er, who is abbreviating, in his selection of pas-
35 to be shortened or left out; but an obvious
ive in the case of these idolatries, as well as the
h-places, may be found in the circumstance that
idolatrous tendencies of the Jews had wholly
ed during the Captivity, and that the details
repetition of the same remarks relating to them
e therefore less suited to the requirements of the
To see a design on the part of the Chronicler
leceive and mislead, is to draw a conclusion not
n the facts before us, but from one’s own prej-
ses. It is not criticism, but invention.
Mn the other hand, the subjoined passages pre-
| some instances in which the books of Kings
: the short account, and the books of Chronicles
full one.
Short in Kings. Full in Chronicles.
1K. viii.
fer. 10. ** And it came
pass when the priests
e come out. of the holy
>
“
2 Chr. v.
Ver. 11. “* And it came
to pass when the priests
were come out of the holy
place: (for all the priests
that were present were
sanctified, and did not
then wait by course:
12. ** Also the Levites
which were the singers,
all of them of Asaph, of
Heman, of Jeduthun, with
their sons and their breth-
ren, being arrayed in
white linen, having cym-
bals and psalteries and
harps, stood at the east
end of the altar, and with
co them 120 priests, sound-
¥. ing with trumpets :)
18. “It came even to
pass, as the trumpeters
and singers were as one, to
make one sound to be
heard in praising and
thanking the Lord; and
when they lifted up their
voice with the trumpets
and cymbals and instru-
ments of music,@ and
praised the Lord, saying,
For He is good, for His
mercy endureth for ever ;
that then the house was
filled with a cloud, even
the house of the Lord.
14. * So that the priests
could not stand to minis-
ter by reason of the cloud :
for the glory of the Lord
had filled the house of
» the cloud filled the
‘xe of the Lord,
'L® So that the priests
not stand to minis-
because of the cloud :
the glory of the Lord
filled the house of the
LL God. Then said Solo-
2. “Then said Solo- mon,” etc.
1.” ete.
.
|
| A curious incidental confirmation of the fact of
copious use of musical instruments in Solomon’s
“May be found in 1 K. x. 11, 12, where we read
t Solomon made of the ‘ great plenty of almug-
Ha which came from Ophir ‘ harps and psalteries
‘Mngers.” Several able critics (as Ewald) have in-
|
|
SECOND BOOKS OF
Short in Kings.
1 K. viii.
Ver. 52 corresponds
with 2 Chr. vi. 40. Ver.
53is omitted in Chr.
54. ** And it was so that
when Solomon had made
an end of praying all this
prayer and supplication
unto the Lord, he arose
from before the altar of
the Lord, from kneeling
on his knees with his
hands spread up to
heaven.”
55-61. “ And he stood
and blessed all the con-
gregation,”’ etc.
62. “ And the king, and
all Israel with him, offered
sacrifices before the Lord.”
1557
Full in Chronicles.
2 Chr. vi., vii.
Ver. 41. “Now there
fore arise. O Lord God,
into thy resting-place,
thou, and the ark of thy
strength: let thy priests,
OQ Lord God, be clothed
with salvation, and thy
saints rejoice in goodness.
42. °O Lord God, turn
not away the face of thine
anointed ; remember the
mercies of David thy ser
vant,
1. * Now when Solo
man had made an end of
praying, the fire came
down from heaven, and
consumed the burnt-offer-
ing and the sacrifices, and
the glory of the Lord
filled the house, and the
priests could not enter
into the house of the Lord,
because the glory of the
Lord had filled the Lord’s
house.6 And when all
the children of Israel
saw how the fire came
down, and the glory of the
Lord upon the house, they
bowed themselves with
their faces to the ground,
upon the pavement, and
worshipped and _ praised
the Lord, saying, For He
is good, for His mercy en-
dureth for ever.
4. “Then the king and
all the people offered sac-
rifice before the Lord.”
1 K. xii. 24 corresponds with 2 Uhr. xi. 4.
Wholly omitted in
Kings, where from xii. 25
to xiv. 20 is occupied with
the kingdom of Israel, and
seems to be not improba-
bly taken from the book
of Ahijah the Shilonite.
xiv. 25, 26.
A very brief mention of
Shishak’s invasion, and
plunder of the sacred and
royal treasures.
1 K. xv.
Ver. 7. ** And there was
war between Abijam and
Jeroboam.”
2 Chr. xi. 5-28.
Containing particulars
of the reign of Rehoboam,
and the gathering of
priests and Levites to Je-
rusalem, during his three
first years, very likely
from the book of Iddo, as
this passage has a genea-
logical form.
xii. 2-9.
A more detailed account
of Shishak’s invasion, of
the number and nature of
his troops, the capture of
the fenced cities of Judah,
and the prophesying of
Shemaiah on the occasion ;
evidently extracted from
the book of Shemaiah.
2 Chr. xiii.
Ver. 2. ** And there was
war between Abijah and
Jeroboam.”’
8-21 contains a detailed
account of the war be-
ferred from the frequent mention of the Levitical
musical services, that the author of Chronicles was one
of the singers of the tribe of Levi himself.
b This is obviously repeated here, because at this
moment the priests ought to have entered into the
house, but could not because of the glory.
1558
Short in Kings.
7. “ And the rest of the
acts of Abijam, and all
that he did, are they not
written in the book of the
Chronicles of the Kings of
Judah,”’ etc.
8. And Abijam slept
with his fathers,”’ etc.
1 K. xy.
12. (Asa) “took away
the sodomites out of the
land, and removed all the
idols that his fathers had
made.”*
Entirely omitted.
16-23. His war with
Baasha.
23. “ Nevertheless in
the time of his old age he
was diseased in his feet.??
24. “And Asa slept
with his fathers.’
1K. xxii. 41-50.
Jehoshaphat was 35
years old when he began
to reign,’”’ etc. These few
verses are all the account
of Jehoshaphat’s reign, ex-
cept what is contained in
the history of Israel.
All omitted in Kings.
KINGS, FIRST AND
Full in Chronicles.
tween the two kings; of
Abijah’s speech to the Is-
raelites, upbraiding them
with forsaking the Leviti-
cal worship, and glorying
in the retention of the
same by Judah; his vic-
tories, and his family.
22. “ And the rest of
the acts of Abijah, and his
ways and his sayings, are
written in the story (mid-
rash) of the prophet Iddo.”
23. And Abijah slept
with his fathers,” ete.
(xiv. 1, A. V.)
xiv. 3-15, xv. 1-16.
A detailed account of
the removal of the idols;
the fortifying the cities of
Judah ; of Asa’s army; the
invasion of Zerah the
Ethiopian ; Asa’s victory ;
Azariah the son of Oded’s
prophecy; Asa’s further
reforms in the 15th year
of his reign.
xvi. 7-14.
Hanani’s prophecy
against Asa, for calling in
the aid of Tabrimon king
of Syria; Asa’s wrath,
disease, death, embalming,
and burial.
And Asa slept with
his fathers, and died in
the 41st year of his reign.”
2 Chr. xvii.
1. “And Jehoshaphat
his son reigned in his
stead.”’
2-19 describes how the
king strengthened himself
against Israel by putting
garrisons in the fortified
» towns of Judah, and some
in Ephraim ; his wealth;
his zeal in destroying idol-
atry ; his measures for in-
structing the people in the
law of the Lord by means
of priests and Levites ; his
captains, and the numbers
of his troops.
1K. xxii. (from history of Israel) = 2 Chr. xviii.
All omitted in Kings.
All omitted in Kings.
2 Chr. xix.
Jehoshaphat’s reproof
by Jehu the son of Hanani.
His renewed zeal against
idolatry. His appointment
of judges, and his charge
to them. Priests and Le-
vites appointed as judges
at Jerusalem under Am-
ariah the high-priest.
2 Chr. xx. 1-80.
Invasion of Moabites
and Ammonites. Jehosh-
aphat’s fast ; his prayer to
God for aid. The prophecy
of Jahaziel. Ministration
of the Levites with the
army. Discomfiture and
plunder of the enemy
Return to Jerusalem.
Levitical procession.
SECOND BOOKS OF
Short in Kings.
Full in Chronicles,
1K. xxii. 48, 49, 50 = 2 Chr. xx. 35, 36, xxi. J
Omitted in Kings. The
refusal of Jehoshaphat
was after the prophecy of
Eliezer.
Omitted in Kings.
Omitted in Kings.
2 K. ix. 27.
* And when Ahaziah the
king of Judah saw this, he
fled by the way of the
garden-house. And Jehu
followed after him, and
said, Smite him also in the
chariot. And they did so
at the going up to Gur,
which is by Ibleam. And
he fled to Megiddo, and
2 Chr. xx. 87,
Prophecy of Elieze:
2 Chr. xxi. 2-4,
Additional _ histor
Jehoshaphat’s family,
2 Chr. xxi. 11-19, xx
Idolatries of Jeho
Writing of Elijah. 1]
sion of Judah by Pi
tines and Arab
Slaughter of the k
sons. Miserable sick
and death of Jehoran
2 Chr. xxii. 7-9,
And the destru
of Ahaziah was of Go
coming to Joram:
when he was come
went out with Jeh
against Jehu the so:
Nimshi, whom the _
had anointed to cut of
house of Ahab. Ar
came to pass that y
died there. And his ser-
vants carried him in a
chariot to Jerusalem, and
buried him in his sepul-
chre with his fathers in
the city of David.”
Jehu was executing j
ment upon the hous
Ahab, and found
princes of Judah and
sons of the brethre
Ahaziah, that minist
to Ahaziah, he slew tl
And he sought Ahz
and they caught him
he was hid in Sama
and they brought hi
Jehu ; and when they
slain him they buried |
because,said they, he i
son of Jehoshaphat,
sought the Lord wit
his heart. So the h
of Ahaziah had no pi
still to keep the kingdc
With reference to the above two accounts of
death of Ahaziah, which have been thought :
concilable (Ewald, iii. 529; Parker's De Wi
270; Thenius, etc.), it may be here remarked,
the order of the events is sufficiently intelligib
we take the account in Chronicles, where the k
dom of Judah is the main subject, as explana
of the brief notice in Kings, where it is only i
dentally mentioned in the history of Israel.
order is clearly as follows: Ahaziah was
Jehoram at Jezreel when Jehu attacked and ki
him. Ahaziah escaped and fled by the Beth-
road to Samaria, where the partisans of the h
of Ahab were strongest, and where his own bret!
were, and there concealed himself. But when
sons of Ahab were all put to death in Samaria,
the house of Ahab had hopelessly lost the kingd
he determined to make his submission to Jehu,
sent his brethren to salute the children of Jel
(2 K. x. 18), in token of his acknowledgment
him as king of Israel. Jehu, instead of accep!
this submission, had them all put to death,
hastened on to Samaria to take Ahaziah also,
he had probably learnt from some of the attenda
a Not, as Thenius and others, the children of
horam, and of Jezebel the queen-mother
‘KINGS, FIRST AND
s he already knew, was at Samaria. Ahaziah
n took to flight northwards, towards Megiddo,
aps in hope of reaching the dominiuns of the
-of the Sidonians, his kinsman, or more prob-
to reach the coast, where the direct road from
2 to Egypt would bring him to Judah.
SAREA.| He was hotly pursued by Jehu and
followers, and overtaken near Ibleam, and mor-
- wounded, but managed to get as far as
iddo, where it should seem Jehu followed in
uit of him, and where he was brought to him
is prisoner. ‘There he died of his wounds. In
ideration of his descent from Jehoshaphat,
10 sought Jehovah with all his heart,” Jehu,
was at this time very forward in displaying
zeal for Jehovah, handed over the corpse to his
wers, with permission to carry it to Jerusalem,
hh they did, and buried him in the city of
id. The whole difficulty arises from the ac-
t in Kings being abridged, and so bringing
ther two incidents which were not consecutive
¢ original account. But if 2 K. ix. 27 had
_even divided into two verses, the first ending
garden-house,”’ and the next beginning “ and
| followed after him,” the difficulty would
st disappear. Jehu’s pursuit of Ahaziah would
be interrupted by a day or two, and there
id be nothing the least unusual in the omission
tice this interval of time in the concise abridged
ative. We should then understand that the
| also in the original narrative referred not to
ram, but to the brethren of Ahaziah, who had
before been smitten, and the death of Ahaziah
d fall under 2 K. x.17. If Beth-gan (A. V.
‘den-house’’) be the same as En-gannim, now
n, it lay directly on the road from Jezreel to
aria, and is also the place at which the road
egiddo and the coast, where Ceesarea afterwards
|, turns off from the road between Jezreel and
itia@ In this case the mention of Beth-gan
ings as the direction of Ahaziah’s flight is a
tmation of the statement in Chronicles that
meealed himself in Samaria. This is also sub-
‘ally Keil’s explanation (p. 288, 289). Movers
)ses an alteration of the text (p. 92, note), but
very successfully (TAT NAT NOD) in-
of TONS ATTND)),
ae other principal additions in the books of
nicles to the facts stated in Kings are the
ving. In 2 Chr. xxiv. 17-24 there is an ac-
4 0f Joash’s relapse into idolatry after the death
thoiada, of Zechariah’s prophetic rebuke of
‘and of the stoning of Zechariah by the king's
jand in the very court of the Temple; and the
-n invasion, and ‘the consequent calamities of
‘lose of Joash's reign are stated to have been
yonsequence of this iniquity. The book of
18 gives the history of the Syrian invasion at
‘lose of Joash’s reign, but omits all mention
ehariah’s death. In the account of the Syrian
lon also some details are given of a battle in
a Jehoash was defeated, which are not men-
1 in Kings, and repeated reference is made to
‘in of the king and people as having drawn
) this judgment upon them. But though the
“sy of Jehoash is not mentioned in the book
Ags, yet it is clearly implied in the expression
xii. 2), “ Jehoash did that which was right
ee ee eee ee
i Van de Velde’s map of the Holy Land, and
vy 8. § P, p- 842,
SECOND BOOKS OF 1589
in the eyes of Jehovah all his days, wherein Jehoiada
the priest instructed him.’ ‘The silence of Kings
is perhaps to be accounted for by the author fol-
lowing here the Chronicle of the Kings, in which
Zechariah’s death was not given. And the truth
of the narrative in the book of Chronicles is con-
firmed by the distinct reference to the death of
Zechariah, Luke xi. 49-51.
2 Chr. xxv. 5-16 contains a statement of a ge-
nealogical character, and in connection with it an
account of the hiring of 100,000 mercenaries out
of Israel, and their dismissal by Amaziah on the
bidding of a man of God. This is followed by an
account (in greater detail than that in Kings) of
Amaziah’s victory over the Edomites, the plunder
of certain cities in Judah by the rejected mercenaries
of Israel, the idolatry of Amaziah with the idols of
Edom, and his rebuke by a prophet.
2 Chr. xxvi. 5-20 contains particulars of the
reign of Uzziah, his wars with the Philistinés, his
towers and walls which he built in Jerusalem and
Judah, and other statistics concerning his kingdom,,
somewhat of a genealogical character; and lastly,
of his invasion of the priestly office, the resistance
of Azariah the priest, and the leprosy of the king.
Of all this nothing is mentioned in Kings except
the fact of Uzziah’s leprosy in the latter part of
his reign; a fact which cenfirms the history in
Chronicles. The silence of the book of Kings may
most probably be explained here on the mere prin-
ciple of abridgment.
2 Chr. xxvii. 2-6 contains some particulars of
the reign of Jotham, especially of the building done
by him, and the tribute paid by the Ammonites,
which are not contained in Kings.
2 Chr. xxviii. 17-19 gives details of invasions by
idomites and Philistines, and of cities of Judah
taken by them in the reign of Ahaz, which are not.
recorded in Kings. 2 K. xvi. 5 speaks only of the
hostile attacks of Rezin and Pekah. But 2 Chr.
Xxix.—xxxi. contains by far the longest and most
important addition to the narrative in the book of
Kings. It is a detailed and circumstantial account
of the purification of the Temple by Hezekiah’s
orders m the first year of his reign, with the names
of all the principal Levites who took part in it, and
the solenin sacrifices and musical services with
which the Temple was reopened, and the worship
of God reinstated, after the desuetude and idolatries
of Ahaz’s reign. It then gives a full account of
the celebration of a great Passover at Jerusalem in
the second month, kept by all the tribes, telling us
that ‘since the time of Solomon the son of David
king of Israel there was not the like in Jerusalem ;
and goes on to describe the destruction of idols
both in Judah and Israel; the revival of the courses
of priests and Levites, with the order for their
proper maintenance, and the due supply of the
daily, weekly, and monthly sacrifices; the prepara-
tion of chambers in the Temple for the reception
of the tithes and dedicated things, with the names
of the various Levites appointed to different charges
connected with them. Of this there is no mention
in Kings: only the high religious character and
zeal, and the attachment to the law of Moses,
ascribed to him in 2 K. xviii. 4-6, is in exact ac-
cordance with these details.
2 Chr. xxxii. 2-8 supplies some interesting facts
6 From 1 Chr. ix. 1, it appears that * The Book of
the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” contained a
copious collection of genealogies.
1560 KINGS, FIRST AND
connected with the defense of Jerusalem, and its
supplies of water, in Hezekiah’s reign, which are
not mentioned in 2 K. xviii.
2 Chr. xxxiii. 11-19 contains the history of
Manasseh’s captivity, deportation to Babylon, re-
pentance and restoration to his throne, and an
account of his buildings in Jerusalem after his
return. The omission of this remarkable passage
of history in the book of Kings is perhaps one of
the most difficult to account for. But since the
circumstances are, in the main, in harmony with
the narrative in Kings, and with what we know
of the profane history of the times (as Keil has
shown, p. 427), and since we have seen numerous
other omissions of important events in the books
of Kings, to disbelieve or reject it on that account,
or to make it a ground of discrediting the book
of Chronicles, is entirely contrary to the spirit of
sound criticism. Indeed all the soberer German
critics accept it as truth, and place Manasseh’s
captivity under Esarhaddon (Bertheau, em Joc.).4
Bertheau suggests that some support to the account
may perhaps be found in 2 K. xx. 17 ff. Movers,
while he defends the truth of Manasseh’s exile to
Babylon, seems to give up the story of his repent-
ance, and reduces it to the level of a moral romance,
such as the books of Tobit and Judith. But such
a mode of explaining away plain historical state-
ments of a trustworthy historian, who cites contem-
porary documents as his authority (let alone the
peculiar character of the Bible histories as “ given
by inspiration of God’’), cannot reasonably be ac-
cepted. There is doubtless some reason why the
repentance of Manasseh for his dreadful and heinous
wickedness was not recorded in the book of Kings,
and why it was recorded in Chronicles; just as
there is some reason why the repentance of the
thief on the cross is only recorded by one evangelist,
and why the raising of Lazarus is passed over in
silence in the three first Gospels. It may be a
moral reason: it may have been that. Manasseh’s
guilt being permanent in its fatal effects upon his
country, he was to be handed down to posterity in
the national record as the SINFUL KING, though,
having obtained mercy as a penitent man, his re-
pentance and pardon were to have a record in the
more private chronicle of the church of Israel. But,
whatever the cause of this silence in the book of
Kings may be, there is nothing to justify the rejec-
tion as non-historical of any part of this narrative
in the book of Chronicles.
Passing over several other minor additions, such
as 2 Chr. xxxiv. 12-14, xxxv. 25, xxxvi. 6, 7, 13,
17, it may suffice to notice in the last place the
circumstantial account of Jos1AH’s PASSOVER in
2 Chr. xxxv. 1-19, as compared with 2 K. xxiii.
91-23. This addition has the same strong Levitical
character that appears in some of the other addi-
tions; contains the names of many Levites, and
especially, as in so many other passages of Chron-
icles, the names of singers; but is in every respect,
except as to the time,? confirmatory of the brief
account in Kings. It refers, curiously enough, to
a great Passover held in the days of Samuel (thus
@ In like manner the Book of Kings is silent con-
cerning Jehoiakim’s being carried to Babylon; and
yet Dan. i. 2, Kz. xix. 9, both expressly mention it,
in accordance with 2 Chr. xxxvi. 6.
> See above, under II.
c This appears by comparing the parallel passages,
and especially noticing how the formula, ‘Now the | Chr. xxvi. 21,
SECOND BOOKS OF
defining the looser expressions in 2 K. xxii
“the days of the judges’’), of which the mem
like that. of Joab’s terrible campaign in Edom
xi. 15, 16), has not been preserved in the boo
Samuel, and enables us to reconcile one of
little verbal apparent discrepancies which are ju
at by lwstile and unscrupulous criticism. « Fc
detailed account of the two Passovers in the 1
of Hezekiah and Josiah enables us to see,
while Hezekiah’s was most remarkable for tl
tensive feasting and joy with which it was celeb
Josiah’s was more to be praised for the exact
in which everything was done, and the fuller 1
of all the tribes in the celebration of it (2 Chr
26, xxxv. 18; 2 K. xxiii. 22). As regards
crepancies which have been imagined to exi
tween the narratives in Kings and Chror
besides those already noticed, and _ besides
which are too trifling to require notice, the ac
of. the repair of the Temple by King Joash
that of the invasion of Judah by Hazael it
same reign may be noticed. For the latte
Joasu. As regards the former, the only re:
ficulty is the position of the chest for receivin
contributions. The writer of 2 K. xii. 9 see
place it in the inner court, close to the brazen
and says that the priests who kept the doc
therein all the money that was brought int
house of Jehovah. The writer of 2 Chr. x3
places it apparently in the outer court, at th
trance into the inner court, and makes the p
and people cast the money into it them:
Bertheau thinks there were two chests. Ligh
that it was first placed by the altar, and after
removed outside at the gate (ix. 374, 375)
whether, either, of these be the true explanati
whether rather the same spot be not intend
the two descriptions, the point is too unimp
to require further consideration in this place.
Krom the above comparison of parallel nar
in the two books, which, if given at all, i
necessary to give somewhat fully, in order t
them fairly, it appears that the results are pre
what would naturally arise from the cireums'
of the case. The writer of Chronicles, havir
books of Kings before him,¢ and to a great
making those books the basis of his own, bu
having his own personal views, predilection
motives in writing, writing for a different ag
for people under very different circumstances:
moreover, having before him the original auth
from which the books of Kings were compii
well. as some others, naturally rearranged the
narrative as suited his purpose, and his tastes
in full passages which the other had abridgs
serted what had been wholly omitted, omitted
things which the other had inserted, ine
everything relating to the kingdom of Israe
showed the color of his own mind, not only
nature of the passages which he selected fre
ancient documents, but in the reflections wh
frequently adds upon the events which he 1
and possibly also in the turn given to some
speeches which he records. But to say, as ha
————_——<—— ooo
rest of the acts,” etc., comes in in both books
e.g. 1K. xv. 23, 24, and 2 Chr. xvi. 11, 12. |
1 K. xiv. 81, xv. 1, compared with 2 Ohr. xii. ]
1, 2, is another striking proof. So is the re
of rare words found in K. by the Chronicler. ,
2 K. xiv. 14 with 2 Chr. xxv. 24, 2 K, xv. 5
1 K, iv. 26 with 2 Ohr. ix. 20
KINGS, FIRST AND
d or insinuated, that a different view of super-
wral agency and Divine interposition, or of the
saic institutions and the Levitical worship, is
en in the two books, or that a less historical
wacter belongs to one than to the other, is to
‘what has not the least foundation in_ fact.
pernatural agency, as in the cloud which filled
Temple of Solomon, 1 K. viii. 10, 11; the ap-
ance of the Lord to Solomon, iii. 5, 11, ix. 2 ff.;
withering of Jeroboam’s hand, xiii. 83-6; the
from heaven which consumed Elijah’s sacrifice,
ii. 38, and numerous other incidents in the lives
Elijah and Elisha; the smiting of Sennacherib’s
ay, 2 K. xix. 35; the going back of the shadow
the dial of Ahaz, xx. 11; and in the very frequent
phecies uttered and fulfilled, is really more often
luced in these books than in the Chronicles.
e selection therefore of one or two instances of
aculous agency which happen to be mentioned
Chronicles and not in Kings, as indications of
‘superstitious credulous disposition of the Jews
r the Captivity, can have no effect but to mis-
1. The same may be said of a selection of pas-
es in Chronicles in which the mention of Jewish
latry is omitted. It conveys a false inference,
ause the truth is that the Chronicler does expose
idolatry of Judah as severely as the author of
1gs, and traces the destruction of Judah to such
latry quite as clearly and forcibly (2 Chr. xxxvi.
ff). The author of Kings again is quite as
licit in his references to the law of Moses, and
‘many allusions to the Levitical ritual, though
does not dwell so copiously upon the details.
@ g. 1K. ii. 3, iii. 14, viii. 2, 4, 9, 53, 56, ix.
0, x. 12, xi. 2, xii. 31, 32; 2 K. xi. 5-7, 12,
9, 11, 13, 16, xiv. 6, xvi. 13, 15, xvii. 7-12,
1, 34-39, xviii. 4, 6, xxii. 4, 5, 8 ff., xxiii. 21,
besides the constant references to the Temple,
to the illegality of high-place worship. So that
arks on the Levitical tone of Chronicles, when
le for the purpose of supporting the notion that
law of Moses was a late invention, and that the
itieal worship was. of post-Babylonian growth,
made in the teeth of the testimony of the books
Kings, as well as those of Joshua, J udges, and
mel. The opinion that these books were com-
1 “towards the end of the Babylonian exile,”
‘oubtless also adopted in order to weaken as
‘h as possible the force of this testimony (De
‘te, li. p. 248; Th. Parker’s transl.). As re-
's the weight to be given to the judement of
3 “of the liberal school,”’ on such questions,
‘ay be observed by the way that they commence
ysuch investigation with this axiom as a sturt-
‘point, “ Nothing supernatural can be true.”
‘orophecy is of course comprehended under this
m. Every writing therefore containing any
ence to the Captivity of the Jews, as 1 K. viii.
{7, ix. 7, 8, must have been written after the
ts referred to. No events of a supernatural
| could be attested in contemporary historical
ments. All the narratives therefore in which
| vents are narrated do not belong to the
vnt annals, but must be of later growth, and so
i How far the mind of a critic, who has such
om to start with, is free to appreciate the
‘and more delicate kinds of evidence by which
late of documents is decided it is easy to per-
ee
‘The miracle of the loaves and fishes (Luke ix. 13,
liv. 42; John vi. 9. 2 K. iy. 43), and the catching
» Of Philip, Acts viii. 39, 40, as compared with 1
|
J
SECOND BOOKS OF 1561
ceive. However, these remarks are made here solely
to assist the reader in coming to a right decision
on questions connected with the criticism of the
books of Kings.
V. The last point for our consideration is the
place of these books in the Canon, and the references
to them in the N. T. Their canonical authority
having never heen disputed, it is needless to bring
forward the testimonies to their authenticity which
may be found in Josephus, Eusebius, Jerome, Au-
gustine, etc., or in Bp. Cosin, or any other modern
work on the Canon of Scripture. [CANnon.] They
are reckoned, as has been already noticed, among
the Prophets [BrBLE, vol. i. p. 304 a], in the three-
fold division of the Holy Scriptures; a position in
accordance with the supposition that they were
compiled by Jeremiah, and contain the narratives
of the different prophets in succession. They are
frequently cited by our Lord and by the Apostles.
Thus the allusions to Solomon's glory (Matt. vi.
29); to the queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon to
hear his wisdom (xii. 42); to the Temple (Acts vii.
47, 48); to the great drought in the days of Elijah,
and the widow of Sarepta (Luke iv. 25, 26); to the
cleansing of Naaman the Syrian (ver. 27); to the
charge of Elisha to Gehazi (2 K. iv. 29, comp. with
Luke x. 4); to the dress of Elijah (Mark i. 6, comp.
with 2 K. i. 8); to the complaint of Elijah, and
God’s answer to him (Rom. xi. 3, 4); to the raising
of the Shunammite’s son from the dead (Heb. xi.
35); to the giving and withholding the rain in answer
to Elijah’s prayer (Jam. vy. 17, 18; Rey. xi. 6); to
Jezebel (Rev: ii. 20); are all derived from the books
of Kings, and, with the statement of Elijah’s pres-
ence at the ‘Transfiguration, are a striking testimony
to their value for the purpose of religious teaching,
and to their authenticity as a portion of the Word
of God.¢
On the whole then, in this portion of the history
of the Israelitish people to which the name of the
Books of Kings has been given, we have (if we
except those errors in numbers, which are either
later additions to the original work, or accidental
corruptions of the text) a most important and
accurate account of that people during upwards of
four hundred years of their national existence, de-
livered for the most part by contemporary writers,
and guaranteed by the authority of one of the most
eminent of the Jewish prophets. Considering the
conciseness of the narrative, and the simplicity of
the style, the amount of knowledge which these
books convey of the characters, conduct, and man-
ners of kings and people during so long a period is
truly wonderful. The insight they give us into the
aspect of Judah and Jerusalem, both natural and
artificial, into the religious, military, and civil in-
stitutions of the people, their arts and manufactures,
the state of education and learning among them,
their resources, commerce, exploits, alliances, the
causes of their decadence, and finally of their ruin,
is most clear, interesting, and instructive. In a
few brief sentences we acquire more accurate knowl-
edge of the affairs of Egypt, Tyre, Syria, Assyria,
Babylon, and other neighboring nations, than had
been preserved to us in all the other remains of
antiquity up to the recent discoveries in hieroglyph-
ical and cuneiform monuments. If we seek in
them a system of scientific chronology, we may
K. xviii. 12, 2 K. ii. 16, are also, in a different way
N. T. references to the books of Kings.
3562 KINGS
Indeed be disappointed; but if we are content to
read accurate and truthful history, ready to fit into
its proper place whenever the exact chronology of
the times shall have been settled from other sources,
then we shall assuredly find they will abundantly
repay the most laborious study which we can be-
stow upon them.
But it is for their deep religious teaching, and
for the insight which they give us into God’s provi-
dential and moral government of the world, that
they are above all valuable. The books which
describe the wisdom and the glory of Solomon, and
yet record his fall; which make us acquainted with
the painful ministry of Elijah, and his translation
into heaven; and which tell us how the most mag-
nificent temple ever built for God’s glory, and of
which He vouchsafed to take possession by a visible
symbol of his presence, was consigned to the flames
and to desolation, for the sins of those who wor-
shipped in it, read us such lessons concerning both
God and man, as are the best evidence of their
divine origin, and make them the richest treasure
to every Christian man.
On the points discussed in the preceding article
see Ussher’s Chronologia Sacra ; Hales’ Analysis ;
Clinton’s Fast. Hellen. vol. i.; Lepsius, Kdnigsbuch
d. Aigypt.; Bertheau’s Bich. d. Chronik; Keil,
Chronik; Movers, Krit. Untersuch. ib. d. Bibl.
Chronik ; De Wette, Linleitung ; Ewald’s Ges-
chichte des Volk. Jsr.; Bunsen, Egypt’s Place in
Hist. ; Geneste’s Parallel Histories ; Rawlinson’s
Herodotus, and Bampton Lect. ; J. W. Bosanquet,
Chronology of Times of Ezra, Transact. of
Chronolog. Instit. No. iii.; Maurice, Kings and
Prophets. Ha OF 2 I
* Other commentaries and helps. — Among the
older writers may be mentioned Theodoret, Ques-
tiones in libros tit. et iv. Regnorum (Opp. vol. i.
ed. Schultze et Noésselt, 1769); Seb. Schmid, Ad-
notatt. in libros Regum (1697); Calmet, Commen-
taire litéral, etc. vol. ii. (1724); Jo. Clericus (Le
Clerc), Vet. Test. libri historici, ete. (1733); Bp.
Patrick, Comm. on the Hist. Books of the O. T.,
5th ed., vol. ii. (1738); and the commentators in
the Critici Sacri, tom. ii. pp. 635-678 (1700).
The principal later writers are Maurer, Comm. Crit.
i. 198-231 (1835); Thenius, Die Biicher der Ké-
nige erkldrt (Lief. ix. of the Kurzgef. exeg.
Handb., 1849); K. F. Keil, Biicher der Kéniye
(1848), Engl. trans. Edin. 1857; and also Comm.
tib. die Bicher der Kénige (Theil ii. Bd. iii. of the
Bibl. Comm. iib. das A. Test. by Keil and Delitzsch) ;
Vaihinger, Kénige, Biicher der, in Herzog’s Reat-
Encyk. viii. 2-8 (1857); Wordsworth, Books of
Kings, etc., in his Holy Bible, with Notes and In-
troductions, vol. iii. (1866); and Dr. Bahr in
Lange’s Bibelwerk (in preparation, 1868). For a
long list of writers on single difficult passages in
Kings, see Danz’s Universal- Worterbuch, p. 555 f.
De Wette’s German translation of these books (in
his Heilige Schrift, 4¢ Aufl., 1858) and the French
translation of H. A. Perret-Gentil, publ. by the
Société Biblique Protestante (Paris, 1866), embody
the results of the best modern scholarship. The
latter is sometimes paraphrastic. Other translations
of considerable value, accompanied with notes, are
those of Dathe, Libri hist. Vet. Test. (Hale, 1784);
J. D. Michaelis, Deutsche Uebers. d. A. Test.
Theil xii. (1785); and S. Cahen, La Bible, trad.
nouv. tom. viii. (Paris, 1836).
For historical sketches derived to a great extent
KIR
from these books, see Jahn’s fHebrew Con
wealth, pp. 82-1383 (Andover, 1828); Mih
History of the Jews, i. 819--451 (Amer. ed.);
frey, Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures, ii. 4:
(Boston, 1852); Stanley’s Lectures on the J
Church, vol. ii. Lect. xxvi—xl.; Bertheau,
Geschichte der Israeliten, pp. 304-357 ; E
Gesch. des Volkes Israel, Bd. iii., 3¢ Ausg. (1
and (Ehler’s article Kénige in Herzog’s
Encyk. viii. 8-16. Of a kindred character |
valuable chapter on “ Konige”’ in Saalschiitz’
Mosaische Recht, i. 72-89. Newman’s ist.
Hebrew Monarchy (2d ed. Lond. 1853) is w
from a purely naturalistic stand-point. For th
nection of the Hebrews with Nineveh and Ba
during this period of the Hebrew monarch
have M. von Niebuhr’s Gesch. Assur’s und Be
pp. 51, 85 f., 164, 171, 214, &ce.; Oppert
Ménant’s Les Fastes de Sargon (Paris, 1
Oppert’s Inscriptions des Sargonides (Vers
1863); Rawlinson’s Monarchies of the A
Eastern World, especially vols. ii. and iii. (
1864, 1865); and Layard’s Discoverves 1
Ruins of Nineveh and Bubylon, especially ch
(Lond. 1853). G. Rawlinson touches vu th
topic in his Bampton Lectures (already referr
for 1859, ch. v. See further, on the chronolc
these books, the work of Wolff and others re
to under the art. CHRONOLOGY, vol. i. p. 45)
Riehm, Sargon u. Salmanassar, in the *
Stud. u. Krit. 1868, pp. 683-698.
Of the Introductions to the O. T., those i
ticular of Hiivernick (ii. 148-226) and Blee
355-401) furnish a good outline of the
tions relating to the authorship, sources, an
torical character of the Books of Kings. S
Davidson’s Introd. to the Old Test. ii. 1-46 (
and Kuenen, Hist. crit. des livres de Ancien
trad. par Pierson, i. 400-441 (Paris, 1866).
It will be borne in mind that the intere
these chronicles centres largely in the pe
character and history of those who are men
in them. The reader therefore will find imp
aid for the study of these books in the a
on the names in the Dictionary (Solomon, Jero
Jehu, Elijah, Elisha, Ahab, Jehoram, Hez
Manasseh, Isaiah, and others), which represet
period of Hebrew history. The copious artic
JupAH, KrnGpom or, and IsRAEL, KIN
OF, may be consulted for the same purpose.
* KINRED is the reading of the origin
tion of the A. V. (A. D. 1611) in all the pa
jin which ‘kindred’ now stands in later ed
This substitution is one of the changes which
trate the “large amount of tacit and unacl
edged revision ’’ which the English Scripture
gradually undergone. See Trench, Auth
Version, p. 65 (2d ed.).
* KINREDS in the A. V. ed. 1611 hi
(see above) given place in later editions to
dreds,” in the sense of families or tribes.
original terms are in the 0. T. WTBWN (
xvi. 28; Ps. xxii. 27, é&c.), and in the
marpial (Acts iii. 25) and pvaat (Rev. 1
9, &c.). ; |
KIR (7) [wall, walled place]: [Am.
Xappdv; [ix. 7, Bd@pos; Is., LXX. omit;
xvi. 9, Rom. Vat. omit, Alex. Kupnyn:] ©
is mentioned by Amos (ix. 7) as the lane
which the Syrians (Arameeans) were once “ b
al
KIR-HARASETH
KIRJATH 1563
’ i, e. apparently, as the country where they | Ps. xlviri. 2; Is. i. 26, &e. &e.), and 8 in the book
dwelt before migrating to the region north of
tine. It was also, curiously enough, the land
hich the captive Syrians of Damascus were
yed by Tigiath-Pileser on his conquest of that
(2 K. xvi. 9; comp. Am. i. 5). Isaiah joins
ith Elam in a passage where Jerusalem is
tened with an attack from a foreign army
.6). These notices, and the word itself, are
he data we possess for determining the site.
riety of conjectures have been offered on this
, grounded on some similarity of name. Ren-
uggested Kurdistan (Geography of Herodotus,
91); Vitringa, Carine, a town of Media;
art (Phaleg, iv. 32, p. 293), Curena or Curna,
isein Media. But the common opinion among
t commentators has been that a tract on the
Kur or Cyrus (Kipos) is intended. This is
iew of Rosenmiiller, Michaelis, and Gesenius.
x sensibly remarks that the tract to which
writers refer ‘never belonged to Assyria,”’
so cannot possibly have been the country
sto Tiglath-Pileser transported his captives
worterbuch, i. 658). He might have added,
all we know of the Semites and their migra-
is repugnant to a theory which would make
hern Armenia one of their original settlements.
Semites, whether Aramzans, Assyrians, Phe-
is, or Jews, seem to have come originally from
Mesopotamia — the country about the mouths
e Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Here exactly
{lam or Elymais, with which Kir is so closely
acted by Isaiah. May not Kir then be a
nt for Aish or Kush (Cush), and represent
astern Ethiopia, the Cissia (Kiogia) of He-
us ? G. R.
IR-HARA’/SETH (WI NPT: robs
Is TOU Tolxov Kabypnuevous ; Alex.....
uevous: mud fictiles), 2 K. iii. 25. [Kir-
8. |
: ’
[R-HARE’SETH (VOT 2: tois
iKovot DE SEO wedeTHoeis: muros cocti lute-
Is. xvi. 7. [Kir-HERES.]
5 * ,
[R-HA’RESH (WT 7), i.e. Kir-hares:
8 éverxatvicas ; Alex. tixos 0 evexenioas :
wrum cocti lateris), Is. xvi. 11. [Krr-
s.]
: ° ’
R-HE’RES (wT) 1)? keipddes adxmod,
= murus fictilis), Jer. xlviii. 31, 36. This
and the three preceding, all slight variations
/are all applied to one place, probably Krr-
3, Whether Cheres refers to a worship of the
urried on there is uncertain; we are without
‘o the meaning of the name.
‘RIAH (719)?), apparently an ancient or
ie word, meaning a city or town. The
ds for considering it a more ancient word
[R (YY) or AR (79) are —(1.) Its more
m occurrence in the names of places existing
country at the time of the conquest. These
2 found below. (2.) Its rare occurrence as a
‘Appellative, except in poetry, where old words
‘orms are often preserved after they become
‘tein ordinary language. Out of the 36 times
t is found in the O. T. (both in its original
*s Chaldee form) 4 only are in the narrative
» earlier books (Deut. ii. 36, iii. 4; 1 K. i.
' ), 24 are in poetical passages (Num. xxi. 28;
|
of Ezra, either in speaking of Samaria (iv. 10), or
in the letter of the Samaritans (iy. 12-21),
implying that it had become a provincialism. In
this it is unlike Ir, which is the ordinary term for
a city in narrative or chronicle, while it enters into
the composition of early names in a far smaller
proportion of cases. For illustration — though for
that only — Kiryah may perhaps be compared to the
word «‘burg,”’ or “ bury,” in our own language.
Closely related to Kiryah is Kereth (V7),
apparently a Pheenician form, which occurs occa-
sionally (Job xxix. 7; Prov. viii. 3). This is
familiar to us in the Latin garb of Carthago, and
in the Parthian and Armenian names Cirta,
Tigrano-Certa (Bochart, Chanaan, ii. cap. x.3
Gesenius, Thes. 1236-37).
As a proper name it appears in the Bible under
the forms of Kerioth, Kartah, Kartan ; besides
those immediately following. G.
KIRIATHA‘’IM (ONT, but in the Cethib
of Ez. xxv. 9, BSW [two cities]: Kapiadéu, in
Vat. [rather, Kom.] of Jer. xlviii. 1; [Vat. here
and] elsewhere with Alex. Kapiadam ; (FA. in
Jer. xlviii. 23, Kapiadey:] Cariathaim), one of the
towns of Moab which were the “glory of the
country;’’ named amongst the denunciations of
Jeremiah (xlviii. 1, 23) and Ezekiel (xxy.9). It is
the same place as KinJATHAIM, in which form the
name elsewhere occurs in the A. V. Taken as
a Hebrew word this would mean “double city;”
but the original reading of the text of Ez. xxv. 9,
Kiriatham, taken with that of the Vat. LXX. at
Num. xxxii. 37, prompts the suspicion that that
may be nearer its original form, and that the aim
— the Hebrew dual — is a later accommodation, in
obedience to the ever-existing tendency in the
names of places to adopt an intelligible shape. In
the original edition (A. D. 1611) of the A. V. the
name Kirjath, with its compounds, is given as
Kiriath, the yod being there, as elsewhere in that
edition, represented by 7. Kiriathaim is one of
the few of these names which in the subsequent
editions have escaped the alteration of 7 to 7.
KIRIATHIA/’RIUS (Kapiadipi; [Vat. Kap-
Tubelapelos 3 Ald.] Alex. Kaoiabidpios : Crear-
putros), 1 Esdr. y. 19. [KrrJATH-JEARIM, and
K. Arr. ]
KIR/IOTH (AYP, with the definite arti-
cle, i. e. hak-Kertyoth [the cities]: af méres
avths: Carioth), a place in Moab the palaces of
which were denounced by Amos with destruction
by fire (Am. ii. 2); unless indeed it be safer to
treat the word as meaning simply “the cities’? —
which is probably the case also in Jer. xlviii. 41,
where the word is in the original exactly similar
to the above, though given in the A. V. “ Kerioth.”
[KERIOTH. ] G.
KIR’JATH (FY) [city]: *laptu; [Vat.
Taperu;] Alex. mods lapiu ! Cariath),. the last
of the cities enumerated as belonging to the tribe
of Benjamin (Josh. xviii. 28), one of the group
which contains both Gibeon and Jerusalem. It is
named with Gibeath, but without any copulative —
‘¢Gibeath, Kirjath,”’ a circumstance which, in the
absence of any further mention of the place, has
given rise to several explanations. (1.) That of
1564 KIRJATHAIM
Eusebius in the Onomasticon (Kapid6), that it was
under the protection of Gibeah (51d untpomddAw
TaBaba). This, however, seems to be a mere
supposition. (2.) That of Schwarz and others,
that the two names form the title of one place,
“ Gibeath-Kirjath ’”? (the hill-town). Against this
is the fact that the towns in this group are summed
up as 14; but the objection has not much force,
and there are several considerations in favor of the
view. [See GiBEATH, p. 914 a.] But whether
there is any connection between these two names or
not, there seems a strong probability that Kirjath
is identical with the better-known place KirJATH-
JEARIM, and that the latter part of the name has
been omitted by copyists at some very early period.
Such an omission would be very likely to arise from
the fact that the word for “cities,’’ which in He-
brew follows Kirjath, is almost identical with
Jearim ;@ and that it has arisen we have the testi-
mony of the LXX. in both MSS. (the Alex. most
complete), as well as of some Hebrew MSS. still
existing (Davidson, Hebr. Text, ad loc.). In addi-
tion, it may be asked why Kirjath should be in
the “construct state’’ if no word follows it to be
in construction with? In that case it would be
Kiriah. True, Kirjath-jearim is enumerated as a
city of Judah? (Josh. xv. 9, 60, xviii. 14), but so
are several towns which were Simeon’s and Dan's,
and it is not to be supposed that these places never
changed hands.
KIRJATHA/IM (O°737})) [two cities}, the
name of two cities of ancient Palestine.
1. (Kapiabdue [Vat. Kapadau] (in Num.),
Kapiabaiw ; [Alex. Kapia@aim:] Cariathaim.) On
the east of the Jordan, one of the places which
were taken possession of and rebuilt by the Reu-
benites, and had fresh names conferred on them
(Num. xxxii. 37, and see 38). Here it is men-
tioned between Elealeh, Nebo, and Baal-meon, the
first and last of which are known with some tolera-
ble degree of certainty. But on its next occurrence
(Josh. xiii. 19) the same order of mention is not
maintained, and it appears in company with
MEPrHAATH and S1BMAH, of which at present
nothing is known. It is possibly the same place
as that which gave its name to the ancient Shaveh-
Kiriathaim, though this is mere conjecture. It
existed in the time of Jeremiah (xlviii. 1, 23) and
Ezekiel (xxv. 9 — in these three passages the A. V.
gives the name KiRIATHAIM). Both these prophets
include it in their denunciations against Moab,
in whose hands it then was, prominent among the
cities which were “the glory of the country”
(Ez. xxv. 9).
By Eusebius it appears to have been well known.
@ The text now stands DYTVY MF); in the
above view it originally stood DS7Y ONY" PRA.
b It is as well to observe, though we may not be
able yet to draw any inference from the fact, that on
both occasions of its being attributed to Judah, it is
called by another name, — “ KirnJaTa-BAAL, which is
Kirjath-jearim.’
c This reading ot the LXX. suggests that the dual
termination “aim ’’ may have been a later accommo-
dation of the name to Hebrew forms, as was possibly
the case with Jerushalaim (vol. ii. p. 1272). It is
supported by the Hebrew text: cf. Ez. xxv. 9, and the
Vat. [Rom.] LXX. of Jer. xlviii. 1. [KrrraTaai.]
d There is some uncertainty about Burckhardt’s
route at this part. In order to see Madeba, which is
KIRJATH- ARBA
He describes it (Onom. Kapiadtelu) as a v
entirely of Christians, 10 miles west of Me
‘‘ close to the Baris’ (ém) rdv Bapur).
(p. 867, July 13) when at Madeba (Medeba
told by his guide of a place, et-T'eym, about
an hour (1} mile English, or barely 2 miles Re
therefrom, which he suggests was identical
Kirjathaim. This is supported by Geseniu:
his notes on Burckhardt in the Germ. tran:
1063), who passes by the discrepancy in the
tance by saying that Eusebius’s measuremen
seldom accurate.
as the distance (Reisen, i. 408).
Burek
Seetzen also names half an
But it must be admitted that the eviden
the identity of the two is not very convineing
appears to rest entirely on the similarity in :
between the termination of Kirjathaim an
name of et-Teym.
name was Karias— having retained, as wou
expected, the first and chief part of the
Porter (Handbook, p. 300) pronounces confident
Kureiyat, under the southern side of Jebel At
as being identical both with Kirjathaim and Ki
Huzoth; but he adduces no arguments in sv
of his conclusion, which is entirely at variance
Eusebius; while the name, or a similar on
Keriory, KirioTH, in addition to those r
already), having been a common one east ¢
Jordan, as it still is (witness Kureiyeh, Kuren
etc.), Kureiyat may be the representative of
other place.
In the time of Eusebiu
What was the “ Baris’? which Eusebius
so close to Kirjathaim? Was it a place or fe
("T", Bdpis), or is it merely the corruptio
name? If the latter, then it is slightly in a
ance with Beresha, the reading of the Te
Pseudojon. at Num. xxxii. 37.¢ But where t
Beresha we do not at present know. A °
named Birazin is marked in the maps of Rol
(1856) and Van de Velde, but about 9 mile
of Hesbdn, and therefore not in a suitable
tion.
2. (7 Kapiabaty.) A town in Naphta
mentioned in the original lists of the poss
allotted to the tribe (see Josh. xix. 32-39
inserted in the list of cities given to the Gers
Levites, in 1 Chr. (vi. 76), in place of KARI
the ‘parallel catalogue, Kartan being probabl
a contraction thereof. |
KIR’JATH-AR’BA (D278 P), and
Neh. xi. 25, SO ? [see in the art.]: !
"ApBén, m. "ApydB; Alex. [ApBor, ApBer,]
and ApBoa; 7 KapiabapBor [Vat. Kapabar
KapiabapBoxcepep, but Mai KapiapBoé |
shown on the maps as nearly S. of Hesban,
the great road at the latter place, and went tl
Djeboul, es-Sameh, and other places which are
as on the road eastward, in an entirely @
direction from Madeba, and then after 8 hours
out noting any change of direction, he art!
Madeba, which appears from the maps to b
about 14 hour from Hesban.
e The following is the full synonym of this 7
for Kirjathaim: ‘ And the city of two streets
with marble, the same is Beresha” (SU) '
This is almost identical with the rendering
the same Targum on Num. xxii. 89, for }
Huzoth. Can Beresha contain an allusion to
the modern Jerash ?
7”
KIRJATH-ARBA
KIRJATH-ARIM 1565
KapiapBox cepep; [in Neh., Kapiabap-| /r-David— the city of David, Zion —the writer
Vat. VA!, KapiaOap, Alex. KapiabapBo:]
us Arbee, Carinth-Arbe), an early name of
ity which after the conquest is generally known
feBRON (Josh. xiv. 15; Judg. i. 10). Possi-
however, not Kirjath-arba, but MAMRE, was
liest appellation (Gen. xxxv. 27), though the
r name may have been that of the sacred
» near the town, which would occasionally
fer its title to the whole spot. [MAmRE.]
he identity of Kirjath-Arba with Hebron is
tantly asserted (Gen. xxiii. 2, xxxv. 27; Josh.
15, xv. 13, 54, xx. 7, xxi. 11),¢ the only men-
of it without that qualification being, as is
what remarkable, after the return from the
ivity (Neh. xi. 25), a date so late that we
it naturally have supposed the aboriginal name
d have become extinct. But it lasted far
er than that, for when Sir John Maundeville
ed the place (cir. 1322) he found that “ the
eens call the place in their language Karicarba,
the Jews call it Arbotha” (Karly Trav. p.
. Thus too in Jerome’s time would Debir
1 to have been still called by its original title,
ath-Sepher. So impossible does it appear to
yguish the name originally bestowed on a
a! b
he signification of Kirjath-Arba is, to say the
, doubtful. In favor of its being derived
: some ancient hero is the statement that “« Arba
the great man among the Anakim ”’ (Josh. xiv.
—the “ father of Anak ’’ (xxi. 11). Against it
(a.)the peculiarity of the expression in the
of these two passages, where the term Adam
77 DOIN) — usually employed for the spe-
the human race — is used instead of /sh, which
monly denotes an individual. (4.) The con-
ration that the term “father ’’ is a metaphor
tently employed in the Bible—as in other
ital writings — for an originator or author,
ther of a town or a quality, quite as often as
iindividual. The LXX. certainly so under-
J both the passages in Joshua, since they have
sach untpdmoats, id mother-city.”’ (c.) The
‘tant tendency to personification so familiar to
ents of the topographical philology of other
stries than Palestine, and which in the present
‘must have had some centuries in which to ex-
'eits influence. In the lists of 1 Chron. He-
. itself is personified (ii. 42) as the son of
‘eshah, a neighboring town, and the father of
ouah and other places in the same locality; and
same thing occurs with Beth-zur (ver. 45),
1 (42), Madmannah and Gibea (49), ete. ete.
¢ On more than one oceasion (Gen. xxxv. 27;
\. xy. 13; Neh. xi. 25) the name Arba has the
\tite article prefixed to it. ‘his is very rarely,
er, the case with the name of a man (see Re-
|, Pal. p. 724). (e.) With the exception of the
)Tn Gen. xxxv. 27, the A. V. has “ the city of Ar-
5”in Josh. xv. 13, and xxi. 11, “the city of
+” [but * Arbah,” ed. 1611, in xxi. 11).
A curious parallel to this tenacity is found in our
country, where many a village is still known to
Fastie inhabitants by the identical name by which
‘inscribed in Domesday Book, while they are ac-
Y Unaware of the later name by which the place
been currently known in maps and documents,
Hin the general language of all but their own class
enturies, If this is the case with Kirjath-Arba
| Hebron, the occurrence of the former in Nehe-
does not recall any city of Palestine named after a
man. Neither Joshua, Caleb, Solomon, nor any
other of the heroes or kings of Israel, conferred
their names on places; neither did Og, Jabin, or
other Canaanite leaders. The “city of Sihon,”’
for Heshbon (Num. xxi. 27), is hardly an exception,
for it occurs in a very fervid burst of poetry, differ-
ing entirely from the matter-of-fact documents we
are now considering. (/.) The general consent of
the Jewish writers in a different interpretation is
itself a strong argument against the personality of
Arba, however absurd (according to our ideas) may
be their ways of accounting for that interpretation.
They take Arba to be the Hebrew word for “ four,”’
and Kirjath- Arba therefore to be the “city of four; ”’
and this they explain as referring to four great
saints who were buried there — Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and Adam — whose burial there they prove
by the words already quoted from Josh. xiv. 15
(Beresh. rabba, quoted by Beer, Leben Abrahams,
189, and by Keil, ad loc.; Bochart, Phaleg, iv. 84,
&c.). In this explanation Jerome constantly con-
curs, not only in commentaries (as Quest. in Gen-
esim, xxiii. 2; Comm. in Mutt. xxvii.; Epit. Paule,
§ 11; Onomast. “ Arboch”’ and * Cariatharbe,”’
etc.), but also in the text of the Vulgate at this
passage — Adam maximus ibi inter Enacim situs
est. With this too agrees the Veneto-Greek ver-
sion, méAet TOY TETTAPwV (Gen. xxiii. 2, xxxv. 27).
It is also adopted by Bochart (Chanaan, i. 1), in
whose opinion the “four’’ are Anak, Ahiman,
Sheshai, and Talmai.
The fact at the bottom of the whole matter
probably is, that Arba was neither a man nora
numeral, but that (as we have so often had occa-
sion to remark in similar cases) it was an archaic
Canaanite name, most likely referring to the situa-
tion or nature of the place, which the Hebrews
adopted, and then explained in their own fashion.
[See JEGAR-SAHADUTHA, etc. ]
In Gen. xxiii. 2, the LX X. (both MSS. [rather,
Rom. and Alex.]) insert 4 éoriy év TG KolAdpuaTt}
and in xxxv. 27 they render K. Arba by eis méAu
Tov mediov. In the former of these the addition
may be an explanation of the subsequent words, ‘in
the land of Canaan,’’ the explanation having
slipped into the text in its wrong place. Its occur-
rence in both MSS. shows its great antiquity.¢ It
is found also in the Samaritan Codex and Version.
In xxxv. 27 medfoy may have arisen from the trans-
lators reading T27Y for VAIN. fe
,
KIR’JATH-A’RIM (OY: Kapiaia-
plu; (Vat. Kapiw0 Iapous] Alex. Kapiadraperp:
Cariathiarim), an abbreviated form of the name
KirJATH-JEARIM, which occurs only in Ezr. ii.
25. In the parallel passage of Nehemiah the name
is in its usual form, and in Esdras it is Krrta-
THIARIUS. Gore
miah, noticed above, is easily understood. It was
simply the effort of the original name to assert its
rights and assume its position, as soon as the tempo-
rary absence of the Israelites at Babylon had left the
Canaanite rustics to themselves.
e * The Vatican MS. wants Gen. i—xlvi. 29. Here,
as generally in the English edition of this Dictionary,
the Roman edition of 1587 is confounded with it.
The clause in question appears to be found in all MSS.
of the LXX.. but is marked with an obelus in the
Coislinian (X). A.
1566
KIRVJATH-BA’AL (OYB-D =town of
Baal: Kapia@ Baad: Cariathbaal), an alternative |?
same af the place usually called Kirjath-jearim
(Josh. xv. 60, xvili. 14), but also BAALAH, ‘and
once ee see These names doubtless
point to the existence of a sanctuary of Baal at this
spot before the conquest. They were still attached
to it considerably later, for they alone are used, to
the exclusion of the (probably) newly bestowed
name of Kirjath-jearim, in the description of the
removal of the ark thence (2 Sam. vi.). G.
KIR/JATH-HU’ZOTH (“APT 7 [see in
the art.]: mdAeis ématAewy: urbs que in extremis
regni ejus finibus erat), a place to which Balak ac-
companied Balaam immediately after his arrival in
Moab (Num. xxii. 39), and which is nowhere else
mentioned. It appears to have lain between the
ARNON ( Wady Mojeb) and BAMOTH-BAAL (comp.
vy. 36 and 41), probably north of the former, since
there is some, though only slight, ground for sup-
posing that Bamoth-Baal lay between Dibon and
Bethbaal-meon (see Josh, xiii. 17). The passage
(Num. xxii. 39) is obscure in eyery way. It is not
obvious why sacrifices should have been offered
there, or how, when Balaam accompanied Balak
thither, Balak could have “sent’’ thence to him
and to the princes who were with him (40).
No trace of the name has been discovered in
KIRJATH-BAAL
later times.
“city of streets,” from the Hebrew word YAN,
chutz, which has sometimes this meaning (Gesenius,
Thes. 456 a; margin of A. V.; and so Lutker, die
Gassenstadt; so also the Veneto-Greek); but Je-
rome, in the Vulgate, has adopted another signi-
fication of the root. The LXX. seem to have read
PITT, “villages,” the word which they usually
render by ératAers, and which is also the reading
of the Peshito. The Samaritan Codex and Ver-
It is usually interpreted to mean
sion, the former by its reading JV °s7, “ visions,”
p] ys: foo) b] ’
and the latter, "$1, “mysteries,” seem to favor
the idea — which is perhaps the explanation of the
sacrifices there—that Kirjath-Chutzoth was a
place of sacred or oracular reputation. The Tar-
gum Pseudojon, gives it as ‘the streets of the
great city, the city of Sihon, the same is Birosa,’’
apparently identifying it with Kirjathaim (see note
to p. 1564.)
KIR’J ATH-J E’ARIM ey 2: TALS
‘Tapiu and *lapty, Kapiabiapip [city of “for ests],
and once méAis Kapiafiapiu; Alex. the same, ex-
cepting [in some cases] the termination efy; [Vat.
-eru, -erv; there are other variations not here no-
ticed;] Joseph. Kapiabidpima: Car iathiarim), a
city which played a not unimportant part in the
history of the Chosen People. We first encoun-
ter it as one of the four cities of the Gibeonites
(Josh. ix. 17): it next occurs as one of the land-
marks of the northern boundary of Judah (xv. 9),
and as the point at which the western and south-
ern boundaries of Benjamin coincided (xviii. 14,
15); and in the two last passages we find that it
aIn1 Chr. xiii. 6, the Vulgate has Collis Cariath-
tarim for the Baalah of the Hebrew text.
b Kirjath-jearim is not stated to have been allotted
to the Levites, but it is difficult to suppose that Abin-
idab and Eleazar were not Levites. This question,
KIRJATH-JEARIM |
bore another, perhaps earlier, name — that 9)
great Canaanite deity Baal, namely BAat!
and Kirsaru-BAAL. It is included among,
towns of Judah (xv. 60), and there is some |
for believing that under the shortened fort
KirgATH it is also named among those of B
min, as might almost be expected from the pos
it occupied « on the confines of each. Some 4
erations bearing on this will be found under
JATH and Green. It is included in the ger
gies of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 50, 52) as founded i
descended from, SHOBAL, the son-of Calebben-
and as having in its turn sent out the colo
the Ithrites, Puhites, Shumathites, and Mishr,
and those of Zorah and Eshtaol. ‘“ Behind Kir
jearim ” the band of Lanites pitched their cam
fore their expedition to Mount Ephraim and 1)
leaving their name attached to the spot for long!
(Jude. xviii. 12). [MAHANEH-DAN.] Hithi
beyond the early sanctity implied in its bearin
name -of BAAL, there is nothing remarkab,
Kirjath-jearim. It was no doubt this reput,
for sanctity which made the people of Beth-she:
appeal to its inhabitants to relieve them of the
of Jehovah, which was bringing such calamiti|
their untutored inexperience. From their pla
the valley they looked anxiously for some emin:
which, according to the belief of those days, shi
be the appropriate seat for so powerful a Dei
“Who is able to stand before the face of Jehi
this holy God, and to whom shall He (or L)
the ark of Jehovah) go up from us?” & And
sent to the inhabitants of Kirjath-jearim, sa}
the Philistines have brought back the ark o
hovah, come ye down and fetch it up to 1
(1 Sam. vi. 20, 21). In this high-place—|
hill,* (7WY337) —under the charge of Ele
son of Abinadab, > the ark remained for twenty )
(vii. 2), during which period the spot. becami.
resort of pilgrims from all parts, anxious to)
sacrifices and perform vows to Jehovah (Jo)
Ant. vi. 2, § 1). At the close of that time Kir,
Jearim lost its sacred treasure, on its remoy'
David to the house of Obed-edom the Gi
(1 Chr. xiii. 5, 6; 2 Chr.i. 4; 2 Sammy
&e.). It is very remarkable and suggestive th
the account of this transaction the ancient
heathen name Baal is retained. In fact, in 21
vi. 2 — probably the original statement — the:
Baale is used without any explanation, and te
exclusion of that of Kirjath-jearim.
In the all
to this transaction in Ps. cxxxii. 6, the i
obscurely indicated as the ‘wood’? — yaar)
root of Kirjath-yearim. We are further told }
its people, with those of Chephirah and Bee:
743 in number, returned from captivity (Neb
29; and see Ezra ii. 25, where the nan
K.-ARIM, and 1 Esdr. v. ‘19, Km
We also hear of a prophet Unrsan-ben-Shem
a native of the place, who enforced the war
of Jeremiah, and was cruelly murdered by Je!
kim (Jer. xxvi. 20, &c.), but of the place we |:
nothing beyond what has been already said
tradition is mentioned by Adrichomius (Desc:
S. Dan. § 17), though without stating his aut!
ty, that it was the native place of “ toi
and the force of the word rendered * sanctified i
1), will be noticed under Levires. On the other
it is remarkable that Beth-shemesh, from whiel
Ark was sent away, was a city of the priests.
sia
KIRJATH-SANNAH
Jehoiada, who was slain between the altar and
Temple.” 4
'o Eusebius.and Jerome ( Onom. “ Cariathiarim ’’)
ppears to have been well known. They describe
sa village at the ninth (or, s. v. “ Baal,” tenth)
e between Jerusalem and Diospolis (Lydda).
th this description, and the former of these two
ances agrees Procopius (see Reland, p. 503). It
: reserved for Dr. Robinson (Sib/. Res. ii. 11) to
over that these requirements are exactly ful-
d in the modern village of Kuriet el-Enab —
y usually known as Abi Gosh, from the robber-
of whose head-quarters it was — at the eastern
‘of the Wady Aly, on the road from Jaffa to
usalem. And, indeed, if the statement of Euse-
s contained the only conditions to be met, the
atification would be certain. I[t does not, how-
r, so well agree with the requirements of 1 Sam.
_ The distance from Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems)
onsiderable — not less than 10 miles — through
KIRJATH-SANNAH 1567
a very uneven country, with no appearance of any
road ever having existed (Rob. iii. 157). Neither
is it at all in proximity to Bethlehem (Ephratah),
which would seem to be implied in Ps. exxxii. 6;
though this latter passage is very obscure. Wil-
liams (Holy City) endeavors to identify Kirjath-
jearim with Dei el-~Howa, east of Ain Shems. But
this, though sufficiently near the latter place, does
not answer to the other conditions. We may
therefore, for the present, consider Kuriet el-Enab
as the representative of Kirjath-jearim.
The modern name, differing from the ancient
only in its latter portion, signifies the “ city of
grapes; ’’ the ancient name, if interpreted as He-
brew, the ‘city of forests.” Such interpretations
of these very antique names must be received with
great caution on account of the tendency which
exists universally to alter the names of places and
persons so that they shall contain a meaning in the
language of the country. In the present case we
e the play on the name in Ps. cxxxii. 6, already
‘ited, the authority of Jerome (Comm. in Is.
‘x. 1), who renders it villa silvarum, and the '
‘timony of a recent traveller (Tobler, Dritte Wan-
‘ung, 178, 187), who in the immediate neighbor-
ul, on the ridge probably answering to Mount
ARIM, states that, “for real genuine (echtes)
ds, so thick and so solitary, he had seen nothing
them since he left Germany.”
ft remains yet to be seen if any separate or
‘inite eminence answering to the hill or high-
‘ce on which the ark was deposited is recognizable
'Kuriet el-Enab. G.
* An old Gothic church at Kuriet el-Enab built
‘the Crusaders is an object of mournful interest
‘the traveller. It is one of the most perfect
tistian ruins of this description in Palestine.
e exterior walls are well preserved, and the aisles,
‘ars, and some old frescoes still remain. The
‘slems often make mosques of such churches, but
'3 one they have turned into a stable or cow-pen.
KIRJATH-SAN’NAH (7130 ‘P [city of
truction or writing, Fiirst; of palm-branch,
The mention of Kap:a6capety (Alex. Kapiadcapi)
the LXX. of Josh. iii. 16, possibly proceeds from a
‘Tuption of the Hebrew Kirjath-Adam, “ the city
|
i]
.
re
=
irjath-jearim.
Ait 36
aa
0 Tree)
Me
Ges.]: méAis ypaumdrwv: Cariathsenna), & name
which occurs once only (Josh. xv. 49), as another,
and probably an earlier, appellation for DEBIR, an
important place in the mountains of Judah, not far
from Hebron, and which also bore the name of
KiRJATH-SEPHER. Whence the name is derived
we have no clew, and its meaning has given rise to
a variety of conjectures (see Keil, Josua, on x. 40;
Ewald, Gesch. i. 324, note). That of Gesenius
( Thes. 962) is, that symnah is a contraction of san-
sinnah =a palm-branch, and thus that Kirjath-
sannah is the “city of palms.” But this, though
adopted by Stanley (S. f P. 161, 524), is open to
the objection that palms were not trees of the
mountain district, where Kirjath-sannah was sit-
uated, but of the valleys (S. gf P. 145).
It will be observed that the LX-X. interpret both
this name and Kirjath-sepher alike. G.
* The etymology of the name at present seems
almost hopelessly obscure, and any explanation
founded on that basis must be uncertain. It has
been suggested that 71] may mean the palm-
branch or leaf as used for writing purposes, as is
the case so extensively in Asia at the present day.
Adam,” as has been pointed out under ADAM, vol, i
p. 27 a.
1568 KIRJATH-SEPHER
If this were so, Kirjath-sannah and Kirjath-sepher
would differ only as referring the one to the books
written or preserved in the place and the other to
the material out of which they were made. If the
palm trees themselves did not grow there (though
several are found now even at Jerusalem), the leaves
could have been procured elsewhere and brought
thither. If the later name Debir (which see) sig-
nifies ‘sacred recess,’ ‘ sanctuary’? (Jerome,
oraculum), it then simply points back by a less
definite designation to the ancient character of the
town (shadowed forth in the other names) as the
seat of some religious cultus among the old Canaan-
ites. H.
KIR’JATH-SE’PHER (79D 7 [city of
the book or writing]: in Judg. i. 11, Kapsaboepep
[Vat. Kapiacowpap] méAts ypayudrwy; in ver.
12, and in Josh. the first word is omitted: Cariath-
sepher), the early name of the city DeBrr, which
further had the name — doubtless also an early one
—of KirJATH-SANNAH. Kirjath-sepher occurs
only in the account of the capture of the place by
Othniel, who gained thereby the hand of his wife
Achsah, Caleb’s daughter (Josh. xv. 15, 16; and
in the exact repetition of the narrative, Judg. i. 11,
12). In this narrative, a document of unmistak-
ably early character (Ewald, Gesch. ii. 378, 374),
it is stated that “the name of Debir before was
Kirjath-sepher.’’ Ewald conjectures that the new
name was given it by the conquerors on account
of its retired position on the back @— the south or
southwestern slopes — of the mountains, possibly at
or about the modern el-Buryj, a few miles W. of
ed-Dhoheriyeh (Gesch. ii. 873, note). But what-
ever the interpretation of the Hebrew name of the
place may be, that of the Canaanite name must
certainly be more obscure. It is generally assumed
to mean “city of book’’ (from the Hebrew word
Sepher = book), and it has been made the founda-
tion for theories of the amount of literary culture
possessed by the Canaanites (Keil, Joswa, x. 39;
Ewald, i. 324). But such theories are, to say the
least, premature during the extreme uncertainty as
to the meaning of these very ancient names.®
The old name would appear to have been still in
existence in Jerome’s time, if we may understand
his allusion in the epitaph of Paula (§ 11), where
he translates it wnculum litterarum. [Comp. Krr-
JATH-ARBA. |
KIR OF MOAB (AND 7) [wall or for-
tification of Moab]: 7b retxos THs MwaBiridos
[ Vat. Sin. -Bei-]: murus Moab), one of the two
chief strongholds of Moab, the other being AR oF
Moan. The name occurs only in Is. xv. 1, though
the place is probably referred to under the names
of KtR-HERES, Kir-HARASETH, etc. The clew to
its identification is given us by the Targum on
Isaiah and Jeremiah, which for the above names
has SDD, Cracca, JID, Crac, almost identical
with the name Kerak, by which the site of an im-
portant city in a high and very strong position at
the 8S. E. of the Dead Sea is known at this day.
The chain of evidence for the identification of Kerak
with Kir-Moab is very satisfactory. Under the
@ Taking Debir to mean an adytum, or innermost
recess, as it does in 1 K. vi. 5, 19, &c. (A. V.
t oracle ”’).
,
6 In the Targum it is rendered by S278 re
KIR OF MOAB
name of XapaxueBa it is mentioned in the
of the Council of Jerusalem, A. D. 536 (Reland,
p- 533), by the geographers Ptolemy and Stepl
of Byzantium (Reland, pp. 463, 705). In A.D.’
under King Fulco, a castle was built there y
became an important station for the Cruse
Here, in A. D. 1183, they sustained a fru
attack from Saladin and his brother (Bohae
Vit. Sal. ch. 25), the place being as impreg:
as it had been in the days of Elisha (2 K. iii.
It was then the chief city of Arabia Secun
Petracensis ; it is specified as in the Belka, a
distinguished from “ Moab” or ‘“ Rabbat,”
ancient AR-MoAs, and from the Mons re
(Schultens, Index Geogr. “ Caracha’’; see als
remarks of Gesenius, Jesaia, 517, and his not
the German transl. of Burckhardt¢). The C
ders in error believed it to be Petra, and that :
is frequently attached to it in the writings of
liam of Tyre and Jacob de Vitry (see quotatio
Rob. Bibl. Res. ii. 167). This error is perpeti
in the Greek Church to the present day; an
bishop of Petra, whose office, as representatiy
the Patriarch, it is to produce the holy fi
Easter in the ‘Church of the Sepulchre” at .
salem (Stanley, S. ¢ P. 467), is in reality b:
of Kerak (Seetzen, Reisen, ii. 8358; Burckh. 3!
The modern Kerak is known to us throug!
descriptions of Burckhardt (379-390), Irby
vii.), Seetzen (Reisen, i. 412, 413), and De §;
(La Mer Morte, i. 355, &.); and these fully
out the interpretation given above to the nar
the ‘“ fortress,’’ as contradistinguished from
‘‘ metropolis’? (Ar) of the country, 2. e. Rabl
Moab, the modern Rabba. It lies about 6.
S. of the last-named place, and some ten ©
from the Dead Sea, upon the plateau of high!
which forms this part of the country, not far
the western edge of the plateau. Its situati
truly remarkable. It is built upon the top
steep hill, surrounded on all sides by a deep
narrow valley, which again is completely ine
by mountains rising higher than the town,
overlooking it on all sides. It must have been
these surrounding heights that the Israelite sli
hurled their vollies of stones after the captw
the place had proved impossible (2 K. iii. 25).
town itself is encompassed by a wall, to w
when perfect, there were but two entrances, 0
the south and the other to the north, cut or
nelled through the ridge of the natural rock b
the wall for a length of 100 to 120 feet. The
is defended by several large towers, and the we
extremity of the town’ is occupied by an enor
mass of buildings — on the south the castle or]
on the north the seraglio of El-Melek edh-Dh
Between these two buildings is apparently at
exit, leading to the Dead Sea. (A map of the
and a view of part of the keep will be found i
Atlas to De Sauley, La Mer Morte, ete., fe
8, 20). The latter shows well the way in W
the town is inclosed. The walls, the keep,
seraglio are mentioned by Lynch (Report, M:
pp. 19, 20), whose account, though interesting,
tains nothing new. ‘The elevation of the town
“city of princes ”’ (apyut): See Buxtorf, Lex. 1
217. |
¢ Gesenius expresses it as follows: ° Ar-Moab,
Moabs gleichsam dgorv oder urbs Moabitarum
und die Burg des Landes Kir-Moab ” (Burckhardt
Gesenius, 1064). :
al
KISH
ly be less than 3000 feet above the sea (Porter,
, 60). From the heights immediately outside
ar a ruined mosque, a view is obtained of the
Sea, and in clear weather of Bethlehem and
salem (Seetzen, Reisen, i. 418; Schwarz, 217).
G.
ISH (W*/ [perh. bow, Ges.]: Kis; [Vat. Alex.
and so Lachm. Tisch. Treg. in Acts:] Cis,
.and A. V., Acts xiii. 21). 1. A man of the
of Benjamin and the family of Matri, accord-
9 1 Sam. x. 21, though descended from Becher
ding to 1 Chr. vii. 8, compared with 1 Sam.
_ [BecuER.] He was son of Ner, brother
bner, and father to King Saul. Gibeah or
mn seems to have been the seat of the family
the time of Jehiel, otherwise called Abiel
mm. xiv. 51), Kish’s grandfather (1 Chr. ix.
Son of Jehiel, and uncle to the preceding
ar. [viii. 30,] ix. 36).
[Kioatos; Vat. Alex. Ke:oaios.] A Benja-
great grandfather of Mordecai, who was taken
ve at the time that Jeconiah was carried to
lon {Esth. ii. 5)
A Merarite, of the house of Mahli, of the
of Levi. His sons married the daughters of
rother Kleazar (1 Chr. xxiii. 21, 22, xxiv. 28,
apparently about the time of King Saul, or
in the reign of David, since Jeduthun the
r was the son of Kish (1 Chr. vi. 44, A. V.,
ared with 2 Chr. xxix. 12). In the last cited
“Kish the son of Abdi,” in the reign of
kiah, must denote the Levitical house or divis-
under its chief, rather than an individual.
HUA.] The genealogy in 1 Chr. yi. shows
though Kish is called “the son of Mahli”
ir. Xxili. 21), yet eight generations intervened
en him and Mahli. In the corrupt text of
t. xv. the name is written Kushaich at ver. 17,
or Jeduthun is written Ethan. [JEDUTHUN.]
‘Chr. vi. 29 (44, A. V.) it is written Kishi.
not improbable that the name Kish may have
1 into the tribe of Levi from that of Benjamin,
t to the residence of the latter in the imme-
neighborhood of Jerusalem, which might lead
ermarriages (1 Chr. viii. 28, 32).
A. C,H.
{SH’I (lah re) [perh. Jehovah's bow, Ges.]:
3 [Vat. Keioat 3] Alex. Keicar: Cust), a
nite, and father or ancestor of Ethan the
rel (1 Chr. vi. 44). The form in which his
{ishon is from Wp, to be bent, or tortuous ;
m from TT}, to be hard (‘Thes. 1211, 1243).
Y Some this was — with the usual craving to
the name of a place mean something — developed
) Tov Kigoov, “ the torrent of the ivy bushes ”
8, 8. v. “IaBiv), just as the name of Kidron
wv) was made ray Kédpwv, “of the cedars.”
°N; Kipron.]
‘he term coupled with the Kishon in Judg. y. 21,
Pr, in A. V. “that ancient river,” has been
Ariously rendered by the old interpreters. 1. It
/ as a proper name, and thus apparently that
listinet stream —in some MSS. of the LXX.,
cu (See Bahrdt’s Hexapla); by Jerome, in the
&, lorrens Cadumim ; in the Peshito and Arabic
» Carmin. This view is also taken by Ben-
(ot Tudela, who speaks of the river close to
' doubtless meaning thereby the Belus) as the
99
|
.
KISHON, THE RIVER 1569
name appears in the Vulg. is supported by 22 of
Kennicott’s MSS. In 1 Chr. xv. 17 he is called
KusHAIAH, and Kisu in 1 Chr. xxiii. 21, xxiv.
29.
KISH’ION (]VW/P [hardness]: Kody; [Vat.
Keiowy;] Alex. Keaiwy: Cesion), one of the towns
on the boundary of the tribe of Issachar (Josh. xix.
20), which with its suburbs was allotted to the
Gershonite Levites (xxi. 28; though in this place
the name — identical in the original —is incor-
rectly given in the A. V. Kisnon). If the judg-
ment of Gesenius may be accepted, there is no con-
nection between the name Kishion and that of the
river Kishon, since as Hebrew words they are de-
rivable from distinct roots.¢ But it would seem
very questionable how far so archaic a name as that
of the Kishon, mentioned, as it is, in one of the
earliest records we possess (Judg. v.), can be treated
as Hebrew. No trace of the situation of Kishion
however exists, nor can it be inferred so as to enable
us to ascertain whether any connection was likely
to have existed between the town and the river.
KYSHON (YW)? [see above]: ) Kiedy,
[Vat. Kesowy;] Alex. 7 Kiciwy: Cesion), an in-
accurate mode of representing (Josh. xxi. 28) the
name which on its other occurrence is correctly
given as Kisn1on. In the list of Levitical cities
in 1 Chr. vi. its place is occupied by KepEsu
(ver. 72).
KYSHON, THE RIVER (Pvp bm
(torrent, K., i. e. bending itself, serpentine, Ges.]
6 xeuddpous Kigav, Kiooav,? and Keioav; [Vat
uniformly, and] Alex. usually Ke:owy: torrens
Cison), a torrent or winter stream of central Pales-
tine, the scene of two of the grandest achievements
of Israelite history — the defeat of Sisera, and the
destruction of the prophets of Baal by Elijah.
Unless it be alluded to in Josh. xix. 11 as “the
torrent facing Jokneam ’’ — and if Kaimdn be Jok-
neam, the description is very accurate — the Kishon
is not mentioned in describing the possessions of
the tribes. Indeed its name occurs only in con-
nection with the two great events just referred to
(Judg. iv. 7, 18, v. 21;¢ Ps. lxxxiii. 9 — here in-
accurately ‘ Kison;’’ and 1 K. xviii. 40).
The Nahr Mukitta, the modern representative
of the Kishon, is the drain by which the waters of
the plain of Esdraelon, and of the mountains which
inclose that plain, namely, Carmel and the Samaria
range on the south, the mountains of Galilee on
TT? bm. 2. As an epithet of the Kishon
itself: LXX., yetudppous apyatwy; Aquila, cavowver,
perhaps intending to imply a scorching wind or simoom
as accompanying the rising of the waters ; Symmachus,
aiyiwy Or aiyov, perhaps alluding to the swift spring-
ing of the torrent (aiyes is used for high waves by
Artemidorus). The Targum, adhering to the significa-
tion “ ancient,’’ expands the sentence —“t the torrent
in which were shown signs and wonders to Israel of
old ;” and this miraculous torrent a later Jewish tra-
dition (preserved in the Commentarius in Canticum
Debbore, ascribed to Jerome) would identify with the
Red Sea, the scene of the greatest marvels in Israel’s
history. The rendering of the A. V. is supported by
Mendelssohn, Gesenius, Ewald, and other eminent mod-
ern scholars. But is it not possible that the term may
refer to an ancient tribe of Kedumim — wanderers from
the eastern deserts — who had in remote antiquity
settled on the Kishon or one of its tributary wadies?
1570 KISHON, THE RIVER
the north, and Gilboa, “ Little Hermon ”’ (so called),
and Tabor on the east, find their way to the Medi-
terranean. Its course is in a direction nearly due
N. W. along the lower part of the plain nearest the
foot of the Samarian hills, and close beneath the
very cliffs of Carmel (Thomson, Land and Book, 2d
ed. p. 486), breaking through the hills which separate
the plain of Esdraelon from the maritime plain of
Acre, by a very narrow pass, beneath the eminence
of Harothieh or Harti, which is believed still to
retain a trace of the name of Harosheth of the
Gentiles (Thomson, p. 437). It has two principal
feeders: the first from Deburieh (Daberath), on
Mount Tabor, the N. E. angle of the plain; and
secondly, from Jelbin (Gilboa) and Jenin (Engan-
nim) on the §. E. The very large perennial spring
of the last-named place may be said to be the origin
of the remote part of the Kishon (Thomson, p. 435).
It is also fed by the copious spring of Lejjun, the
stream from which is probably the ‘waters of
Megiddo”’ (Van de Velde, 353; Porter, Handbook,
p. 385). During the winter and spring, and after
sudden storms of rain, the upper part of the Kishon
flows with a very strong torrent; so strong, that
in the battle of Mount Tabor, April 16, 1799, some
of the circumstances of the defeat of Sisera were
reproduced, many of the fugitive Turks being
drowned in the wady from Deburieh, which then
inundated a part of the plain (Burckhardt, p. 339).
At the same seasons the ground about Lejjun
(Megiddo) where the principal encounter with Sisera
would seem to have taken place, becomes a morass,
impassable for even single travellers, and truly de-
structive @ for a huge horde like his army (Prokesch,
in Rob. ii. 864; Thomson, p. 436).
But like most of the so-called “rivers ’’ of Pales-
tine, the perennial stream forms but a small part of
the Kishon. During the greater part of the year
its upper portion is dry, and the stream confined to
a few miles next the sea. The sources of this
perennial portion proceed from the roots of Carmel
—the “vast fountains called Sa’adiyeh, about
three miles east of Chaifa ’? (Thomson, p. 435), and
those, apparently still more copious, described by
Shaw (Rob. ii. 365),° as bursting forth from be-
neath the eastern brow of Carmel, and discharging
of themselves ‘a river half as big as the Isis.”’
It enters the sea at the lower part of the bay of
Akka, about two miles east of Chaifa, “in a deep
tortuous bed between banks of loamy soil some 15
feet high, and 15 to 20 yards apart’’ (Porter,
Handbook, pp. 383, 384). Between the mouth and
the town the shore is lined by an extensive grove
of date-palms, one of the finest in Palestine (Van
de Velde, p. 289).
The part of the Kishon at which the prophets of
Baal were slaughtered by Elijah was doubtless close
below the spot on Carmel where the sacrifice had
taken place. This spot is now fixed with all but
certainty, as at the extreme east end of the moun-
a * The Kishon, considered, on account of its quick-
sands, the most dangerous river in the land”’ (Van de
Velde, i. 289).
6 The report of Shaw that this spring is called by
the people of the place Réas el-Kishon, though dis-
missed with contempt by Robinson in his note, on the
ground that the name K. is not known to the Arabs,
has been confirmed to the writer by the Rev. W. Lea,
who recently visited the spot.
c The English reader should be on his guard not
to rely on the translation of Benjamin contained in
the edition of Asher (Berlin, 1840). In the part of
KISS
tain, to which the name is still attached
Mahrakah, “the burning.” [CARMEL]
where does the Kishon run so close to the mo
as just beneath this spot (Van de Velde, i
It is about 1000 feet above the river, and
cipitous ravine leads directly down, by whi
victims were perhaps hurried from the sacre
cincts of the altar of Jehovah to their doom
torrent bed below, at the foot of the mound,
from this circumstance may be called Tell
the hill of the priests. Whether the Kisho
tained any water at this time we are not told
required for Elijah’s sacrifice was in all prob
obtained from the spring on the mountai
below the plateau of el-Mahrakah. [Ca
vol. i. p. 390 a.]
Of the identity of the Kishon with the ]
Nahr Mukitta there can be no question.
existence of the sites of Taanach and M
along its course, and the complete agreem
the circumstances just named with the r
ments of the story of Elijah, are suffici
satisfy us that the two are one and the same.
it is very remarkable what an absence ther
any continuous or traditional evidence on the
By Josephus the Kishon is never named, 1
does the name occur in the early Itinerat
Antoninus Augustus, or the Bordeaux P.:
Eusebius and Jerome dismiss it in a few
and note only its origin in Tabor ( Onom. “ Ci:
or such part of it as can be seen thence (
Eustochium, § 18), passing by entirely it
nection with Carmel. Benjamin of Tudela
Akka and Carmel. He mentions the rit
name as “‘ Nachal Kishon;”’ ¢ but only in th
cursory manner. Brocardus (cir. 1500) de
the western portion of the stream with ¢
more fullness, but enlarges most on its up
eastern part, which, with the victory of Bar
places on the east of Tabor and Hermon, :
charging the water of those mountains into t
of Galilee (Descr. Terre S. cap. 6, 7). TI
been shown by Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Res. ii. ¢
allude to the Wady el-Bireh, which runs d
the Jordan a few miles above Scythopolis
the descriptions of modern travellers, see Ma
(Karly Trav. 430); Robinson (ii. 862, &
116,117); Van de Velde (324, c&c.); Stanle
339, 355), and Thomson (Land and Bool,
Xxix.).
KI’SON (wp [see above]: Ke:oay;
Kiocowv: Cison), an inaccurate mode of rep
ing the name elsewhere correctly given in the
KisHon (Ps. Ixxxili. 9 only). An_ additioi
consistency is the expression “ the brook of I
—the word “of”? being redundant both he
in Judg. iv. 13, and y. 21.
KISS.¢ Kissing the lips by way of affec
salutation was not only permitted, but cust
the work above referred to two serious errors
2.) OVS)? on is rendered “ Nahr el-]
most erroneously, for the N. el-Kelb (Lycus)
than 80 miles farther north. (2.) wp '*
rendered “the river Mukattua.” Other rev
no less inexact occur elsewhere, which need:
noted here.
a1. Verb. PW]: LXX. and N. T. gidé
prréw * 2. Subs. M2 /
osculor, deosculor.
‘i
KISS
mgst near relatives of both sexes, both in patri-
yal and in later times (Gen. xxix. 11; Cant.
1). Between individuals of the same sex, and
limited degree between those of different sexes,
kiss on the cheek as a mafk of respect or an
of salutation has at all times been customary
he East, and can hardly be said to be extinct
1} in Europe. Mention is made of it (1) be-
nn parents and children (Gen. xxvii. 26, 27,
. 28, 55, xlviii. 10, 1. 1; Ex. xviii. 7; Ruth i.
4; 2 Sam. xiv. 33; 1 K. xix. 20; Luke xv. 20;
. vii. 6, x. 12): (2) between brothers or near
e relatives or intimate friends (Gen. xxix. 13,
iis 4, xlv. 15; Ex. iv. 27; 1 Sam. xx. 41):
the same mode of salutation between persons
related, but of equal rank, whether friendly or
itful, is mentioned (2 Sam. xx. 9; Ps. Ixxxv.
Prov. xxvii. 6; Luke vii. 45 (1st clause), xxii.
Acts xx. 37): (4) as a mark of real or affected
lescension (2 Sam. xv. 5, xix. 39): (5) respect
1 an inferior (Luke vii. 38, 45, and perhaps viii.
1 the Christian Church the kiss of charity was
ticed not only as a friendly salutation, but as
et symbolical of love and Christian brotherhood
may. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12;
hess. v. 26; 1 Pet. v. 14). It was embodied
he early Christian offices, and has been con-
ed in some of those now in use (Apost. Constit.
7, viii. 11; Just. Mart. Apol. i. 65; Palmer,
Lit. ii. 102, and note from Du Cange; Bing-
, Christ. Antig. b. xii. c. iv. § 5, vol. iv. p. 49,
, @, xi. § 10, vol. i. p. 161, b. ii. c. xix. § 17, vol.
272, b. iv. c. vi. § 14, vol. i. p. 526, b. xxii. c. iii.
vol. vii. p. 316; see also Cod. Just. V. Tit. iii.
de Don. ante Nupt.; Brande, Pop. Antig. ii.
etween persons of unequal rank, the kiss, as a
< either of condescension on the one hand, or
*spect on the other, can hardly be said to sur-
‘in Europe except in the case of royal per-
ges. In the East it has been continued with
‘diminution to the present day. ‘The ancient
‘an custom among relatives is mentioned by
vphon (Cyrop. i. 4, § 27), and among inferiors
tds superiors, whose feet and hands they kissed
i. 5, § 32; Dion Cass. lix. 27). Among the
's the women and children kiss the beards of
husbands or fathers. The superior returns
salute by a kiss on the forehead. In Egypt
ferior kisses the hand of a superior, generally
'e back, but sometimes, as a special favor, on
palm also. To testify abject submission, and
iking favors, the feet are often kissed instead
‘e hand. “The son kisses the hand of his
+, the wife that of her husband, the slave,
‘often the free servant, that of the master.
‘Slaves and servants of a grandee kiss their
| sleeve or the skirt of his clothing’ (Lane,
I fg. ii. 9; Arvieux, Trav. p- 151; Burck-
i Trav. i. 369; Niebuhr, Voy. i. 329, ii. 93;
ind, Nin. i. 174; Wellsted, Arabia, i. 341;
Im, Skeiches of Persia, p. 271; see above
1 being of extension, or possibly from the sound,
» Pp. 924; LX X. and N. T. hidnua: osculum.
‘a the parallel passage of Lev. xi. the glede
}) is omitted; but the Hebrew word has in all
oility crept into the text by an error of some
Tiber. (See Gesen. s. v., and GLEDE.)
2 ornithological language ‘' kite ”
=
glede ”
KITE 1571
The written decrees of a sovereign are kissed in
token of respect; even the ground is sometimes
kissed by Orientals in the fullness of their sub-
mission (Gen. xli. 40; 1 Sam. xxiv. 8; Ps. Ixxii. - IF
Is. xlix. 23; Mic. vii. 17; Matt. xxviii. 9; Wilkin-
son, Ane. /9. ii. 203; Layard, Nin. i. 274; Harmer,
Obs. i. 336).
Friends saluting each other join the right hand,
then each kisses his own hand, and puts it to his
lips and forehead, or breast; after a long absence
they embrace each other, kissing first on the right
side of the face or neck, and then on the left, or on
both sides of the beard (Lane, ii. 9, 10; Irby and
Mangles, p. 116; Chardin, Voy. iii, 421; Arvieux,
l.c.; Burckhardt, Notes, i. 369; Russell, Aleppo,
i. 240).
Kissing is spoken of in Scripture as a mark of
respect or adoration to idols (1 K. xix. 18; Hos.
xiii. 2; comp. Cic. Ver. iv. 43; Tacitus, speaking
of an eastern custom, Hist. iii. 24, and the Mo-
hammedan custom of kissing the Kaaba at Mecca;
Burckhardt, Trav. i. 250, 298, 323; Crichton,
Arabia, ii. 215). Bo We ts
KITE (TAR, ayyah: ixrivos, yi: vultur
milvus ?). The Hebrew word thus rendered occurs
in three passages, Lev. xi. 14, Deut. xiv. 13, and
Job xxviii. 7: in the two former it is translated
‘kite’? in the A. V., in the latter “ vulture.” It
is enumerated among the twenty names of birds
mentioned in Deut. xiv. (belonging for the most
part to the order Raptores), which were considered
unclean by the Mosaic Law, and forbidden to be
used as food by the Israelites. The allusion in Job
alone affords a clew to its identification. The deep
mines in the recesses of the mountains from which
the labor of man extracts the treasures of the
earth are there described as “a track which the
bird of prey hath not known, nor hath the eye of
the ayyah looked upon it.’’ Among all birds
of prey, which are proverbially clear-sighted, the
ayyah is thus distinguished as possessed of peculiar
keenness of vision, and by this attribute alone is
it marked. Translators have been singularly at
variance with regard to this bird. In the LXX.
of Lev. and Deut. ayyah is rendered “kite,”
while in Job it is ‘vulture,’’ which the A. V. has
followed. ‘The Vulg. gives “vulture ’’ in all three
passages, unless, as Drusius suggests (on Lev. xi.
14), the order of the words in Lev. and Deut.
is changed; but even in this case there remains
the rendering “ vulture’? in Job, and the reason
advanced by Drusius for the transposition is not
conclusive. The Targ. Onkelos vaguely renders it
“bird of prey;’’ Targ. Pseudo-Jonathan, “ black
vulture; ’’ Targ. Jerus. by a word which Buxtorf
translates “a pie,’’ in which he is supported by the
authority of Kimchi, but which Bochart considers
to be identical in meaning with the preceding, and
which is employed in Targ. Onkelos as the equiva-
lent of the word rendered “ heron’’ in A. V. of Lev.
xi. 19. It is impossible to say what the rendering
of the Peshito Syriac in Lev. and Deut. may be, in
consequence of an evident confusion in the text; in
(Milvus vulgaris); but “glede’’ is applied by the
common people in Ireland to the common buzzard
(Buteo vulgaris), the “ kite” not being indigenous to
that country. So, too, the translators of the A. V.
considered the terms ‘kite’ and ‘ glede” as distinct,
for they render ms) glede,” and TTS kite,”
and the glede and the kite ” (Deut. xiv. 13).
Ve
KNIFE
seven different kinds employed by the nativs
the same purpose.
Two persons are mentioned in the O. T.:
names are derived from this bird. [AJAH.]
(Handw. s. v.) compares the parallel instane
Shahin, a kind of falcon, used as a proper nat
the Persians and Turks, and the Latin M
To these we may add Falco and Falconia a
the Romans, and the names of Hawke, F
Falconer, Kite, etc., etc., in our own languag
Lower’s Historical Essays on English Surne
W. ae
* The common black kite, which is seen '
ing in circles over the cities of Egypt, wit
small vulture ( Vultwr percnopterus) is called
Tore KITE
Job ayyah is translated by daitho,e “a kite” or
“ yulture’’ as some have it, which is the repre-
sentative of “vulture” in the A. V. of Is. xxxiv.
15. The Arabic versions of Saadias and Abulwalid
give “the night-owl;’” and Aben Ezra, deriving it
from a root® signifying “an island,’ explains it
as “the island bird,” without however identifying
it with any individual of the feathered tribes.
Robertson (Clavis Pentateuchi) derives ayyah from
the Heb. 71'S, an obsolete root, which he connects
with an Arabic word,¢ the primary meaning of
which, according to Schultens, is “to turn.” If
this derivation be the true one, it is not improbable
that “kite ’’ is the correct rendering. The habit
which birds of this genus have of “sailing in
circles, with the rudder-like tail by its inclination
governing the curve,” as Yarrell says, accords with
the Arabic derivation.¢
Bochart, regarding the etymology of the word,
connected it with the Arabic al yuyu, a kind of
hawk so called from its ery ydyd, described by
Damir as a small bird with a short tail, used in
hunting, and remarkable for its great courage, the
swiftness of its flight, and the keenness of its vision,
which is made the subject of praise in an Arabic
stanza quoted by Damir. From these considerations
Bochart identifies it with the merlin, or Falco
esalon of Linneeus, which is the same as the Greek
aicaddév and Latin esalo. It must be confessed,
however, that the grounds for identifying the ayyah
with any individual species are too slight to enable
us to regard with confidence any conclusions which
may be based upon them; and from the expression
which follows in Lev. and Deut., after its kind,”
it is evident that the term is generic. The Talmud
goes so far as to assert that the four Hebrew words
rendered in A. V. “vulture,” ‘glede,” and “ kite,””
denote one and the same bird (Lewysohn, Zodlogie
ra
natives Kolko. This species is found :
pi
Syria, though like all the raptorial birds
numerously than in Egypt. rom its pro:
to the cities it would appear to prefer what |
pick up of offal and dead birds to the more
rious hunting of its living prey. The pige
Egypt, which are exceedingly numerous i
neighborhood of the towns, seem to fly ab
perfect indifference to the presence of this po
raptor, and I never saw a kite make a desc
a flock of pigeons, though they might do so
times. They are exceedingly wary and diffi
approach, or shoot on the wing. G. Eh.
KITH’LISH (WDD, «& ¢ Cit
Maaxyés: Alex. XafAws; [Comp. Ald. Kaé
Cethlis), one of the towns of Judah, in the S/
or lowland (Josh. xv. 40), named in the same
with Eglon, Gederoth, and Makkedah. It
named by Eusebius or Jerome, nor does it
to have been either sought or found by an
traveller.
KIT’RON (JNU) [perh. castle, fi
Dietr.]: Kédpav; Alex., with unusual dey
from the Heb. text, XeBpwy: [Ald. Xedpav;
Kerpév:] Cetron), a town which, though no
tioned in the specification of the possessi
Zebulun in Josh. xix., is catalogued in Judg
as one of the towns from which Zebulun «
expel the Canaanites. It is here named
Nahalol, a position occupied in Josh. xix.
Kattath. Kitron may be a corruption of 1
it may be an independent place omitted fo1
reason from the other list. In the Talmud (
lah, as quoted by Schwarz, 178) it is identifi
« Zippori,’” 4. e. Sepphoris, now Seffurieh.
KIT’TIM (OD: Kfjrion, Gen. x. 45.
[ Alex.1 Kymiot? Comp. Xerriu, Ald. Xer
1 Chr. i. 7: [Cetthim,] Cethim). Twice’
in the A. V. for CHITTIM. :
KNEADING-TROUGHS. [BREA
KNIFE. 1. The knives of the Egyptia
of other nations in early times, were probab
des Talmuds, § 196). Seetzen (i. 310) mentions
a species of falcon used in Syria for hunting gazelles
and hares, and a smaller kind for hunting hares in
the desert. Russell (Aleppo, ii. 196) enumerates
a Jay,
¢ Gi
db SS,
d Gesenius traces the word to the unused root
rr yss = Arab. Sot, to howl like a dog or wolf.”
of hard stone, and the use of the flint or ston
was sometimes retained for sacred purpose
the introduction of iron and steel (Plin.
eae U Dene ere reas eer
el. AT, Gesen. p. 516: pdxarpa:
culter, 2. noose, from DOR, ‘* eat,” Ge
89, 92: poudara: gladius. )
w
KNIFE
y. 12, § 165). Herodotus (ii. 86) mentions
es both of iron and of stone @ in different stages
he same process of embalming. The same may
aps be said to some extent of the Hebrews.?
. In their meals the Jews, like other Orientals,
le little use of knives, but they were required
2 for slaughtering animals either for food or
ifice, as well as cutting up the carcase (Lev. vii.
$4, viii. 15, 20, 25, ix. 13; Num. xviii. 18; 1
}. ix. 24; Ez. xxiv. 4; Ezr. i. 9; Matt. xxvi. 23;
sell, Aleppo, i. 172; Wilkinson, i. 169; Mischn.
nid, iv. 3).
. Smaller knives were in use for paring fruit
eph. Ant. xvii. 7; B. J. i. 33, § 7) and for
pening pens ¢ (Jer. xxxvi. 23).
, 2. Egyptian Flint Knives in Museum at Berlin.
. Egyptian Knife represented in Hieroglyphics.
» The razor 4 was often used for Nazaritic pur-
2s, for which a special chamber was reserved in
Temple (Num. vi. 5, 9, 19; Ez. v. 1; Is. vii.
Jer. xxxvi. 23; Acts xviii. 18, xxi. 24; Mischn.
id. ii. 5).
Egyptian Knife.
(British Museum.)
[ The pruning-hooks of Is. xviii. 5 ¢ were prob-
7 curved knives.
» The lancets/ of the priests of Baal were doubt-
|| pointed knives (1 K. xviii. 28). [LANCET.]
)
i if > ,
| MiBos AtOcomeKds.
TS (Ex. iv. 25) is in LXX. yfgos, in which Syr.
other versions agree ; as also DYE mn,
P. 1160; payatpas merpivas éx métpas aKpoTomous,
.v. 2. See Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. ii. 164 ; Prescott,
00, i. 68.
|
iF
ae usually carry about with them a knife | almond-tree.
lagger, often with a highly ornamented handle, | appear to form a boss, from which the branches are
ich may be used when required for eating pur-|to spring out from the main stem. In Am. ix. 1
KNOP 1573
poses (Judg. iii. 21; Layard, Non. ii. 342, 299,
Wilkinson, i. 358, 860; Chardin, Voy. 1v. 18;
Niebuhr, Voy. i. 340, pl. 71). HOW. ka
* Instead of “sharp knives” in Josh. v. 2
(A. V.) the margin reads “ knives of flint,’ which
is more exact for OTE m270, lit. knives of
rocks or stones. The account of Joshua's burial
(Josh. xxiv. 30) contains in the Septuagint this re-
(From Originals in Britisn
Museum.)
markable addition. ‘ Then they placed with him
in the tomb in which they buried him there the flint
knives (ras uaxalpas Tas metpivas) with which he
circumcised the children of Israel in Gilgal, when he
led them forth out of Egypt, as the Lord com-
manded them; and there they are unto this day.”
It, thus appears that the Alexandrian translator
(even supposing that he has not followed here a dis-
tinct tradition respecting the great Hebrew leader)
was at all events familiar with the fact that it was not
uncommon to bury such relics with distinguished
persons when they died. It is well known that in
the Sinaitic peninsula stone or flint knives have
often been discovered on opening ancient places of
sepulture. The Abyssinian tribes at the present
day use flint knives in performing circumcision
(Knobel, Exodus, p. 40). See Sronrs, 3. H.
KNOP, that is Knox, (A. S. cenep). A word
employed in the A. V. to translate two terms, of
the real meaning of-which all that we can say with
certainty is that they refer to some architectural or
ornamental object, and that they have nothing in
common. :
1. Caphtor (XWADD). This occurs in the de-
scription of the candlestick of the sacred tent in
Ex. xxv. 31-36, and xxxvii. 17-22, the two passages
being identical. The knops are here distinguished
from the shaft, branches, bowls, and flowers of the
candlestick; but the knop and the flower go together,
and seem intended to imitate the produce of an
In another part of the work they
Assyrian Knives.
¢ ANDI AYN, the knife of a scribe.”
d DSDERT AYA, Ges. p. 1069.
e mn, Ges. p. 421: Spérava: falces.
f DY: gerpopdorat : lanceolt
1574 KNOP
the same word is rendered, with doubtful accuracy,
“lintel.”” ‘The same rendering is used in Zeph. ii.
14, where the reference is to some part of the palaces
of Nineveh, to be exposed when the wooden upper
story —the “cedar work ’’ — was destroyed. ‘The
Hebrew word seems to contain the sense of “ cov-
ering’ and “crowning’’ (Gesenius, Thes. 709).
Josephus’s description (Ant. iii. 6, § 7) names both
balls (c@aipia) and pomegranates (fotcxoz), either
of which may be the caphtor. The ‘Targum @ agrees
with the latter, the LXX. (cpaipwripes) with the
former. [LINTEL.]
2. The second term, Peka’imn (B°D/25), is found
only in 1 K. vi. 18 and vii. 24. It refers in the
former to carvings executed in the cedar wainscot of
the interior of the Temple, and, as in the preceding
word, is associated with flowers. In the latter case
it denotes an ornament cast round the great reser-
voir or “ sea’’ of Solomon’s Temple below the brim:
there was a double row of them, ten to a cubit, or
about 2 inches from centre to centre.
The word no doubt signifies some globular thing
resembling a small gourd,’ or an egg,¢ though as
to the character of the ornament we are quite in
the dark. The following woodcut of a portion of a
WY ANDY AML
YVR) LRN REAR
CIN AGIAN
Nig Nias Le
ZF
Border of a Slab from Kouyunjik.
Architecture, )
(Fergusson’s
richly ornamented door-step or slab from Kouyunjik,
probably represents something approximating to
a “\i—, an apple, or other fruit of a round form,
both in Onkelos and Pseudojon.
b Compare the similar word NDP, Pakkusth,
*t gourds,” in 2 K. iv. 39. f
€ This is the rendering of the Targum.
KOHATH
the “knop and the flower’’ of Solomon’s ‘
ple. But as the building from which this is t
was the work of a king at least as late as the
of Ksarhaddon, contemporary with the latter
of the reign of Manasseh, it is only natural to
pose that the character of the ornament would
undergone considerable modification from wh
was in the time of Solomon. We must await;
future happy discovery in Assyrian or Egy;
art, to throw clearer light on the meaning of ;
and a hundred other terms of detail in the des
tions of the buildings and life of the Israelites,
|
* KNOWEN. This older form of the
participle is used throughout the original editi
the A. V. instead of Known. [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 JD, Bécrs, basis, and so also A. V
|, et
i VN, Kdromtpa, specula,
{J LXX. tay vyorevoacav.
* Bee the parallel passage, 1 Sam. li. 22, where
-
LAVER 1599
with an Arab root, which signifies to be cool,”
esp. of the day, and thus attaches to eshndb the
signification of a “Jatticed window,” through which
the cool breezes enter the house, such as is seen in
the illustrations to the article House (vol. ii. p.
1103 f.). But Fuerst and Meier attach to the root
the idea of twisting, twining, and in this case the
word will be synonymous with the two following,
whick are rendered by the same English term,
‘“lattice,’in the A.V. The LXX. in Judg. v.
28 render eshnab by rotixdv, which is explained
by Jerome (ad /z. xl. 16) to mean a small arrow-
shaped aperture, narrow on the outside, but widen-
ing inwards, by which light is admitted. Others
conjecture that it denoted a narrow window, like
those in the castles of the Middle Ages, from which
the archers could discharge their arrows in safety.
It would then correspond with the ‘ shot-window ”
of Chancer (* Miller’s Tale’’), according to the
interpretation which some give to that obscure
phrase.
2. DIDIT, khdraccim (Cant. ii. 9), is ap-
parently synonymous with the preceding, though
a word of later date. The Targum gives it, in the
Chaldee form, as the equivalent of eshnab im Prov.
vii. 6. Fuerst (Conc. s. y.) and Michaelis before
him assign to the root the same notion of twisting
or weaving, so that khdraccim denotes a network
or jalousie before a window.
3. TI DAW, sebacdh, is simply “a network”
placed before a window or balcony. Perhaps the
network through which Ahaziah fell and received
his mortal injury was on the parapet of his palace
(2 K. i. 2). [Houss, vol. ii. pp. 1105 6, 1106 «.]
The root involves the same idea of weaving or
twisting as in the case of the two preceding words.
Sebdcdh is used for “anet’? in Job xviii. 8, as
well as for the network ornaments on the capitals
of the columns in the Temple. [W1nDow.]
. A. W.
LAVER.¢ 1. In the Tabernacle, a vessel of
brass containing water for the priests to wash their
hands and feet before offering sacrifice. It stood
in the court between the altar and the door of the
Tabernacle, and, according to Jewish tradition, a
little to the south (Ex. xxx. 19, 21; Reland, Ant
Hebr. pt. i. ch. iv. 9; Clemens, de Labro neo,
iii. 9; ap. Ugolini, Thes. vol. xix.). It rested ona
basis,® 7. e. a foot, though by some explained to be
a cover (Clemens, ibid. ch. iii. 5), of copper or brass,
which, as well as the laver itself, was made from
the mirrors ¢ of the women who assembled ¢ at the
door of the Tabernacle-court (Ex. xxxviii. 8). The
notion held by some Jewish writers, and reproduced
by Franzius, Bahr (Symb. i. 484), and others,
founded on the omission of the word ‘ women,”
that the brazen vessel, being polished, served as a
mirror to the Levites, is untenable.¢
The form of the laver is not specified, but may
be assumed to have been circular. Like the other
vessels belonging to the Tabernacle, it was, together
Wer ha ity hh ds ee eS
D9, yuvatkdyv, is inserted ; Gesenius on the prep
‘ ‘
3D, p. 172; Keil, Bibl. Arch. pt. i. c. 1, § 19; Glassius,
Phil. Sacr. i. p. 580, ed. Dathe; Lightfoot, Deser.
Templ. ch. 87, 1; Jennings, Jew. Antig. p- 302 ;
Knobel, Kurzg. exeg. Handb. Exod. xxxviii.; Philo,
Vit. Mos. iii. 15, ii. 156, ed. Mangey-
1600 LAVER
with its ‘ foot,’’ consecrated with oil (Lev. viii. 10,
11). No mention is found in the Hebrew text of
the mode of transporting it, but in Num. iv. 14 a
passage is added in the LXX., agreeing with the
Samaritan Pent. and the Samaritan version, which
prescribes the method of packing it, namely, in a
purple cloth, protected by a skin covering. As no
mention is made of any vessel for washing the flesh
of the sacrificial victims, it is possible that the laver
may have been used for this purpose also (Reland,
Ant. Hebr. i. iv. 9).
2. In Solomon’s Temple, besides the great mol-
tex sea, there were ten lavers@ of brass, raised on
bases © (1 K. vii. 27, 39), five on the N. and S.
sides respectively of the court of the priests. Each
laver contained 40 of the measures called ‘bath ”
(xéas, LXX. and Josephus). They were used for
washing the animals to be offered in burnt-offerings
(2 Chr. iv. 6; Joseph. Ant. viii. 83, § 6). The bases
were mutilated by Ahaz, and carried away as plun-
der, or at least what remained of them, by Nebu-
zar-adan, after the capture of Jerusalem (2 K. xvi.
17, xxv. 13). No mention is made in Scripture
of the existence of the lavers in the second Temple,
nor by Josephus in his account of Herod’s restora-
tion (Joseph. B. J. v. 5). [MOoLTEen SEA.]
The dimensions of the bases with the lavers, as
given in the Hebrew text, are 4 cubits in length
and breadth, and 3 in height. The LXX. gives
4+4+6 in height. Josephus, who appears to have
followed a var. reading of the LXX., makes them
5 in length, 4 in width, and 6 in height (1 K. vii.
28; Thenius, ad loc.; Joseph. Ant. viii. 3, § 3).
There were to each 4 wheels of 14 cubit in diame-
ter, with spokes, etc., all cast in one piece. The
principal parts requiring explanation may be thus
enumerated: (a.) ** Borders,’’ © probably panels.
Gesenius (7hes. p. 938) supposes these to have
been ornaments like square shields with engraved |
work. (6.) ** Ledges,’’ @ joints in corners of bases
or fillets covering joints.e¢ (c.) “ Additions,’ /
probably festoons; Lightfoot translates “ margines
Oblique descendentes.”’ (d.) Plates,7 probably
axles, cast in the same piece as the wheels. (e.)
Undersetters,” either the naves of the wheels, or a
sort of handles for moving the whole machine;
Lightfoot renders “ columnee fulcientes lavacrum.”’
(f:) Naves.t (g.) Spokes.* (h.) Felloes.? 7.)
Chapiter,™ perhaps the rim of the circular opening
(“*mouth,’’? ver. 31) in the convex top. (k.) A
round compass,” perhaps the convex roof of the
base. ‘To these parts Josephus adds chains, which
may probably be the festoons above mentioned
(Ant. viii. 3, § 6).
a Sd.
b PID, pl. of M259 or MID, from
715, “stand upright,” Ges. pp. 665, 670: wexwvd :
bases.
c mn: ovykAciopata: sculpture.
d mn duy, éfeyopueva, juncture, from 320),
«cut in notches,” Ges. p. 1411.
e Josephus sayS: xvoviokot TeTpaywvor, Ta mAEUpa
THs Bagews é& exatépou pépovs ev avTois éxovtes ééyp-
oopeva.
i may, from m7, « twine,” Ges. p. 746:
x@pat: lora; whence Thenius suggests Adpor or A@pa
as the true reading.
LAVER
Thenius, with whom Keil in the main a
both of them differing from Ewald, in a n
examination of~ the whole passage, but not wi
some transposition, chiefly of the greater p:
ver. 31 to ver. 35, deduces a construction o
bases and layers, which seems fairly to reconci:
very great difficulties of the subject. Folk
chiefly his description, we may suppose the b;
have been a quadrangular hollow frame, conn
at its corners by pilasters (ledges), and move
4 wheels or high castors, one at each corner,
handles (plates) for drawing the machine.
sides of this frame were divided into 3 ye
panels or compartments (borders), ornamented
bas-reliefs of lions, oxen, and cherubim, Th
of the base was convex, with a circular op
Conjectural Diagram of the Laver. (After Then
a, borders; 6, ledges; ¢, additions ; d, plates; :
dersetters ; /, naves ; 9, spokes; A, felloes; 2, |
iter ; k, round compass.
9 DYIID, mpogxovra, axes, Ges. 972; Light
2
MASSE BEC telragone.
h SVIDINS, duiar, humeruli, Ges. 724
a Dr, modioli ; and
k DYN, radii; the two words combine
LXX. 4 mpayporeia, Ges. p. 586; Schleusner,
Vek. TY [he
1 DDR, vero, canthi, Ges. p. 266.
mt nans, kepadis, summitas, Ges. p. 725.
dae y=) “AY, Ges. 935, 989 : arpdyyuAov Kv
rotunditas.
. LAW
; cubit diameter. The top itself was covered
engrayed cherubim, lions, and palm-trees or
shes. The height of the convex top from the
r plane of the base was } cubit, and the space
een this top and the lower surface of the laver
jitmore. ‘The laver rested on supports (under-
s) rising from the 4 corners of the base. Each
contained 40 “ baths,’’ or about 300 gallons.
limensions therefore, to be in proportion to 7
4 cubits, ver. 88) in diameter, must have been
t 80 inches in depth. The great height of the
machine was doubtless in order to bring it
the height of the altar (2 Chr. iv. 1; Arias
anus, de Templi Fabrica, Crit. Sacr. vii.
Lightfoot, Descr. Templi, ch. xxxvii. 3, vol.
146; Thenius, in Kurzg. exeg. Handb.on 1K.
md App. p. 41; Ewald, Geschichte, iii. 313;
Handb. der Bibl. Arch. § 24, pp. 128, 129;
ar, s. v. Handfass). 1 el A ag
AW (Tm : Néuwos)- The word is properly
in Scripture as elsewhere, to express a definite
aandment laid down by any recognized author-
The commandment may be general, or (as
vy. vi. 9, 14, &e., * the law of the burnt-offer-
ete.) particular in its bearing; the author-
ther human or divine. But when the word
ad with the article, and without any words of
ation, it refers to the expressed will of God,
in nine cases out of ten, to the Mosaic Law,
the Pentateuch, of which it forms the chief
on.
¢ Hebrew word (derived from the root 117%,
oint out,’’ and so “to direct and lead’’) lays
stress on its moral authority, as teaching the
, and guiding in the right way; the Greek
s (from yéuw, ‘to assign or appoint ’’), on
mstraining power, as imposed and enforced by
ognized authority. But in either case it is a
1andment proceeding from without, and dis-
ished from the free action of its subjects, al-
sh not necessarily opposed thereto.
ie sense of the word, however, extends its scope,
assumes a more abstract character in the
qgs of St. Paul. Nédwos, when used by him
‘the article, still refers in general to the Law
ses; but when used without the article, so as
ibrace any manifestation of “ Law,’’ it includes
dwers which act on the will of man by com-
m, or by the pressure of external motives,
1er their commands be or be not expressed in
teforms. This is seen in the constant oppo-
Of épya vduov (“ works done under the con-
it of ee ”) to faith, or “ works of faith,” that
ks done freely by the internal influence of
| A still more remarkable use of the word
ind in Rom. vii. 23, where the power of evil
‘he will, arising from the corruption of man,
ken of as a “law of sin,” that is, an un-
tyranny proceeding from an evil power
ut.
® Occasional use of the word “law’’ (as in
lil, 27, “law of faith; ” in vii. 23, “law of
ind,” rod vods; in viii. 2, law of the spirit
4” and in Jam. i. 25, ii. 12, “a perfect law,
w of liberty ’’) to denote‘an internal principle
1on does not really militate against the gen-
ale, For in each case it will be seen, that
winciple is spoken of in contrast with some
‘law, and the word “law” is consequently
1 to it “improperly,” in order to mark this
101
LAW OF MOSES 16C1
opposition, the qualifying words which follow guard-
ing against any danger of misapprehension of its
real character.
It should also be noticed that the title “the
Lavy ’’ is occasionally used loosely to refer to the whole
of the Cld Testament (as in John x. 34, referring to
Ps. Ixxxii. 6; in John xv. 25, referring to Ps. xxxv.
19; and ‘n1 Cor. xiv. 21, referring to Is. xxviii. 11,
12). ‘Chis usage is probably due, not only to de-
sire or brevity and to the natural prominence of
the Pentateuch, but also to the predominance in
the older Covenant (when considered separately
from the New, for which it was the preparation) of
an external and legal character. A. B
LAW OF MOSES. It will be the object of
this article, not to enter into the history of the
giving of the Law (for which see Moss, THE
Exopvs, ete.), nor to examine the authorship of
the books in which it is contained (for which see
PENTATEUCH, Exopus, etc.), nor to dwell ort par-
ticular ordinances, which are treated of under their
respective heads; but tu give a brief analysis of its
substance, to point out its main principles, and to
explain the position which it occupies in the prog-
ress of Divine Revelation. In order to do this
the more clearly, it seems best to speak of the Law,
Ist, in relation to the past; 2dly, in its own in-
trinsic character; and, 3dly, in its relation to the
future.
(I.) (a.) In reference to the past, it is all-im-
portant, for the proper understanding of the Law,
to remember its entire dependence on the Abra-
hamic Covenant, and its adaptation theréto (see
Gal. iii. 17-24). That covenant had a twofold
character. It contained the “ spiritual promise ”’
of the Messiah, which was given to the Jews as
representatives of the whole human race, and as
guardians of a treasure in which ‘all families of
the earth should be blessed."” This would prepare
the Jewish nation to be the centre of the unity of
all mankind. But it contained also the temporal
promises subsidiary to the former, and needed in
order to preserve intact the nation, through which
the race of man should be educated and prepared
for the coming of the redeemer. ‘These promises
were special, given distinctively to the Jews as a
nation, and, so far as they were considered in them-
selves, calculated to separate them from other nations
of the earth. It follows that there should be in
the Law a corresponding duality of nature. There
would be much in it of the latter character, much
(that is) peculiar to the Jews, local, special, and
transitory; but the fundamental principles on
which it was based must be universal, because ex-
pressing the will of an unchanging God, and
springing from relations to Him, inherent in hu-
man nature, and therefore perpetual and u.iversal
in their application.
(b.) The nature of this relation of the Law tv the
promise is clearly pointed out. The belief in
God as the Redeemer of man, and the hope of his
manifestation as such in the person of the Messiah,
involved the belief that the Spiritual Power must
be superior to all carnal obstructions, and that
there was in man a spiritual element which could
rule his life by communion with a Spirit from
above. But it involved also the idea of an antago-
nistic Power of Evil, from which man was to be
redeemed, existing in each individual, and existing
also in the world at large. The promise was the
witness of the one truth, the Law was the declara-
* national or universal existence.
1602 LAW OF MOSES
tion of the other. It was ‘added because of
transgressions.”’ In the individual, it stood between
his better and his worser self; in the world, between
the Jewish nation, as the witness of the spiritual
promise, and the heathendom, which groaned under
the power of the flesh. It was intended, by the
gift of guidance and the pressure of motives, to
strengthen the weakness of good, while it curbed
directly the power of evil. It followed inevitably,
that, in the individual, it assumed somewhat of a
coercive, and, as between Israel and the world,
somewhat of an antagonistic and isolating character ;
and hence that, viewed without reference to the
promise (as it was viewed by the later Jews), it
might actually become a hindrance to the true
revelation of God, and to the mission for which the
nation had been made a “ chosen people.”’
(c.) Nor is it less essential to remark the period
of the history at which it was given. It marked
and determined the transition of Israel from the
condition of a tribe to that of a nation, and its
definite assumption of a distinct position and office
in the history of the world. It is on no unreal
metaphor that we base the well-known analogy
between the stages of individual life and those of
In Israel the pa-
triarchal time was that of childhood, ruled chiefly
through the affections and the power of natural
relationship, with rules few, simple, and unsys-
tematic. The national period was that of youth,
in which this indirect teaching and influence gives
place to definite assertions of right and responsi-
bility, and to a system of distinct commandments,
needed to control its vigorous and impulsive action.
The fifty days of their wandering alone with God
in the silence of the wilderness represent that
awakening to the difficulty, the responsibility, and
the nobleness of life, which marks the ‘“ putting
away of childish things.’ The Law is the sign
and the seal of such an awakening.
(d.) Yet, though new in its general conception,
it was probably not wholly new in its materials.
Neither in his material nor his spiritual providence
does God proceed per salium. There must neces-
sarily have been, before the Law, commandments
and revelations of a fragmentary character, under
which Israel had hitherto grown up. Indications
of such are easily found, both of a ceremonial and
moral nature; as, for example, in the penalties
against murder, adultery, and fornication (Gen. ix.
6, xxxviii. 24), in the existence of the Levirate law
(Gen. xxxviii. 8), in the distinction of clean and
unclean animals (Gen. viii. 20), and probably in
the observance of the Sabbath (Ex. xvi. 23, 27-29).
But, even without such indications, our knowledge
of the existence of Israel as a distinct community
in Egypt would necessitate the conclusion, that it
must have been guided by some laws of its own,
growing out of the old patriarchal customs, which
would be preserved with oriental tenacity, and
gradually becoming methodized by the progress of
circumstances. Nor would it be possible for the
Israelites to be in contact with an elaborate system
of ritual and law, such as that which existed in
Egypt, without being influenced by its general
principles, and, in less degree, by its minuter
details. As they approached nearer to the condi-
tion of a uation they would be more and more
likely to modify their patriarchal customs by the
adoption from Egypt of laws which were fitted for
national existence. This being so, it is hardly con-
ceivable that the Mosaic legislation should have
LAW OF MOSES
embodied none of these earlicr materials
clear, even to human wisdom, that the only
stitution, which can be efficient and permane
one which has grown up slowly, and so been a:
ilated to the character of a people. It is
peculiar mark of legislative genius to moul
fundamental principles, and animate by a hi
inspiration, materials previously existing ina c
state. The necessity for this lies in the na
not of the legislator, but of the subjects; an
argument therefore is but strengthened by
acknowledgment in the case of Moses of ad
and special inspiration. So far therefore as
were consistent with the objects of the Jewish
the customs of Palestine and the laws of F
would doubtless be traceable in the Mosaic
tem. .
(e.) In close connection with and almost in
sequence of this reference to antiquity we fin
accommodation of the Law to the temper and
cumstances of the Israelites, to which our
refers in the case of divorce (Matt. xix. 7, |
necessarily interfering with its absolute perfec
In many cases it rather should be said to guid
modify existing usages than actually to san
them; and the ignorance of their existence
lead to a conception of its ordinances not
erroneous, but actually the reverse of the t
Thus the punishment of filial disobedience apy
severe (Deut. xxi. 18-21); yet when we refe
the extent of parental authority in a patria:
system, or (as at Rome) in the earlier perioc
national existence, it appears more like a limit:
of absolute parental authority by an appeal t
judgment of the community. The Levirate
again appears (see Mich. Mos. Recht, bk. iii
6, art. 98) to have existed in a far more ge
form in the early Asiatic peoples, and to have
rather limited than favored by Moses. Thela
the Avenger of Blood is a similar instance of m
ful limitation and distinction in the exercise «
immemorial usage, probably not without its)
and meaning, and certainly too deep-seated toa
of any but gradual extinction. Nor is it
noticeable that the degree of prominence, give
each part of the Mosaic system, has a similar
erence to the period at which the nation had
rived. The, ceremonial portion is marked
distinctly and with elaboration; the moral
criminal Jaw is clearly and sternly decisive;
the civil law, so far as it relates to indiyidua
systematic: because all these were called for by
past growth of the nation, and needed in ord
settle and develope its resources. But the poli
and constitutional law is comparatively imper
a few leading principles are laid down, to be d
oped hereafter; but the law is directed rathe
sanction the various powers of the state, tha
define and balance their operations. Thus
existing authorities of a patriarchal nature in
tribe and family are recognized; while side by
with them is established the priestly and Levi
power, which was to supersede them entirel,
sacerdotal, and partly also in judicial funct
The supreme civil power of a “judge,” or (l
after) a king, is recognized distinctly, alth
only in general terms, indicating a sovereign
summary jurisdiction (Deut. xvii. 14-20); and
prophetic office, in its political as well as its 2
aspect, is spoken of still more vaguely as ft
(Deut. xviii. 15-22). These powers, being te
nized, are left, within due limits, to work out
:
- y >
di
: .
a
LAW OF MOSES LAW OF MOSES 1608
al system of Israel, and to ascertain by expe-| aspects preduminated, yet the whole principle of
their proper spheres of exercise. On a care-| the Mosaic institutions is to obliterate any such
derstanding of this adaptation of the Law| supposed Separation of laws, and refer all to first
- national growth and character of the Jews principles, depending on the Will of God and the
f a somewhat similar adaptation to their! nature of man.
e and physical circumstances) depends the} In giving an analysis of the substance of the Law,
; appreciation of its nature, and the power of | it will probably be better to treat it, as any other
uishing in it what is local and- temporary | system of laws is usually treated, by dividing it
hat which is universal. into—(1) Laws Civil; (2) Laws Criminal; (3)
‘In close connection with this subject we| Laws Judicial and Constitutional; (4) Laws Eccle-
yalso the gradual process by which the Law| siastical and Ceremonial.
vealed to the Jsraelites. In Ex. xx.—xxiii.,
et connection with the revelation from Mount
that which may be called the rough outline
Mosaic Law is given by God, solemnly
d by Moses, and accepted by the people.
kxv.-xxxi. there is a similar outline of the
ceremonial. On the basis of these it may
eeived that the fabric of the Mosaic system
lly grew up under the requirements of the
In certain cases indeed (as e. g. in Lev. x.
mpared with 8-11; Ley. xxiv. 11-16: Num.
2; xv. 32-41; xxvii. 1-11 compared with
1-12) we actually see how general rules,
iminal, and ceremonial, originated in special
tances; and the unconnected nature of the
of laws in the earlier books suggests the
at this method of legislation extended to
ther cases.
(I.) Laws Orvin.
(A.) Or PErsons.
(a.) FATHER AND Son.
The power of a Father to be held sacred ;
cursing, or smiting (Ex. xxi. 15, 17; Lev. xx. 9),
or stubborn and willful disobedience to be con-
sidered capital crimes. But uncontrolled power of
life and death was apparently refused to the father,
and vested only in the congregation (Deut. xxi.
18-21).
Right of the first-born to a double portion of the
inheritance not to be set aside by partiality (Deut.
xxi. 15-17).@
Inheritance by Daughters to be allowed in
default of sons, provided (Num. xxvii. 6-8, comp.
abtevelation of ‘the Law in anything like XxXxvi.) that heiresses married in their own tribe.
Metis found in the book of Dea fergrioiy, Daughters unmarried to be entirely dependent
riod when the people, educated to freedom | ©” their father (Num. xxx. 3-5).
ional responsibility, were prepared to receive (0.) Huspanp aNp Wire.
carry it with them to the land which was : The power of a Husband to be so great that a
epared for them. It is distincuished by wife could never be sui juris, or enter independently
ematic character and its reference to first | into any engagement, even before God (Num. xxx.
es; for probably even by Moses himself, 6-15). A widow or divorced wife became inde-
y by the people, the Law had not before this| Pendent, and did not again fall under her father’s
cognized in all its essential characteristics; | POWer (ver. 9).
{we naturally refer in attempting to ana-| Divorce (for uncleanness) allowed, but to be
“various parts. [DrurERoNomy.] Yet | formal and irrevocable (Deut. xxiv. 1-4).
@n the revelation was not final; it was the| arriage within certain degrees forbidden (Lev.
the prophets to amend and explain it in| XViii. etc.). ; 4
ints (as in the well-known example in Ez.| ) 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 From dpdv and mrepdv: an order of insects char-
terized by their anterior wings being semi-coriaccous
‘nd overlapping at the tips. The posterior wings are
In - membranous, and longitudinally folded when
ot rest.
¢In the year 1748 locusts (the Gdipoda migratoria,
loubtless) invaded Europe in immense multitudes.
Yharles XII. and his army, then in Bessarabia, were
‘topped in their course. It is said that the swarms
‘fere four hours passing over Breslau. Nor did Eng-
|
ae
nd escape, for a swarm fell near Bristol, and ravaged
LOCUST 1668
lineola (= G. Algypt. Linn.), which is a species
commonly sold for food in the markets of Bagdad
(Serv. Orthop. 657), A. semifasciatum, A. pere-
grmum, one of the most destructive of the species,
and A. morbosum, occur either in Egypt or Arabia.
‘alliptamus serapis and Chrotogonus lugubris are
found in Egypt, and in the cultivated lands about
Cairo; Eremobia carinata, in the rocky places
about Sinai. £. cisti, LE. pulchripennis, Uedipoda
Acridium lineola.
octofasciata, and CZ. megratoria (=G. migrat.
Linn.), complete the list of the Saltatorial Orthup-
tera of the Bible lands. [rom the above catalogue
it will be seen how perfectly unavailing, for the
{most part, must be any attempt to identify the
Hebrew names with ascertained species, especially
when it is remembered that some of these names
occur but seldom, others (Lev. xi. 22) only once in
the Bible — that the only clew is in many instances
the mere etymology of the Hebrew word — that
such etymology has of necessity, from the fact
of there being but a single word, a very wide mean-
ing — and that the etymology is frequently very
uncertain. The LXX.and Vulg. do not contribute
much help, for the words used there are themselves
of a very uncertain signification, and moreover em-
ployed in a most promiscuous manner. Still,
though the possibility of identifying with certainty
any one of the Hebrew names is a hopeless task,
yet in one or two instances a fair approximation to
identification may be arrived at.
From Lev. xi. 21, 22, we learn the Hebrew names
of four different kinds of Saltatorial Orthoptera.
«“ These may ye eat of every flying creeping thing
that goeth upon all four,4 which have legs above
their feet¢ to leap withal upon the earth; even
those of them ye may eat, the arbeh after his kind,
ee ee
the country in the month of July of the same year
They did great damage in Shropshire and Staffordshire,
by eating the blossoms of the apple-trees, and especially
the leaves of oaks, which looked as bare as at Christ-
mas. The rooks did a good service in this case at
least. See Gentleman’s Magazine, July 1748, pp. 331
and 414; also The Times, Oct. 4, 1845.
d It is well known that all insects, properly so
called, have six feet. But the Jews considered the
two anterior pair only as true legs in the locust family,
regarding them as additional instruments for leaping.
e oan? Dy DVT. V9 TWIN, the
rendering of the A. V., “ which have legs above their
1670 LOCUST
and the salam after his kind, and the chargél
(wrongly translated beetle by the A. V., an insect
which would be included amongst the flying creep-
tng things forbidden as food in vv. 23 and 42) after
his kind, and the chégab after his kind.”’ - Besides
the names mentioned in this passage, there occur
five others in the Bible, all of which Bochart (iii.
251, &e.) considers to represent so many distinct
species of locusts, namely, gdb, gdzam, chasil, yelek,
and tselatsdl.
(1.) Arbeh (T7278 > axpls, Bpovxos, arré-
AeBos, arréAaBos}; in Joel ii. 25, épvaiBy: locusta,
bruchus: locust,” “ grasshopper’) is the most
common name for locust, the word occurring about
twenty times in the Hebrew Bible, namely, in Ex.
x. 4, 12, 13, 14, 19; Judg. vi. 5, vii. 12; Lev. xi.
22; Deut. xxviii. 38; 1 K. viii. 37; 2 Chr. vi. 28;
Job xxxix. 20; Ps. ey. 34, cix. 23, Ixxviii. 46;
Prov. xxx. 27; Jer. xlvi. 23; Joel i. 4, ii. 25; Nah.
iii. 15,17. The LXX. generally render arbeh by
axpis, the general Greek name for locust: in two
passages, however, namely, Lev. xi. 22, and 1 K.
viii. 37, they use Bpodxos as the representative of
tie original word. In Nah. iii. 17, arbeh is ren-
dered by arréAeBos; while the Aldine version, in
Joel ii. 25, has épvatBn, mildew. The Vulg. has
locusta in every instance except in Lev. xi. 22,
where it has bruchus. The A. V. in the four fol-
lowing passages has grasshopper, Judg. vi. 5, vii.
12; Job xxxix. 20; and Jer. xlvi. 23: in all the
other places it has locust. The word arbeh,@ which
is derived from a root signifying “to be numerous,”
is probably sometimes used in a wide sense to ex-
press any of the larger devastating species. It is
the locust of the Egyptian plague. In almost every
passage where arbeh occurs reference is made to its
terribly destructive powers. It is one of the flying
creeping creatures that were allowed as food by the
law of Moses (Lev. xi. 21). In this passage it is
clearly the representative of some species of winged
saltatorial orthoptera, which must have possessed
indications of form sufficient to distinguish the
insect from the three other names which belong to
the same division of orthoptera, and are mentioned
Acridium peregrinum.
in the same context. The opinion of Michaelis
(Suppl. 667, 910), that the four words mentioned
in Ley. xi. 22 denote the same insect in four dif-
ferent ages or stages of its growth, is quite unten-
able, for, whatever particular species are intended
by these words, it is quite clear from ver. 21 that
feet,” is certainly awkward. DY, which occurs
only in the dual number, properly denotes * that part
of the leg between the knee and ankle’ which is bent in
bowing down, 2. e¢. the tibi@. The passage may be thus
translated, ‘ which have their tibiz so placed above their
feet [tarsi] as to enable them to leap upon the earth.”
Dr. Harris, adopting the explanation of the author of
Scripture Illustrated, understands Dy ID to mean
*t joints,” and pdr ‘hind legs; which render-
ing Niebuhr (Quest. xxx.) gives. But there is no
reason for a departure from the literal and general
significations of the Hebrew terms.
LOCUST
they must all be winged orthoptera. From
fact that almost in every instance where the y
arbeh occurs, reference is made either to the
vouring and devastating nature of this insec’
else to its multiplying powers (Judg. vi. 5, vii.
wrongly translated “ grasshopper” by the A.
Nah. iii. 15, Jer. xlvi. 23), it is probable that ei
the Acridium peregrinum,? or the Gdipodu
gratoria is the insect denoted by the Hebrew y
arbeh, for these two species are the most destruc
of the family. Of the former species M. Oli
(Voyage dans ?mpire Othoman, ii, 424) t
writes: “ With the burning south winds (of Sy
there come from the interior of Arabia and fi
the most southern parts of Persia clouds of loc
(Acridium peregrinum), whose ravages to 1]
countries are as grievous and nearly as sudder
those of the heaviest hail in Europe. We witne
them twice. It is difficult to express the effect
duced on us by the sight of the whole atmospl
filled on all sides and to a great height by an
numerable quantity of these insects, whose fii
was slow and uniform, and whose noise resem!
that of rain: the sky was darkened, and the li
of the sun considerably weakened. In a mon
the terraces of the houses, the streets, and all
fields were covered by these insects, and in
days they had nearly devoured all the leaves of
plants. Happily they lived but a short time,
seemed to have migrated only to reproduce th
selves and die; in fact, nearly all those we saw
next day had paired, and the day following
fields were covered with their dead bodies.” 1
species is found in Arabia, Egypt, Mesopotar
and Persia. Or perhaps arbeh may denote
(dipoda migratoria, the Sauterelle de passe
concerning which Michaelis inquired of Can
Niebuhr, and received the following reply: Ҥ
terelle de passage est la méme que les Ar:
mangent et la méme qu'on a vii en Allemagt
(Recuerl, quest. 82 in Niebuhr’s Desc. de ? Arab
This species appears to be as destructive as
Acridium peregrinum.
(2.) Chagéab (237: apts : locusta : * gre
hopper,”’ ‘“locust”’), occurs in Lev. xi. 22, Mt
xiii. 38, 2 Chr. vii. 18, Ecel. xii. 5, Is. xl 22;
all of which passages it is rendered dxpts by
LXX., and locusta by the Vulg. In 2 Chr. vii.
the A. V. reads “ locust,’ in the other passa
‘¢orasshopper.”” From the use of the word
Chron., “If I command the locusts to devour
land,’’ compared with Lev. xi. 22, it would apy
that some species of devastating locust is intend
In the passage of Numbers, “ There we saw
giants the sons of Anak ... . and we were
our own sight as grasshoppers” (chagdb), as 1
as in Eeclesiastes and Isaiah, reference seems to
made to some small species of locusts; and W
a TTATS, locust, so called from its multitu
Teh als
ae
planation of Michaelis that the four names in Lev.
22 are not the representatives of four distinet gen
or species, but denote the different stages of growth
b The Gryllus gregarius of Forsk al (Descr. Anim.
is perhaps identical with the Acrid peregr. Fors
says, ‘ Arabes ubique vocant Dierad ( ole)
See Gesen. Thes. s. v., who adopts the
Judei in Yemen habitantes ‘lum esse IQS
severabant.’’
y LOCUST
s view Oedmann (Verm. Samm. ii. 90) agrees.
ehsen (Comment. de Locust. p. 76) supposes that
gab denotes the Gryllus coronatus, Linn.; but
s is the Acanthodis coron. of Aud. Sery., a S.
jerican species, and probably confined to that
tinent. Michaelis (Supp. 668), who derives the
rd from an Arabic root signifying “ to veil,” ¢
ceives that chdgdab represents either a locust at
fourth stage of its growth, “ante quartas
vias quod adhuc velata est,” or else at the last
ge of its growth, “ post quartas exuvias, quod
n volans solem calumque obvelat.’’ To the first
ory the passage in Ley. xi. is opposed. The
ond theory is more reasonable, but chdgdb is
bably derived not from the Arabic but the He-
w. From what has been stated above it will
ear better to own our complete inability to say
ut species of locust chdgdb denotes, than to
ard conjectures which must be grounded on no
d foundation. In the Talmud? chdag@é is a col-
jive name for many of the locust tribe, no less
n eight hundred kinds of chagabim being sup-
ed by the Talmud to exist! (Lewysohn, Zodlog.
Talm. § 384). Some kinds of locusts are beau-
lly marked, and were sought after by young
fish children as playthings, just as butterflies
. eockchafers are now-a-days. M. Lewysohn
3 (§ 384), that a regular traftic used to be carried
with the chagdbim, which were caught in great
bers, and sold after wine had been sprinkled
t them; he adds that the Israelites were only
wed to buy them before the dealer had thus
sared them.¢
3.) Chargol (890: dpioudxns: ophioma-
s: “beetle”). The A. V. is clearly in error
Tanslating this word “beetle; ’’ it occurs only
‘ey. xi. 22, but it is clear from the context that
lenotes some species of winged saltatorial
opterous insect which the Israelites were allowed
se as food. The Greek word used by the LXX.
ine of most uncertain meaning, and the story
at any kind of locust attacking a serpent is an
irdity which requires no Cuvier to refute it.¢
to this word see Bochart, MHieroz. iii. 264;
nm. notes; the Lexicons of Suidas, Hesychius,
Pliny xi. 29; 4dnotat. ad Arist. H. A. tom.
‘1, ed. Schneider. Some attempts have been
eto identify the chdrgél, “* mers: conjecturee ! ”?
Aosenmiiller truly remarks. The Rev. J. F.
ham, in Cyclop. Bib. Lit. (arts. Chargél and
ist), endeavors to show that the Greek word
jomaches denotes some species of Tuaalis,
aps 7’. nasutus. +‘ The word instantly suggests
ference to the ichneumon, the celebrated de-
yer of serpents . . . . if then any species of
st can be adduced whose habits resemble those
+
|
Che, A> Ln, (hadjib), qui velum obtendit, from
~SAS, intercessit, seclusit.
First derives 2377 from vy. inus. a7, se
i coire, a radice gab, 3; to which root he
fs TDIN, Da ana B42,
The Talmudists have the following law: “He
i apr to abstain from flesh (NWF 775)
+
-
LOCUST 1671
of the tchneumon, may not this resemblance ac
count for the name, quasi the ichneumon (locust),
just as the whole genus(?) (family) of insects
called Jchnewmonide were so denominated because
of the supposed analogy between their services and
those of the Egyptian ichneumon? and might not
this name given to that species (?) of locust at a
very early period have afterwards originated the
erroneous notion referred to by Aristotle and
Pliny?” But is it a fact that the genus Truaalis
is an exception to the rest of the Acridites, and is
preéminently ¢rsectivorous. Serville ( Orthopt. 579)
believes that in their manner of living the Trwaalides
resemble the rest of the Acridites, but seems to
allow that further investigation is necessary.
Fischer (Orthop. Europ. p. 292) says that the
nutriment of this family is plants of various kinds.
Mr. F. Smith, in a letter to the writer of this
article, says he has no doubt that the 7’ruzxalides
feed on plants. What is Mr. Denham’s authority
for asserting that they are insectivorous? It is
granted that there is a quasi resemblance in ex-
ternal form between the Trusxalides and some of
the larger /chnewmonide, but the likeness is far
from striking. Four species of the genus T'ruxalis
are inhabitants of the Bible lands (see above).
ri.
Truxalis nasuta.
The Jews, however, interpret chdrgél to mean
a species of grasshopper, German //euschrecke,
which M. Lewysohn identifies with Locusta viridis
sima, adopting the etymology of Bochart and Ge-
senius, who refer the name to an Arabic origin.¢
The Jewish women used to carry the eggs of the
chargél in their ears to preserve them from the
ear-ache, (Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. et Rabbin. s. v.
chargél).
(4.) Salam (YO : arrduns, Comp. arrands:
attacus: ‘bald locust’) occurs only in Lev. xi.
32, as one of the four edible kinds of leaping in-
sects. All that can possibly be known of it is that
it is some kind of saltatorial orthopterous insect,
winged, and good for food. Tychsen, however,
arguing from what is said of the sd/am in the Tal:
mud (Tract, Cholin), namely, that “this insect has
a smooth head,“ and that the female is without the
sword-shaped tail,’’ conjectures that the species here
is forbidden the flesh of fish and of locusts” (W2
DIT) O74), Hieroz. Nedar. fol. 40, 2.
d See Pliny, H. N.,Paris, 1828, ed. Grandsagne, p
451, note,
e bb0n, locuste species alata,a saltando. Gesens
“_ =< Q -
ius refers the word to the Arabic h> (hardjala),
saliut, comparing the Germ. Heuschrecke from schreck-
en, salire. '
J Hence perhaps the epithet bald, applied to salam
jn the text of the A. V.
1612 LOCUST
intended is Gryllus eversor (Asso), a synonym that
it is difficult to identify with any recorded species.
(5.) Gdzdm (O13).
(6.) Gob (253:° &kpls, eriyovy axpldwy: Aq.
in Am. vii. 1, Bupddwy: locusta; locuste locusta-
rum — YDIA 2A in Nah. iii. 17: “great grass-
hoppers; ”’ “ grasshoppers’? margin “ green worms,”’
in Amos). This word is found only in Is. xxxiii. 4,
and in the two places cited above. There is nothing
in any of these passages that will help to point out
the species denoted. That some kind of locust is
intended seems probable from the passage in Na-
hum, “thy captains are as the great gdbai which
camp in the hedges in the cool of the day, but
when the sun ariseth they flee away, and their place
is not known where they are.’? Some writers, led
by this passage, have believed that the gébai_ repre-
sent the larva state of some of the large locusts;
the habit of halting at night, however, and encamp-
ing under the hedges, as described by the prophet,
in all probability belongs to the winged locust as
well as to the larve, see Ex. x. 13, “the Lord
brought an east wind upon the land all that day,
and all that night; and when it was morning, the
east wind brought the locusts.’’ Mr. Barrow (i.
pp. 257-58), speaking of some species of S. African
locusts, says, that when the larve, which are still
more voracious than the parent insect, are on the
march, it is impossible to make them turn out of
the way, which is usually that of the wind. At
sunset the troop halts and divides into separate
groups, each occupying in bee-like clusters the
neighboring eminences for the night. It is quite
See PALMER-WORM.
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